# My biggest fear on draft day is...



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

John Nash seems to be very slow to react to market conditions. I still have a hard time understanding why he did not get any kind of shooting guard for us in the last year and a half. As I have said before, I think he is not quite the closer on a deal that Whitsitt was. Bob could sell a deal and make it happen. I am not so sure about Nash.

but I accept the fact that there were no deals that made sense for the franchise 

with that said...
when its our turn to pick at #3, and the 15? minute time limit is counting down... my fear is a team will call us up and make us an offer, and Nash will not think it through and he will approve the deal along with the Blazer brain trust... his lack of quick thinking will hurt us then

then we find out its not the best of deals... :sad:


I think if its just a matter of choosing between player alternatives... I think he will do fine


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> when its our turn to pick at #3, and the 15? minute time limit is counting down... my fear is a team will call us up and make us an offer, and Nash will not think it through and he will approve the deal along with the Blazer brain trust... his lack of quick thinking will hurt us then


I've seen no evidence that Nash can't think quickly. What I HAVE seen is the ability to be patient, and not make a rash move. That's a very good trait in a GM. 

I think Nash can hold his own on draft day. Besides, Patterson, Pritchard and Allen will probably be helping him out.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

T.B. it seems to me that Nash is nothing if not patient. Therefore I think the opposite scenario is more possible -- that a good deal is on the table but he turns it down if he isn't 100 percent certain. Also, as T.H. pointed out, there will be others in on the action to make their pitch. Besides, I doubt Nash really has the final say anyway.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> I've seen no evidence that Nash can't think quickly. What I HAVE seen is the ability to be patient, and not make a rash move. That's a very good trait in a GM.
> 
> I think Nash can hold his own on draft day. Besides, Patterson, Pritchard and Allen will probably be helping him out.


 :clap: 

I disagree with you Trader Bob... are you having a mixum moment?

What shooting guards have been available that we didnt go after?

As I've pointed out before, Nash has to consider more circumstances when making deals/signing players than Bob did.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> are you having a mixum moment?


 :rotf:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> What shooting guards have been available that we didnt go after?


We can't answer that. The question of what shooting guards have been available that we didn't *get* is a more appropriate way to judge Nash's ability.

With that being said, I don't think that Nash will panic on draft day or this summer. He's piloted the blowing up of the Blazers to this point and had his contract picked up. We get to see whether he has a plan to put the team back together.

Ed O.


----------



## Bookworm (Feb 23, 2005)

Us taking another sam bowie...

As long as we get at least a 10yr player with Rubens energy and
heart I will be satisfied... not to say That I wouldn't love a superstar
just that they aren't in every draft


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Ed O said:


> We can't answer that. The question of what shooting guards have been available that we didn't *get* is a more appropriate way to judge Nash's ability.
> 
> With that being said, I don't think that Nash will panic on draft day or this summer. He's piloted the blowing up of the Blazers to this point and had his contract picked up. We get to see whether he has a plan to put the team back together.
> 
> Ed O.


Really? I read numerous reports that we made serious offers for Vince, Ray, and Redd, and maybe even Pierce... anyone I'm missing? Darn, too bad we didnt go after Mobley or Christie - our championship hope are doomed now!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I am sure Nash would have many scenarios already planned out, as far as what to expect in the manner off offers from other teams, who has already been drafted...etc..etc.. Chances are they would have already been contacted by the trading partner about a deal. That said most draft day deals don't happen until after the picka has been made.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> :clap:
> 
> I disagree with you Trader Bob... are you having a mixum moment?


yeah probably :banghead: sorry guys


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Its OK, we still love ya!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Really? I read numerous reports that we made serious offers for Vince, Ray, and Redd, and maybe even Pierce... anyone I'm missing?


I must have missed something. I saw McGrady get traded and Vince Carter get traded and I saw the Blazers do jack **** other than have one of their worst seasons in franchise history and never seriously challenge for a playoff spot.

