# Trail Blazers extend Nash's contract...



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

http://www.nba.com/blazers/features/John_Nash_Contract_extention-141970-41.html



> May 18, 2005
> 
> Today at 3:00pm in the Rose Garden's Harry Glickman Media Room the Trail Blazers will announce they have extended General Manager John Nash's contract.
> 
> John Nash was originally hired in July of 2003 and remains the Trail Blazers sixth general manager in the team's history.


GOOD MOVE! IMO.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

great, now we're gonna hear people whine about this till the cows come home.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Hap said:


> great, now we're gonna hear people whine about this till the cows come home.


 I could go either way on the situation, but I am glad that they finally made a decision. Good to be moving ahead.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Hap said:


> great, now we're gonna hear people whine about this till the cows come home.


MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

I heard rumors it was only gonna be one year (although, I couldn't imagine John going for that) in kind of a wait-and-see mode.

True?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

thylo said:


> I could go either way on the situation, but I am glad that they finally made a decision. Good to be moving ahead.


The thing is, this has probably been decided for several weeks, they just hadn't announced it. 

All the kvetching done by some in this forum is, once again, shown to be ridiculous.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Hap said:


> great, now we're gonna hear people whine about this till the cows come home.


At least now only one side has anything to whine about.:biggrin:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I am kind of a fence sitter with him, but its good news..

if nothing else it provides stabilty

now..... lets get Flip signed.... or whomever...


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

That *THUD* you heard was Mixum hitting the ground under the bridge nearest his workplace.

Go Blazers


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

BealzeeBob said:


> That *THUD* you heard was Mixum hitting the ground under the bridge nearest his workplace.
> 
> Go Blazers



:laugh:

:cheers:


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Good move IMO by Portland Management. :clap:

Nash has cleaned up and now he gets a chance to put up, I like the move.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Personally, I think the Blazers had a chance to make a slam dunk with this opportunity, and they passed it up. I think John Nash is a mediocre general manager at best, and, once again, the organization with the richest owner in all of professional sports settles for mediocrity. It's gonna take an "executive of the year" candidate to turn the fortunes of this franchise around, and I hate to tell everyone, but Nash ain't it. The moves he's made with the Blazers and in his past jobs have amounted to nothing more than decent. Probably a few more "oops" than "kudos."

-Pop (still hoping the franchise doesn't "settle" in the coaching search, although I've seen nothing to prove they won't)


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> Personally, I think the Blazers had a chance to make a slam dunk with this opportunity, and they passed it up. I think John Nash is a mediocre general manager at best, and, once again, the organization with the richest owner in all of professional sports settles for mediocrity. It's gonna take an "executive of the year" candidate to turn the fortunes of this franchise around, and I hate to tell everyone, but Nash ain't it. The moves he's made with the Blazers and in his past jobs have amounted to nothing more than decent. Probably a few more "oops" than "kudos."
> 
> -Pop (still hoping the franchise doesn't "settle" in the coaching search, although I've seen nothing to prove they won't)


How many exec of the year type GM's are currently unemployed? Outside of the PR Nuke that would be a return of Bob.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> How many exec of the year type GM's are currently unemployed? Outside of the PR Nuke that would be a return of Bob.


mixum? :whoknows:


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Schilly said:


> How many exec of the year type GM's are currently unemployed? Outside of the PR Nuke that would be a return of Bob.


You've gotta find someone who is an up-and-comer for that role, for precisely the reason you've stated - there aren't any current GM's in that category that are looking for work. So you've gotta pluck a "second in command" type of guy from a team that's done well in the personnel department. It's not my job to keep tabs on all the "next great GM's", but I'm guessing (and hoping) someone at One Center Court is.

-Pop


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

HOWIE said:


> mixum? :whoknows:


i believe mixum has a job alerting the public when the sky appears to be falling.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> Personally, I think the Blazers had a chance to make a slam dunk with this opportunity, and they passed it up. I think John Nash is a mediocre general manager at best, and, once again, the organization with the richest owner in all of professional sports settles for mediocrity. It's gonna take an "executive of the year" candidate to turn the fortunes of this franchise around, and I hate to tell everyone, but Nash ain't it. The moves he's made with the Blazers and in his past jobs have amounted to nothing more than decent. Probably a few more "oops" than "kudos."
> 
> -Pop (still hoping the franchise doesn't "settle" in the coaching search, although I've seen nothing to prove they won't)


Bingo, Bango, Bongo!

While certain people have gone overboard ripping on Nash, it is just as silly to paint him as a major asset. While keeping him around isn't exactly a "white flag", it is an indication of low expectations - perhaps even indifference. :sour:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

HOWIE said:


> Nash has cleaned up and now he gets a chance to put up, I like the move.


are you sure he is done cleaning up?

Damon has a past... but will probably be gone anyways

Darius has ruffled a few feathers

Ruben had a past, but has really had a pretty clean career here. Outside of digging in the trash and a sppof with his ex right off the bat when he got here. He has been clean. His trade demands are almost on cue.... start and end of the seasons 

Zach maybe... if you stretch it a bit...

but I have to agree.. its pretty clean about now. Especially if Damon leaves


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> Personally, I think the Blazers had a chance to make a slam dunk with this opportunity, and they passed it up. I think John Nash is a mediocre general manager at best, and, once again, the organization with the richest owner in all of professional sports settles for mediocrity. It's gonna take an "executive of the year" candidate to turn the fortunes of this franchise around, and I hate to tell everyone, but Nash ain't it. The moves he's made with the Blazers and in his past jobs have amounted to nothing more than decent. Probably a few more "oops" than "kudos."
> 
> -Pop (still hoping the franchise doesn't "settle" in the coaching search, although I've seen nothing to prove they won't)


It's easy to complain - harder to come up with an alternative plan.