You might give Nash credit for reportedly "trying" but I don't. I'll give him credit when we start to win again.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

maybe we didn't have anything that another team wanted or they wanted too much...I can't blame Nash for not making a move just to make a move...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

My biggest fear on draft day is that Milwaukee and Atlanta will pass on Luc Bogut.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Really? I read numerous reports that we made serious offers for Vince, Ray, and Redd, and maybe even Pierce... anyone I'm missing? Darn, too bad we didnt go after Mobley or Christie - our championship hope are doomed now!



This is what I was saying... those players were available... and Nash could not close the deal. I have no doubt Whitsitt would of gotten those players


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Trader Bob said:


> This is what I was saying... those players were available... and Nash could not close the deal. I have no doubt Whitsitt would of gotten those players


IMO Whitsitt had plenty more valuable chips to work with...


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

OH yes, I have no doubt Whitsitt could have gotten those players. I have no doubt Whitsitt would have been willing to offer the Blazers young talent for a fading star's max contract. No doubt he'd give up Telfair, Miles, Randolph, Przybilla, Khryapa, anyone, just to have one of those guys for one year.
That is exactly why the Blazers are in the situation they are in. Because all they got left with were a bunch of aging guys who either underachieved or were over the hill. That is why they basically have to start all over building a roster.
I agree, make a deal to improve the team, not for half a season but for years to come. Don't make a deal just to keep people on boards with something to talk about.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I'm with crandc on this one. I'd think a guy like you, Trader Bob, would understand the big picture and not just look for a quick fix that may not help us in the long run.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Wasnt the rumored Redd deal SAR, Outlaw and this years first round pick? Does anyone think this would have been a good deal? :no:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> I'm with crandc on this one. I'd think a guy like you, Trader Bob, would understand the big picture and not just look for a quick fix that may not help us in the long run.


agreed.. Whitsitt may have gotten those players... but it would of been for a steep price. More than likely strangling our team for years to come.

maybe we can mix Whitsitt and Nash together.. to become a PatterNash itt


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> You might give Nash credit for reportedly "trying" but I don't. I'll give him credit when we start to win again.


I happen to think a savvy basketball fan can already see good things happening under Nash. To deny him credit until we "start to win again" is tantamount to saying you don't see any progress being made at all.

If we draft Gerald Green or Marvin Williams, we will have the best young nucleus in the NBA. That's largely Nash's doing. He also got pretty good value for Wallace, Wells, and McInnis, and uncovered one of the best young centers in the league in Pryzbilla. By the end of the summer, I'll bet he's found a way to get good return for guys like Van Exel, Rahim, and Miles or Patterson. This team is turning around quickly, and Nash is the architect.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> I happen to think a savvy basketball fan can already see good things happening under Nash. To deny him credit until we "start to win again" is tantamount to saying you don't see any progress being made at all.


I DON'T think progress is being made. We're worse off right now that we were when Whitsitt stepped down. 

That team was full of players in their prime, with youth and veterans and depth. There were big expiring contracts. There were role players and defenders and even a bit of shooting.

It might have been full of *******s, and I will be the first to admit that Nash has changed that, but while that's important to some Portland fans it doesn't win basketball games and it doesn't, in and of itself, indicate progress is being made.

Will the team be better next season than it was this year? Maybe, but unless Nash does something drastic (and drastically good) the answer is looking like, "No" to me.

This team will be better off three years from now than it is right now. I have little doubt about that. Why? Because we're SO BAD right now that we can't help but be better... and if Nash can't make us better then he'll be fired and another man will get a chance to improve the team.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Imagine you're in a car accident . . .

Your hood is bashed in, there's glass and metal strewn all over the road, you have a flat tire, and the engine won't start.

Now imagine a guy comes along to help you. He repairs the dent in the hood, sweeps up the glass and metal, fixes the flat, and starts your engine for you. 

You haven't moved any further than you did before the accident, but have you made some "progress"? I would say you have.

That car accident is the Blazers. The guy fixing the car is John Nash.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> That car accident is the Blazers. The guy fixing the car is John Nash.


Year: Wins

2002-03: 50
2003-04: 41
2004-05: 27

"Fixing" the Blazers my ***.

He's done a lot of changes to make fans like you happy, TalkHard, but he's done precious little to keep the Blazers competitive.

It doesn't mean that none of his moves have been good and it doesn't mean that none of his moves will look great in a couple of years. But it DOES mean that I won't give him credit for building a better future and a better team until there's evidence that he's done so.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

The problem with guys like you, Ed O, is that you have short-term vision. You can't see the progress being made because all you care about is the win-loss record RIGHT NOW. That's about all that matters to you.

Nash was given a very unusual assignment. Tear the team down, trade off the malcontents, bring in players with good character, and keep spending in check. It's a very difficult task, yet he's doing everything he can to fulfill Paul Allen's mandate. Thank God he isn't listening to fans like you.


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

Your both right to some extent IMHO Ed and TH the rebuilding prosses is long and it sucks but it will be well worth it


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

> The problem with guys like you, Ed O, is that you have short-term vision.


I agree totally.

In 1989, the Blazers traded a first round draft pick and a player to get Buck Williams. He was, if memory serves, 32, so he was approaching the time when an athlete is no longer on top of his/her game. But he had qualities the Blazers needed to help them take the next step. That was the right move. The Blazers went to the Finals and were strong contenders, although they never got the brass ring, for 3 years. Having a first round draft pick was not a priority when there was a chance to win now.
In 1999 the Blazers traded 6 players for Pippen. 3 of them were going to be released anyway. Walt Williams was expendable with both Schrempf and Pip added. Augmon came right back. Cato was a bit of a loss, but a back-up center could be sacrificed for the chance to win now. Again, the team did not go all the way but the deal was a good one. A second year back up center should be sacrificed if there was a chance for a title.
That is not the current situation. The Blazers had and still have huge contracts given to players who should not have gotten then. They had an enormous payroll and a lot of players who were for various reasons causing problems. The new regime made it clear there was no quick fix. 
To have traded a first round draft pick and a young player this past year to get Carter or Kidd would have been a huge mistake. The team would not have been a contender even with both of those guys, although they would probably have won more than they did. And the future? They would have had a loss of young talent and at least one more huge contract for a guy whose time is going.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Buck was actually 29 when the team traded for him.

that doesn't take anything away from an otherwise great post.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> The problem with guys like you, Ed O, is that you have short-term vision. You can't see the progress being made because all you care about is the win-loss record RIGHT NOW. That's about all that matters to you.


That's bull. Anyone who knows what I think about the Blazers or about sports in general knows that I'm not purely short-term.

You're trying to personalize my criticisms of Nash because it's SO CLEAR that Nash's moves to date have reduced the Blazers to one of the worst teams in the NBA.



> Nash was given a very unusual assignment. Tear the team down, trade off the malcontents, bring in players with good character, and keep spending in check. It's a very difficult task, yet he's doing everything he can to fulfill Paul Allen's mandate. Thank God he isn't listening to fans like you.


I have no doubt that he's doing everything he can.

I have no doubt that he had a tough assignment.

Neither of those mean that he deserves any kudos for flushing our competitiveness down the drain.

IF and WHEN he starts to turn this around, I will give him the credit he deserves. There's just no reason to do so right now, because any moron can take a team from 50 wins to 27 in two seasons. It's a huge challenge to turn that team BACK into a 50 win team, and I'm interested to see if Nash can do it.

Ed O.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> My biggest fear on draft day is that Milwaukee and Atlanta will pass on Luc Bogut.


My biggest hope is that Milwaukee and Atlanta pass on Bogut and we select him over Green. Bogut is going to be very good and players at that position that can pass, shoot and have great court IQ are very rare. 