While I don't think Nash is the most amazing GM in the league, I don't see anyone available who would be a slam dunk hire. Considering the amount of instability in the franchise right now with no coach, the draft around the corner, a lot of moves to be made, and a possible lockout, I really think that keeping the GM position stable for one more season is a solid move.

If there were all this going on and they had to make a comprehensive GM search AND a comprehensive coaching search during the same off-season, AND all of the necessary moves - nothing would get done. They would probably miss out on the best possible coach, because bringing in a coach before they have a GM could lead to problems down the road. They would also be flying by the seat of their pants in the draft, which is only a month away...

One of the most important phases of this offseason is the draft, and don't forget that Nash did quite well in this department last year. First of all, we started with only one pick and Nash managed to net us Memphis' pick and an expiring deal for Bonzi and New Jersey's pick for cash...

Telfair is looking more and more like a bargain at #13 every time he steps on the court, Khryapa looked great for a rookie playing at just 70%, and Monia holds a lot of promise as well for next season. Having Nash (who has been doing extensive scouting this year) around for the draft, should be very good. 

Taking care of this now allows them to focus solely on the coaching search and the draft right now, which is where the focus should be at this time of the year... unless they felt Pritchard was ready to be GM (which they apparently don't), I don't see any other move that would have made a lot of sense. Do you?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> Personally, I think the Blazers had a chance to make a slam dunk with this opportunity, and they passed it up. I think John Nash is a mediocre general manager at best, and, once again, the organization with the richest owner in all of professional sports settles for mediocrity. It's gonna take an "executive of the year" candidate to turn the fortunes of this franchise around, and I hate to tell everyone, but Nash ain't it. The moves he's made with the Blazers and in his past jobs have amounted to nothing more than decent. Probably a few more "oops" than "kudos."
> 
> -Pop (still hoping the franchise doesn't "settle" in the coaching search, although I've seen nothing to prove they won't)


Nash bashers ONCE AGAIN need to be reminded that he had to deal with Bob's mess when he got here, and is now FINALLY starting to get out from under all that. He also doesnt have the $$$ to spend like Bob did. The moves he's made so far are good, IMO. Rasheed, McInnis, and Bonzi are finally gone, he signed Joel, he drafted a future stud in Telfair, and Viktor and Sergei look promising too. Sure some of the contracts that have been signed (Miles, Zach, & Theo) arent ideal, but most of us werent complaining when Theo was the defensive monster he was 2 seasons ago and when Zach was putting up 20 & 10. Both suffered injurys, sorry Nash didnt get that crystal ball for x-mas. I've read numerous "reports" that Nash wasnt the one behind the Miles signing, it was more Paul's doing because Miles was a fan favorite and he was Paul's favorite player.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

I am neither dissapointed or overjoyed by this news. I still think it's too early in the rebuilding phase to really judge Nash, so a little more time is reasonable. That being said, I'm not overly impressed so far (there's been good and bad).

However, I'm extremely happy that is out of the way as I think it would've slowed the rest of the proccess (coach, draft, etc) down until it was done.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

For those that are against the move to re-sign Nash, who is the alternative? If there isn't a top notch GM available, and we are suppose to think we can hire a no name who will be that star GM, then why aren't we all talking about that for the criteria for the next coach? 

I would say the majority would be against hiring a virtual no name to take over the coaching duties or even hiring a decent name that hasn't coached before. We are all expecting a veteran coach that has had success in the past. Why would we have such different criteria for our GM position? I put most of the hatred from fans against Nash & Patterson on the fact that they were in charge when Bonzi and Sheed were traded. A lot of fans were against trading them, thus blaming Nash & Co for it. 

I'm not saying Nash is the best in the business, but I'd say he's doing a good job. Most of us fans want results yesterday, but we all know that isn't going to happen. If in two years we creep back into the playoffs and the team gets better and better, Nash WILL be considered a top GM.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

A friend sent me this blog from Canzano early this morning, but now I cant find it on their website.



> Wednesday, May 18th, 2005
> 
> Nash and burn
> 
> ...


I cant stand Crapzano, but I must admit that this is a pretty solid stuff.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

There is one area that I think that Nash is above par in, and that is talent evaluation, so it's nice to have this whole thing behind us as we move up on the draft. On the other hand, He does not seem very good at making trades, although it's too early to say that for sure. 
I hope the Nash contract is for a max of 2 more years.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

One year option, as thought.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_12808.shtml


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

ABM said:


> One year option, as thought.
> 
> http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_12808.shtml


Thanks for posting. I agree with this guy.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

The idiots on the Fan are speculating that he got his extension because a high level coach such as Phil or Flip declined the job. They were waiting to hear an answer from them because they would have wanted GM duties too. 

I think it went down more like this. Kiki, Petrie, and Stefanski were targeted. When none of them showed interest the Blazers picked up the option year on Nash's contract. 

The one year is harmless if he can't find the SG, and it gives Pritchard another year to learn the ropes. 



Good move by the Blazers IMO.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Nash bashers ONCE AGAIN need to be reminded that he had to deal with Bob's mess when he got here, and is now FINALLY starting to get out from under all that.