My biggest fear is that Green is more of a SF and we are stuck with Miles, Outlaw and green who all struggle with fast SG's.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

Trader Bob said:


> This is what I was saying... those players were available... and Nash could not close the deal. I have no doubt Whitsitt would of gotten those players



What’s the price? Remember BW had a blank check book. It is easy to make a deal when you had 100%support and you don't have a boss to be accountable to.
Bob made some great trades and some awful ones. The Rasheed, J.R. Rider and Pippen come to mind when we talk about the great ones.


Being the closer on the Kemp deal takes no brainpower. How about the O'Neil?

That guy set our franchise back 8-10 years. We are in the hole from '00-'01 until about '08-'09.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

GREAT POSTS Talkhard and crandc... I couldnt agree more. 



Sometimes you have to take a step back in order to make a big step forward. I'll take a team of stand up guys I can be proud of who WANT to win for the city of Portland, vs a bunch of over paid trouble makers who only care about "CTC".


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Sometimes you have to take a step back in order to make a big step forward. I'll take a team of stand up guys I can be proud of who WANT to win for the city of Portland, vs a bunch of over paid trouble makers who only care about "CTC".


1. I'd love to know of ANY NBA team that's been successful within, say, 5 years of taking the kind of steps backwards that we have. We've gone from a consistent 50 game winner to winning about half that many games in two years. Teams that take "a step back" on purpse more often end up taking another step back than taking a big step forward.

2. Having players that you can be proud of is an entirely different issue than having players that are going to win. They're independent of one another. I understand that people want to give Nash for giving them players who they are proud of--that's entirely legit, even if I don't put value on that. To give Nash credit for improving the team's chances _to win basketball games_ based on those changes, though, is something that I am not willing to do.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

RW#30 said:


> Being the closer on the Kemp deal takes no brainpower. How about the O'Neil?


Yes, drafting Jermaine was brilliant.

And then being able to get an all-star caliber player in his prime to start at the 5 position? Not too bad of a trade, even if O'Neal's done good work for Indiana.



> That guy set our franchise back 8-10 years. We are in the hole from '00-'01 until about '08-'09.


It's impossible to set a franchise back that long in the NBA. Whitsitt made mistakes, for sure (coaching mistakes being the biggest, IMO) but he left this team in pretty good shape: depth, players in their prime, and contracts of varying lengths.

Nash has only traded ONE expiring contract, which happened to be attached to our best player, and he didn't get back any young players... he got SAR (who wasn't going to start over Zach) and Theo (who he promptly signed to a ridiculous extension).

If it takes 8-10 years to get back into contention, and it's certainly possible that it will, it will be because of the things that Nash has done (and for which people are now giving him credit)... AND because whomever replaces Nash doesn't cut it, either. A decade is a long time in the NBA.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I think one thing that's being lost here, is this team *wasn't* going to win with it's lineup as it was (from the start of the previous year).

At best, it'd go first and out.

And that gets old.

The teams record last year was deceptive, but it helps ones argument for saying the team is not going to compete anytime soon because Super Star Rasheed Wallace is gone.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> I think one thing that's being lost here, is this team *wasn't* going to win with it's lineup as it was (from the start of the previous year).
> 
> At best, it'd go first and out.
> 
> ...


First of all: I don't need to point to that record to remind everyone we won't compete any time soon. We suck, and teams that suck without adding players tend to continue to suck. Even when we add a lottery pick, and even when we add Monya, we're still going to be losing SAR, NVE, and Damon. Unless Nash can get value for some or all of those guys, this team will struggle to be any better than they were this season.

Secondly: Acting like pointing to the team's 50 wins is a trick is weak. The team had won 49 and 50 games the two years before THAT. The team was a solid 50 win team and while I can understand you (and maybe some others) got tired of that level of (limited) success, it's better to me than watch the team get their teeth kicked in during the regular season.