Unfortunately now he has to deal with the messes that he in part has created... unless you feel commiting Portland's future capspace to the guys he did to be a good thing?



> He also doesnt have the $$$ to spend like Bob did. The moves he's made so far are good, IMO. Rasheed, McInnis, and Bonzi are finally gone, he signed Joel, he drafted a future stud in Telfair, and Viktor and Sergei look promising too. Sure some of the contracts that have been signed (Miles, Zach, & Theo) arent ideal, but most of us werent complaining when Theo was the defensive monster he was 2 seasons ago and when Zach was putting up 20 & 10. Both suffered injurys, sorry Nash didnt get that crystal ball for x-mas. I've read numerous "reports" that Nash wasnt the one behind the Miles signing, it was more Paul's doing because Miles was a fan favorite and he was Paul's favorite player


Why are you ignoring that he has spent money like Bob did? 

I bet you can't link one of those "reports." Remember Canzano's wild speculations don't count... he's a collumnist who deals in speculations not a reporter who deals in facts.

I'm not a Nash fan or basher... I'm still largely making up my mind as to how he's done. With the little I know, I think another year for him seems fair enough. Mostly I hope he gets lucky in the lotto. Landing the #1 or 2 would simplify what course to take.

STOMP


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Blazers.com said:


> Today at 3:00pm in the Rose Garden's Harry Glickman Media Room the Trail Blazers have exercised the option to extend General Manager John Nash's contract.
> 
> John Nash was originally hired in July of 2003 and remains the Trail Blazers sixth general manager in the team's history


Its handled no differently than a player. They just excercised the option for the next year is all. When that year is up.. its time to reevaluate.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

I don't know many GM's who can rebuild a team in two years. It took Kiki (Who now is getting praised for his job in Denver) made Nugget fans suffer a few years of horrible teams to get out of their mess which wasn't near as bad as Portlands. 

I'm not high on Nash by any means, but I don't think it's really fair to judge him at this point.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Good move, we need stability. Now just get a coach and draft wisely and we'll be good.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

STOMP said:


> I bet you can't link one of those "reports."
> 
> 
> STOMP


I dont need to, other people have posted the links, you just need to click on them and take the time read them.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Dumb move by the Blazers. We've just added a couple of years to our rebuilding phase.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

it makes sense that we held off on extending his contract because of some high level coaches who may have wanted GM responsibilities as well. funny how Quick was dead sure Nash was on his way out. when was the last time that guy speculated on something that actually happened? 

anyway, I don't have any problem with extending him now for a year. three years will be enough time to tell whether he's got the team going in the right direction.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

tlong said:


> Dumb move by the Blazers. We've just added a couple of years to our rebuilding phase.


What exactly do you like about the Blazers?

Giving Nash an extra year gives us some stability in a time when major changes are going to happen this offseason. It lets Kevin Pritchard get another year of experience if in fact he's being looked at for a future GM position within the franchise and it gives John the opportunity to prove what he's really worth.

If anything, this move has just made the organization that much better. Too much change can sometimes be a bad thing.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

I like the move if Kevin Pritchard is the future GM. One more year to turn to get his feet wet. I would have given Nash a B for the trades of Bonzi, McInnis and Sheed, but probably give him a D- for the horrible contract extension of Theo and especially Zach. The Zach contract was by far his worse move as GM. Zach is not going to be a superstar, because he does the small things poorly like screens, pick and role, and slow on defense. If Nash would have waited, instead of falling for agent threats, our cap situation and flexability would look a lot better. I don't hate Nash, but he is pretty average IMO.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

SheedSoNasty said:


> What exactly do you like about the Blazers?


Thats a good question... judging by his posts, not much.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

This was the right move, IMO.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

http://www.nba.com/blazers/news/Trail_Blazers_Exercise_Option_-142005-41.html



> Trail Blazers Exercise Option To Extend GM John Nash’s Contract
> 
> 
> The Portland Trail Blazers have exercised the team’s option to extend the contract of General Manager John Nash. The sixth GM in Trail Blazers history, Nash oversees the day-to-day basketball operations and is responsible for all player personnel decisions.
> ...


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

SheedSoNasty said:


> What exactly do you like about the Blazers?


1000% correct on that one how can you be a Sebass hater and a blazer fan

good move resigning nash i think hed make a much better scout than a GM though :cheers:


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

tlong said:


> Dumb move by the Blazers. We've just added a couple of years to our rebuilding phase.


As opposed to those abrupt management changes and uncertainties that always pay off by an immediate trip to the finals.

I haven't been all that impressed with Nash, but to be fair, his job is only half-way finished. He was given the task of cleaning house, getting the budget in order and improving public relations. Then after that, win. For the most part, the first leg of his duties has been accomplished. Now he deserves some time to try to put a winner on the court. In a year or two if the team is going nowhere then you may have to replace him. But he needs to be given a chance to finish the job he was given. 

Face it guys, there's not some Super GM out there that's going to turn us into champions in one year.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> What exactly do you like about the Blazers?
> 
> Giving Nash an extra year gives us some stability in a time when major changes are going to happen this offseason. It lets Kevin Pritchard get another year of experience if in fact he's being looked at for a future GM position within the franchise and it gives John the opportunity to prove what he's really worth.
> 
> If anything, this move has just made the organization that much better. Too much change can sometimes be a bad thing.


I like the uniforms. I like the team name. I like the city they play for. Other than that, there's not a lot to like right now.

Giving Nash a 1-year extension just makes him a lame duck GM for another year. That is hardly what I would call stability. This guy has shown me nothing in his moves to date. The team is as bad as it has ever been and fan support is nearing an all-time low. If Pritchard is the guy for the job, then make him GM now.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> While certain people have gone overboard ripping on Nash, it is just as silly to paint him as a major asset. While keeping him around isn't exactly a "white flag", it is an indication of low expectations - perhaps even indifference.


I think you're dead wrong. Paul Allen is hardly "indifferent" about his Trail Blazers. He has poured millions and millions into the franchise, and is a die-hard fan who attends most home games. He's not going to keep Nash around just because he's cheaper than some other GM. If he's keeping Nash, it's because he believes the guy has done a good job and is returning the Blazers to the NBA's elite. Allen loves a winner, and he thinks Nash is going to give him one again very soon. I happen to think he's right.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Peaceman said:


> I like the move if Kevin Pritchard is the future GM. One more year to turn to get his feet wet. I would have given Nash a B for the trades of Bonzi, McInnis and Sheed, but probably give him a D- for the horrible contract extension of Theo and especially Zach. The Zach contract was by far his worse move as GM. Zach is not going to be a superstar, because he does the small things poorly like screens, pick and role, and slow on defense. If Nash would have waited, instead of falling for agent threats, our cap situation and flexability would look a lot better. I don't hate Nash, but he is pretty average IMO.


There are 2 things that make for a "bad" contract: too many $$ and too many years. The latter is FAR more damaging than the former.

Did Zach get more money than he would have received on the open market? Maybe. That doesn't change the fact that inking a good, young player to a long term deal is a sound move.

Miles got less money than Zach, but given his history *any* long term deal was a bad gamble.

Theo's deal is indefensible. It flunks both tests. You can't even call it a bad gamble - because "gamble" implies *some* chance of winning. 

If the Zach deal was the worst mistake Nash ever made - this team would be in much better shape. Theo, Miles, and the failure to deal our expiring contracts are all much bigger negatives.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

tlong said:


> Giving Nash a 1-year extension just makes him a lame duck GM for another year.


That was my first impression. However, after learning that it was them picking up his option as opposed to an extension I feel a bit better. I'm still somewhat concerned about having a GM on such a short term contract though simply because I'm afraid he might look towards short term gains at the expense of long term gains to keep his job. We'll see how that goes.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

LMAO @ Nash's "credentials" as posted on the press conference article on Blazers.com:



> Before coming to Portland in 2003, Nash served as a color analyst for Comcast sports for two years. Prior to his stint at Comcast, Nash spent 15 years as a general manager in the NBA. During his almost two decades in the front office, Nash garnered a reputation as a knowledgeable and trusted talent evaluator when acquiring players. Nash most recently held the general manager post for the New Jersey Nets from 1996 - 2001. During that time he made four major multi-player trades and also added power forward Kenyon Martin in an attempt to bolster the Nets roster.
> 
> Prior to the Nets, Nash spent six seasons with the Washington Bullets/Wizards. *Nash showed why he is well regarded as a talent evaluator in the league by plucking future NBA All-Stars Juwan Howard, Rasheed Wallace, Calbert Cheaney and Tom Gugliotta from the NBA draft* and trading for Chris Webber and Hersey Hawkins. Nash got his start as a GM during a nine-year stint with the Philadelphia 76ers that was highlighted by a World Championship in 1983.


Juwan Howard? Huh? Is he really that great of a player? Rasheed Wallace? Headcase. Calbert Cheaney? Do most NBA fans even know who this guy is? Tom Gugliotta? He had maybe one or two decent seasons.

Can you say "SPIN JOB"?

LMAO.

-Pop


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> LMAO @ Nash's "credentials" as posted on the press conference article on Blazers.com:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The real question isn't are these guys great, it is what else could you have drafted with that pick.

Juwan Howard, drafted by Was in 94 with the 5th pick.
Career numbers of 17pts 47%, 7reb, once an all star. That is a solid career, and he was a beast early in his career in Wash. Pat Riley of all people offered Juwan a $100 million deal. I think Juwan would have been better with Riley and Zo. Staying in Wash killed his spirit, and derailed his career, IMO. Note, Nash didn't ink Juwan to the big deal to stay in Wash.

Who could Nash have selected that would have been so much better? No one I can see. Despite your snide remark, Howard was probably the best choice with that pick. Certainly no else left would have been a knockout.

Rasheed Wallace, drafted by Was in 95 with the 4th pick.
Career numbers of 16pts 49%, 7 reb, twice an all-star. That is solid. He had a couple of big years in Portland and one where he was the team MVP when the Blazers were the best team in the NBA (with fair officiating). He became the final piece to a championship team. Not bad.

Who could Nash have selected that would have been so much better? No one at all except for: Kevin Garnett. Keep in mind though, that KG to this point has half the accomplishments of Sheed in the playoffs, even though he is far superior in the regular season. It has been published that Nash wanted KG, but was told by the team's owner that he the president and the fans couldn't wait on a teenager to develop, no matter how much Nash loved him. Same story when Nash wanted Kobe (and to call his bluff), the Nets braintrust said no.

Calbert Cheaney, drafted by Was in 93 with the 6th pick.
Career numbers of 10pts 47%, 3reb, 2ast. Not that great, especially for a 6 pick. He was supposed to be a lot better than he was. Nash was not alone in his assesment as Cheaney was a highly touted prospect that other team's wanted too.