Lastly: Do you remember the series against Dallas, a team which made it to the WC Finals? Do you remember that Portland was leading into the fourth quarter of game 7 in Dallas? You can't point to that series and say with a straight face that the team was never going to get out of the first round, because they almost did against the Mavs when they were playing great basketball.

Our team had run into a series of tough first round matchups because of the tough nature of the Western conference. If Portland had continued to try to improve their team, rather than tear things down, they would have been in great position not only to make the playoffs the last two years but also to challenge for the division championship this year and advance into the second round like Seattle did.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> The problem with guys like you, Ed O, is that you have short-term vision. You can't see the progress being made because all you care about is the win-loss record RIGHT NOW.


 

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?p=966949#post966949

The problem with guys like me is that I recall (and can link) past threads to display just how accurate a poster's short and long-term visions have been... back in the day according to TH, Nash's big trade of Rasheed improved the clubs talent, ensured the playoffs, and set the team up for the future with TREMENDOUS cap flexibility in the 2005 offseason. It didn't quite work out that way did it? I like how now Paul Allen is has become the dark hand pulling the strings undermining brilliant John Nash in TH's "visions." 

OK back to the good times rolling in Portland. 

STOMP


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Ed O said:


> 1. I'd love to know of ANY NBA team that's been successful within, say, 5 years of taking the kind of steps backwards that we have. We've gone from a consistent 50 game winner to winning about half that many games in two years. Teams that take "a step back" on purpse more often end up taking another step back than taking a big step forward.
> 
> Ed O.


Phoenix, Detroit, Miami

Obviously nobody could compare to us outside of Utah, but I believe all 3 of those teams did something similar to what Portland has done. There will be differences, but there will also be similarities.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> GREAT POSTS Talkhard and crandc... I couldnt agree more.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes you have to take a step back in order to make a big step forward. I'll take a team of stand up guys I can be proud of who WANT to win for the city of Portland, vs a bunch of over paid trouble makers who only care about "CTC".


couldn't have said it better myself...


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Our team had run into a series of tough first round matchups because of the tough nature of the Western conference. If Portland had continued to try to improve their team, rather than tear things down, they would have been in great position not only to make the playoffs the last two years but also to challenge for the division championship this year and advance into the second round like Seattle did.


You are delusional, Ed O. The Blazers were always just good enough to make the playoffs, but never good enough to do much once they got there. It happened year after year, not because of tough first-round competition (a lame excuse if I ever heard one) but because of the make-up of our team. We had talent, but we also had a lot of knuckleheads. There was far too much misbehavior, drug use, open defiance of team rules, vile and irresponsible comments from players like Wallace and Wells, bloated salaries, constant embarrassment in the media, high expectations that got dashed every year, and massive egos run amuck. It was time for a change--and even Paul Allen recognized that. 

That you don't is just sad.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> You are delusional, Ed O. The Blazers were always just competitive enough to make the playoffs, but never good enough to accomplish anything once they got there. It happened year after year, not because of tough first-round competition (a lame excuse if I ever heard one) but because of the make-up of our team. We had talent, but we also had a lot of knuckleheads. There was far too much misbehavior, drug use, vile and irresponsible comments made by players like Wallace and Wells, bloated salaries, constant embarrassment in the media, high expectations that got dashed every year, and massive egos run amuck. It was time for a change--and even Paul Allen recognized that. That you don't is just sad.


Super job with the insults TH! Personally I can't ignore the bad run of playoff time injuries (especially to Sabas and PIP) that those late 90's/early 2000's club's endured like you can. I figure that a team not having all it's best players available hurts their chances of advancing past other talented teams... to me, the relative health of teams plays a major role in who advances in the playoffs every year... but maybe thats just another lame excuse from another delutional poster.

STOMP


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> The problem with guys like me is that I recall (and can link) past threads to display just how accurate a poster's short and long-term visions have been...


Oh my . . . aren't you a clever boy! I bet your Mom is so proud of you. 