Who could Nash have selected that would have been so much better?
Vin Baker #8 had a couple of good years.
Allan Houston #11 had several really good years.
Sam Cassell #24 was the sleeper pick everyone missed, but would have been considered a horrible pick at #6 at the time and for many years after.
Nash made a bad choice on the Cheaney pick, ending up with an underachiever, though not a complete flameout. However, he didn't pick Cheaney over a player that became a Superstar or even a regular all-star.

Tom Gugliotta, drafted by Was in 92 with the 6th pick.
Career numbers of 13pts 45%, 7reb, 3ast. 1 time all-star. Not great career numbers because they are pulled way down by his last 5 seasons where he tried to come back from bad injuries and illness. He had 2 big seasons in Minny and several other real solid years. Not a bad player at all.

Who could Nash have selected that would have been so much better?
Nobody that I can see.
Latrell Sprewell was the sleeper of the draft, taken #24. Though he would have been considered a horrible pick at #6 at the time, and forever after with Spree's emotional problems.

If you are not that familiar with the players and the other picks for those years, maybe next time you should think it through a little bit before blasting a long-time GM, who is widely considered one of the better talent evaluators in the NBA.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

pwned, i believe, is the term.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Nice work Masbee!

:laugh:


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

theWanker said:


> pwned, i believe, is the term.



I believe you're correct!!!:rofl:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

theWanker said:


> pwned, i believe, is the term.


seems like Check Mate is more appropriate 




Nash's 2004 draft:
Telfair, Khyrapa, Monya and Ha

not bad at all


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Masbee said:


> The real question isn't are these guys great, it is what else could you have drafted with that pick.
> 
> Juwan Howard, drafted by Was in 94 with the 5th pick.
> Career numbers of 17pts 47%, 7reb, once an all star. That is a solid career, and he was a beast early in his career in Wash. Pat Riley of all people offered Juwan a $100 million deal. I think Juwan would have been better with Riley and Zo. Staying in Wash killed his spirit, and derailed his career, IMO. Note, Nash didn't ink Juwan to the big deal to stay in Wash.
> ...


My argument is that it was lame to use those examples as a reason why Nash is such a great "talent evaluator." If your rebuttal is "there wasn't anybody available who was better," you need to go back to the drawing board, because you weren't addressing the point of my argument.

Nash may be a great talent evaluator, but I sure as **** wouldn't use examples like they did, where apparently the selections were as "no-brainer" as you say they were.

And if you think my argument was that Nash is not a good talent evaluator, you're wrong. I don't have a problem with Nash's talent evaluation skills. I just think he's a pretty terrible wheeler-and-dealer. He's had a few years to net us a decent shooting guard, and so far we've gotten nothing but **** at that position.

-Pop


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> And if you think my argument was that Nash is not a good talent evaluator, you're wrong. I don't have a problem with Nash's talent evaluation skills. I just think he's a pretty terrible wheeler-and-dealer. He's had a few years to net us a decent shooting guard, and so far we've gotten nothing but **** at that position.
> 
> -Pop


I forgot...how many SG's were actually traded? Besides the one that was supposed to have been traded here but the Raptors wimped out?


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Hap said:


> I forgot...how many SG's were actually traded? Besides the one that was supposed to have been traded here but the Raptors wimped out?


Hap, let me ask you a question. Do you really want to go with an argument of "we didn't know of any shooting guards who became available, so therefore he did the best he could."

There were plenty of chances to nab even a mediocre 2-guard off of the free agent market. You're telling me Richie Frahm was the best he could do?

You might be selling, but most of us sure as **** ain't buying.

-Pop


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> Hap, let me ask you a question. Do you really want to go with an argument of "we didn't know of any shooting guards who became available, so therefore he did the best he could."
> 
> There were plenty of chances to nab even a mediocre 2-guard off of the free agent market. You're telling me Richie Frahm was the best he could do?
> 
> ...


ok, name them. Name these mystical players that are on the free agent market last year that are any special.

because god knows there must be tons of em.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

well, in fairness, Jimmy Jackson sure looked good tonight. Phoenix got him for cheap. he probably would've been better than Damon at SG for us.

the Blazers would've been a little more watchable, but I suppose we'd probably just win a few more games and no longer be a top lotto pick. so maybe not.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> well, in fairness, Jimmy Jackson sure looked good tonight. Phoenix got him for cheap. he probably would've been better than Damon at SG for us.


in fairness, jim jackson wasn't a free agent after last season. And considering he had a chance to go to phoenix vs portland (lets see: best team in the NBA, 5th worst) I don't see how thats really a valid counter point to my previous post.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> I dont need to, other people have posted the links, you just need to click on them and take the time read them.


you don't need to do anything besides draw breath and pay your taxes on occation... nobody else has posted such a link (that Paul Allen is pulling strings on player contract negotiations) that I've ever read. I suspect such a revelation would have made quite a stir on the board here. Was it some of that tabloid/Vescey stuff? I'm not much of a fan of that unsubstanciated speculative stuff... you? If that bleep isn't what you're siting I'd really appreciate a help finding those links so I could click on them and take the time to read up. 

Thanks in advance for all your help.

STOMP


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

theWanker said:


> pwned, i believe, is the term.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> My argument is that it was lame to use those examples as a reason why Nash is such a great "talent evaluator." If your rebuttal is "there wasn't anybody available who was better," you need to go back to the drawing board, because you weren't addressing the point of my argument.
> 
> Nash may be a great talent evaluator, but I sure as **** wouldn't use examples like they did, where apparently the selections were as "no-brainer" as you say they were.
> 
> ...


I never said any of the picks was "obvious". (Only that Cheaney was a highly touted prospect - not exactly the same thing). You are confusing Monday Morning Quarterbacking - which is what we can do here - with what was known at the time. We now know - after the fact -, besides the Cheaney pick, that those picks listed were all solid. We know this because we can look at who was picked and see if Nash missed noticing any great players - as 8 teams did on passing on Amare for example. There were no Amare's that Nash missed on noting on his boards. This shows that his draft boards were the result of high quality talent evaluation.

So, now, you are claiming Nash is a good talent guy but a bad trader? Then why did you slam his Washington picks as if they were laughable, when they clearly were not?

Read Canzano's article where he talks about how little effective control it seems Nash is given in the Blazer organization, before you heap all the blame for bad wheeling and dealing on him.

It seems that Allen is gun shy after the Trader Bob years and wants to review the big contracts now. That makes wheeling and dealing much more difficult when anything big has to go through committee.

If true and Nash is less a full GM and more a point man for negotiations and the lead scout, then his "failures" in making deals are as much on the group as on him solely - He just gets all the heat for it.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

theWanker said:


> well, in fairness, Jimmy Jackson sure looked good tonight. Phoenix got him for cheap. he probably would've been better than Damon at SG for us.
> 
> the Blazers would've been a little more watchable, but I suppose we'd probably just win a few more games and no longer be a top lotto pick. so maybe not.


While Portland was slightly better then the hornets, I think the chances of him agreeing to play for us was not really any better then him playing for the Hornets. So I don't think he was really an option at all.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Foulzilla said:


> While Portland was slightly better then the hornets, I think the chances of him agreeing to play for us was not really any better then him playing for the Hornets. So I don't think he was really an option at all.


During last night's game, Miller said she talked to Jimmy and he said after being traded to NO, he called 5 teams HE wanted to go to. He told her at 34 there was no way he could tolerate any rebuilding. He had to go to a team that was right there and that needed his help. Phoenix was just the ticket as they had a great starting lineup and no bench. When coach Mike called him it was a done deal.

I am certain none of those 5 was Portland. We had no shot at JJ, especially after we dumped him in the cesspool at Atlanta when he played well for us, all those years ago.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Masbee said:


> The real question isn't are these guys great, it is what else could you have drafted with that pick.


Why is that the real question? Pop's point was that, if this is the best you can do to hype his credentials, then it's pretty sad. Most GMs worth praising can point to a surprising steal or a superstar in their history, particularly when they've been drafting that high. What you demonstrate quite effectively is that Nash usually manages not to screw up royally. That's damning with faint praise (my phrase of the day). Of the picks you list, only Gugliotta was a relatively brave pick, and it was a good one (Gugs scored 40 in his rookie year, I believe, and was a fan favourite for the abysmal Bullets). He went on to a good career in Minny before injuries and Stephon Marbury killed his career. That said, you neglected to mention that Robert Horry was taken 5 picks later. Furthermore, the Bullets sucked royally for all the time Nash was with them. Now the Blazers are sucking too. That might not be wholly Nash's fault, but he certainly hasn't done anything amazing. Unlike his predecessor.

Now, if Telfair turns out great, THAT will be the pick to appraise Nash by, because everyone else thought it was a reach, and it was a comparatively low pick.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Masbee said:


> The real question isn't are these guys great, it is what else could you have drafted with that pick.
> 
> Juwan Howard, drafted by Was in 94 with the 5th pick.
> Career numbers of 17pts 47%, 7reb, once an all star. That is a solid career, and he was a beast early in his career in Wash. Pat Riley of all people offered Juwan a $100 million deal. I think Juwan would have been better with Riley and Zo. Staying in Wash killed his spirit, and derailed his career, IMO. Note, Nash didn't ink Juwan to the big deal to stay in Wash.
> ...



Players picked after Howard in the 94 draft:

Lamond Murray
Brian Grant
Eddie Jones
Jalen Rose


Players picked after Wallace in the 95 draft:

Kevin Garnett (do I need to continue?)


Players picked after Calbert Cheaney in the 93 draft:

Vin Baker
Rodney Rogers
Lindsy Hunter
Allan Houston
Ervin Johnson
Sam Cassell
Nick Van Exel
Bryon Russell


Players picked after Tom Gugliotta in the 92 draft:

Walt Williams
Clarence Weatherspoon
Robert Horry
Doug Christie
Lattrell Sprewell
P.J. Brown


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

meru said:


> Why is that the real question? Pop's point was that, if this is the best you can do to hype his credentials, then it's pretty sad. Most GMs worth praising can point to a surprising steal or a superstar in their history, particularly when they've been drafting that high. What you demonstrate quite effectively is that Nash usually manages not to screw up royally. That's damning with faint praise (my phrase of the day). Of the picks you list, only Gugliotta was a relatively brave pick, and it was a good one (Gugs scored 40 in his rookie year, I believe, and was a fan favourite for the abysmal Bullets). He went on to a good career in Minny before injuries and Stephon Marbury killed his career. That said, you neglected to mention that Robert Horry was taken 5 picks later. Furthermore, the Bullets sucked royally for all the time Nash was with them. Now the Blazers are sucking too. That might not be wholly Nash's fault, but he certainly hasn't done anything amazing. Unlike his predecessor.
> 
> Now, if Telfair turns out great, THAT will be the pick to appraise Nash by, because everyone else thought it was a reach, and it was a comparatively low pick.