> back in the day according to TH, Nash's big trade of Rasheed improved the clubs talent, ensured the playoffs, and set the team up for the future with TREMENDOUS cap flexibility in the 2005 offseason. It didn't quite work out that way did it?


Excuse me for being optimistic, but I still think the trade was a good one. And I wasn't the only one. Fans and media types raved about the fact that we were able to get not just Rahim, but Ratliff, for a guy we were going to lose without a cent at the end of the year. Our lack of cap flexibility today is not the result of trading Wallace, as you know, but the result of signing guys like Ratliff, Miles and Randolph to big long-term contracts.

I would go back and dig up all the posts that show your inaccurate predictions or faulty insights, but I'm not interested in that. I'll leave that for guys like you, who are just childish enough to enjoy saying, "Gotcha!"


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> First of all: I don't need to point to that record to remind everyone we won't compete any time soon. We suck, and teams that suck without adding players tend to continue to suck. Even when we add a lottery pick, and even when we add Monya, we're still going to be losing SAR, NVE, and Damon. Unless Nash can get value for some or all of those guys, this team will struggle to be any better than they were this season.


if Damon, Shareef and NVE _are_ the difference makers on this team, I'd rather not have them be on the team.


> Secondly: Acting like pointing to the team's 50 wins is a trick is weak. The team had won 49 and 50 games the two years before THAT. The team was a solid 50 win team and while I can understand you (and maybe some others) got tired of that level of (limited) success, it's better to me than watch the team get their teeth kicked in during the regular season.


I'd rather have the team try to rebuild from scratch, than keep the same players, and keep getting the same results.

A team with Bonzi and Sheed (and Jeff McInnis) isn't going to get us anywhere. And on top of that, a team with those guys, most likely, wouldn't *need* to make a trade to get a star like Carter..and since that team wouldn't make a trade to get Carter, people wouldn't ***** and moan that they didn't get him. 

The team wasn't that good even with Rasheed and Bonzi. I'd argue that the tema was good because of the whole team, which Trader Bob didn't build up too good. Outside of Zach and Outlaw, there isn't any stock-piling of talent for the time when the main guys either age, aren't worth it, or get traded.



> Lastly: Do you remember the series against Dallas, a team which made it to the WC Finals? Do you remember that Portland was leading into the fourth quarter of game 7 in Dallas? You can't point to that series and say with a straight face that the team was never going to get out of the first round, because they almost did against the Mavs when they were playing great basketball.


I think with Sabonis gone, and Pippen gone, yes I can say that "that" team wouldn't. Because "that" team was no longer together. Pippen and Sabonis were far more important to the teams smarts than the team could afford.



> Our team had run into a series of tough first round matchups because of the tough nature of the Western conference. If Portland had continued to try to improve their team, rather than tear things down, they would have been in great position not only to make the playoffs the last two years but also to challenge for the division championship this year and advance into the second round like Seattle did.


you mean how seattle had traded away it's franchise player? And had a lot of years of so-so play?

I'd rather have a couple of down years to re-group the troups, than continually try to go at it with the same players over and over and over. 

I'd rather have a 2-3 year stretch where the team doesn't make the playoffs, and then when they do, they make a splash..than one who just makes the playoffs..where in a 10 year stretch, they make it out of the 1st round *twice*.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Tince said:


> Phoenix, Detroit, Miami
> 
> Obviously nobody could compare to us outside of Utah, but I believe all 3 of those teams did something similar to what Portland has done. There will be differences, but there will also be similarities.


Let's look at those three teams in the past five years (and 6 in the case of Detroit since they were great last year, too):

Phoenix:
00-01: 51
01-02: 36
02-03: 44
03-04: 29
04-05: 62

Detroit:
99-00: 42
00-01: 32
01-02: 50
02-03: 50
03-04: 54
04-05: 54

Miami:
00-01: 50
01-02: 36
02-03: 25
03-04: 42
04-05: 59

Detroit's an entirely different case (they had a single year of dropping below .500 after a couple good ones) but Miami and Phoenix are actually pretty spot-on with what I asked for.