Now you are splitting hairs, and changing the terms of the argument as you go.

Nash was critisized for his picks being lousy.

I argued that the picks were mostly good. I also argued that - AFTER THE FACT - the picks are very defensible.

Now you want to say that Nash didn't knock your socks off with sleeper picks, when he had MID LOTTO picks. How was he supposed to get a sleeper in the mid lotto I am not really sure.

By implication you are arguing that it is Nash's fault that Was didn't WIN the lotto during those years as most of the best players were picked with the top picks. (92 Shaq #1, 92 Zo #2, 93 Webber #1, 93 Penny #3, 94 Kidd #2, 94 Grant Hill #3, 95 Sheed #4 and KG #5 were the best players in the draft). Of course it is his fault he didn't have his lucky charm at the drawings.

Robert Horry?? Are you kidding? Career numbers of 7pts on 43%, 5reb, 2ast. His "best" season was 12pts. :laugh: The most infamous regular season slacker in our generation. Sure he has had some solid playoffs, but only as a role player off a SuperStar bigman - and this is from his own mouth (that he holds back and plays well off superstars).


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

tlong said:


> Players picked after Howard in the 94 draft:
> 
> Lamond Murray
> Brian Grant
> ...


I see a list of players.

That's nice. What is your point, other than to bring up KG, which I already addressed. Go look it up. 

I also already pointed out that he missed the Cheaney pick. Though, I would be interested in seeing your argument as to which player available, that to this day Washington is crying over missing. I don't see that player. They could have had better, surely, but it wasn't that great a draft after Webber and Penny.

As for the other listings, if you have any sort of argument, backed up by stats, accomplishments and commentary, as to why picking one of the players listed would have been a CLEARLY SUPERIOR pick to that which occured, I will read it. I see no point in breaking down your own list for you.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Now you are splitting hairs, and changing the terms of the argument as you go.


I'm rubber, you're glue...



> Nash was critisized for his picks being lousy.


Well, not that I take it as my job to defend Mr. Popinski, but here's what he said:



SodaPopinski said:


> Juwan Howard? Huh? Is he really that great of a player? Rasheed Wallace? Headcase. Calbert Cheaney? Do most NBA fans even know who this guy is? Tom Gugliotta? He had maybe one or two decent seasons.


Now, this quote in all its eloquence was in the context of deriding the Blazers citing these picks as evidence that Nash is a good GM. I think that both of our interpretations are warranted. But once again, if most other GMs were being praised, I think they would want more stellar names listed in their accomplishments.



> I argued that the picks were mostly good. I also argued that - AFTER THE FACT - the picks are very defensible.


So far I agree. But note "defensible" is not the same as "stellar".



> Now you want to say that Nash didn't knock your socks off with sleeper picks, when he had MID LOTTO picks. How was he supposed to get a sleeper in the mid lotto I am not really sure.


I thought Gugs was a sleeper. A sleeper is an unexpected pick that turns out great, wherever he's taken. Garnett was a sleeper pick. Nash whiffed on that one. Eddie Jones was a sleeper pick taken in the lottery. Pau Gasol was a sleeper pick. He would've been even more so if taken #1.



> By implication you are arguing that it is Nash's fault that Was didn't WIN the lotto during those years as most of the best players were picked with the top picks. (92 Shaq #1, 92 Zo #2, 93 Webber #1, 93 Penny #3, 94 Kidd #2, 94 Grant Hill #3, 95 Sheed #4 and KG #5 were the best players in the draft). Of course it is his fault he didn't have his lucky charm at the drawings.


Ooh, now you're getting sarky. If you can find any mention of the higher picks in what I said, then go ahead. And by the way, why is KG in there? He came after Washington picked, as you well know.



> Robert Horry?? Are you kidding? Career numbers of 7pts on 43%, 5reb, 2ast. His "best" season was 12pts.


Oh come on. Are you really going to claim that Gugliotta was a better pick than Horry? The Rockets won two straight championships after drafting Horry, and about the only change between the average team before and the first championship team was replacing Buck Johnson with Horry. Meanwhile the Bullets trod water with Gugs. Now, let us recall that I allowed that Gugs was a GOOD pick for Nash. But to claim that he was better than Horry is just silly.



> The most infamous regular season slacker in our generation.


Which is a very nice way of saying he's great in the postseason. Perhaps you'd like to claim that Mike Bibby, Chauncey Billups and Dwyane Wade are "regular season slackers"? I wish we had a few of those.



> Sure he has had some solid playoffs, but only as a role player off a SuperStar bigman - and this is from his own mouth (that he holds back and plays well off superstars).


Meanwhile, Gugliotta was doing what exactly? His best season was playing second (or third) fiddle to Garnett.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Masbee said:


> I see a list of players.
> 
> That's nice. What is your point, other than to bring up KG, which I already addressed. Go look it up.
> 
> ...



My argument is simply that *any * of the players listed would have been a better pick.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

tlong said:


> My argument is simply that *any *of the players listed would have been a better pick.


back it up with argument. I am NOT going to do your work for you.

If it is not worth you time and trouble to back it up, then why should I respond?


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Masbee said:


> back it up with argument. I am NOT going to do your work for you.
> 
> If it is not worth you time and trouble to back it up, then why should I respond?


Dude, I barely have time to post this...much less write a freakin' book! It's all a matter of opinion anyway. You can pull stats our of your arse to support whatever position you want to. The only thing I'm certain of is that *Nash SUCKS.*


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

meru said:


> Meanwhile, Gugliotta was doing what exactly? His best season was playing second (or third) fiddle to Garnett.


They did list a "Stellar Name", Chris Webber. But to make his point that Nash has no worthy accomplishments, Soda DID NOT HIGHLIGHT Webber. Nor have you mentioned it.

It seems clear to me that Soda was bashing Nash and his picks. It seems clear to me that Soda was laughing at the press release as being stupid. 

This is a line from the press release (that which Soda called a "Spin Job")


> Nash garnered a reputation as a knowledgeable and trusted talent evaluator when acquiring players.




I don't find that statement about Nash and his qualifications to be Spinning, or silly or untruthful in any way. I found Soda's snide dismissal of what were mostly solid picks to be unsubtantiated and off base.

What is so hard to understand about all that?

I don't know what to say if you think Horry is a better pick than Gugs, was a better player than Gugs, or even had a better career than Gugs. Horry's postseason heroics are fine and good, but he did diddly squat to get his team's INTO the postseason.

I suggest that if the Nash bashers want to establish some credibility that what they need to do is show the career picks (all of them) of SEVERAL (that's more than 1 or 2) GM's in the NBA, that establish a drafting record that is obviously superior, thus proving, that Nash is not the very best talent evauluator that the Blazers could hire (if they were only really trying).


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

tlong said:


> Dude, I barely have time to post this...much less write a freakin' book! It's all a matter of opinion anyway. You can pull stats our of your arse to support whatever position you want to. The only thing I'm certain of is that *Nash SUCKS.*


:laugh:

That's all we need to know. Thanks.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Masbee said:


> They did list a "Stellar Name", Chris Webber. But to make his point that Nash has no worthy accomplishments, Soda DID NOT HIGHLIGHT Webber. Nor have you mentioned it.


I thought we were talking about the players he *drafted* - you certainly were. Webber was acquired in a trade. A very good trade, too, so kudos to Nash on that one. Of course, Nash was on the wrong end of the Wallace trade, wasn't he (or had he gone by then?).



> I don't know what to say if you think Horry is a better pick than Gugs, was a better player than Gugs, or even had a better career than Gugs. Horry's postseason heroics are fine and good, but he did diddly squat to get his team's INTO the postseason.


That's just crap, and I hope you know it. Horry never put up great stats, but he was (and remains) a great team player. His major strength early in his career was defense, and besides, on a team with Mad Max, Hakeem and Kenny Smith, it's not like he was going to get any shots. He wasn't called a poor man's Scottie Pippen for nothing. Gugs was the poor man's Christian Laettner.

By your stats-only comparison, Kevin Willis was a better player than Buck Williams.



> I suggest that if the Nash bashers want to establish some credibility that what they need to do is show the career picks (all of them) of SEVERAL (that's more than 1 or 2) GM's in the NBA, that establish a drafting record that is obviously superior, thus proving, that Nash is not the very best talent evauluator that the Blazers could hire (if they were only really trying).


That's only fair. Of course, it's a safe challenge to make, because nobody's going to be bothered...
I can, however, name a much-maligned GM who's had a more spectacular record with sleeper picks, and just off the top of my head:
Don Nelson snagged both Dirk Nowitzki and Latrell Sprewell when nobody else would've rated them as highly as he did.
And, of course, Bob Whitsitt took both Jermaine O'Neal and Zach Randolph in the low teens, either of which can match the best player Nash took in the single digits.


----------



## BlazeTop (Jan 22, 2004)

IF Nash is to get a long term deal in Portland, then during this year he needs to be able to score some big time points in the following area.

A-Draft, Nash is hit and miss in his past come draft time. Last year he was able to hit and this year with an even better pick he SHOULD hit as well getting Green IMO. However if Nash gets greedy and refuses to trade down if no one interesting is availiable at 5 then he will fail.

B-Free Agents, Seeing that I am 95% sure Nash will come through on draft day, How he goes after the fresh blood this off season could be the end of him. Shops thriftly and upgrades the team (even in a minor way) he wins. Blows money away, Gives huge long term deal to mediocre player and he will loose. My thoughts are personally unless he can land a big time SG, I think they will play this offseason fiscally safe....

C- Keeping Pryzbilla, If Nash can keep Pryzbilla around for a bright Blazer future, I think keeping Joel scores points with the fans, ownership and media and gives the team a quality big man

D- The most important item, WINNING - Lets face it if Nash fails miserably in one of more of the previous 3 options, but Portland makes the playoffs anyway, Nash will be retained. Failures on any level usually or ignored or swept under the rug when the team is winning.

If John Nash can do 3 or more of these things, I think we see him put some roots down in the Northwest.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

If Nash fails on A, B, and C that's fine...as long as D happens. 

If Pryzbilla gets offered 10millon/per next offseason by another team, then by all means let him go.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I find it laughable that some of you are bashing Nash for passing on a particular player, when other teams\GM's did as well....including some future HOF'ers.

Whatever....

Masbee, I wouldn't waste my time with tlong.....He is more blazer hater than blazer fan these days....


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I think it was a good job by the organization to resign Nash for another year...He hasn't had a fair chance to bring in any of the pieces...This year with the expiring contracts, draft picks and such, I think it will be a good measurement to see what he can really do...


----------