Good call, Tince, and I hope that Portland can find an MVP candidate like Nash and Shaq to turn things around.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

take a look at the Spurs too Ed.... they took a dive to get Duncan years ago


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> I'd rather have a 2-3 year stretch where the team doesn't make the playoffs, and then when they do, they make a splash..than one who just makes the playoffs..where in a 10 year stretch, they make it out of the 1st round *twice*.


Why? The team made a splash twice in a ten year period... you think that rebuilding from scratch is going to end up with better results than that?

There will be fewer first round exits, for sure, but I'm not sure there will be more second round (and beyond) appearances.

Ed O.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Why? The team made a splash twice in a ten year period... you think that rebuilding from scratch is going to end up with better results than that?
> 
> There will be fewer first round exits, for sure, but I'm not sure there will be more second round (and beyond) appearances.
> 
> Ed O.



Ed I don't mean to butt in on your discussion with Hap, but every team goes through this. Every single team has had lottery picks. Portland was at a point where they needed to make a decission. Either stay with an overpaid roster that wasn't in a possition to win a championship, or take a mulligan, or do over for those of you that aren't golfers or as smart as Ed. It's painful to watch to be sure, but isn't it better knowing there is a chance for something great rather than knowing we will probably make it to the playoffs and lose again.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> It's painful to watch to be sure, but isn't it better knowing there is a chance for something great rather than knowing we will probably make it to the playoffs and lose again.


I hear what you (and Hap, and others) are saying here. I just disagree with it. The Blazers were not in a position where they had to tear their team down to get better, and most successful teams aren't successful because they go into the lottery... they're successful some time later in spite of it.

If you told me that X years after we tore down our team, we'd be championship-level, then I would be interested. Most teams that tear down don't (can't) rebuild any more quickly than teams that stay in the playoffs on a yearly basis. I don't have any faith that Portland is going to be any more successful at it than most teams, and in many cases they will be LESS successful because free agents and prominent players aren't clamoring to come to Portland (or Seattle, or Utah, or the Bucks, or many teams) like they are to go to Phoenix and Miami and LA and even NY.

Ed O.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Ed O said:


> I hear what you (and Hap, and others) are saying here. I just disagree with it. The Blazers were not in a position where they had to tear their team down to get better, and most successful teams aren't successful because they go into the lottery... they're successful some time later in spite of it.
> 
> If you told me that X years after we tore down our team, we'd be championship-level, then I would be interested. Most teams that tear down don't (can't) rebuild any more quickly than teams that stay in the playoffs on a yearly basis. I don't have any faith that Portland is going to be any more successful at it than most teams, and in many cases they will be LESS successful because free agents and prominent players aren't clamoring to come to Portland (or Seattle, or Utah, or the Bucks, or many teams) like they are to go to Phoenix and Miami and LA and even NY.
> 
> Ed O.


 
I understand where you’re coming from Ed and I agree with some of what you say. But instead of being upset at Nash shouldn’t you direct it towards Paul Allen? Nash is just doing what they hired him for, the decision to tear down and rebuild this team had to come from Paul Allen.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Man Ed...that is a lot of pessimism there.....

I guess I don't understand just where you thought this team was going with Bonzi, Jeff and Sheed?

Are you implying that that team if left untouched and perhaps with some periphery players added would have been good enough to reach the WC finals again? Or have ANY chance of winning an NBA title?

B\c I really think they had little chance of doing either....That team was regressing not improving...

And what of Rasheed Wallace?...whose relationship with the media and many fans had grown so contentious....You don't believe that he wanted to walk out of POR at the end of the year? b\c I sure think he was gone, and I really think mgmt did NOT want to trade him, until he let his intentions be known...

Should POR have gotten a better return for Sheed than SAR and Theo at the time? If so, what was realistically there? At the time I thought it was a fairly good return as did most other people....

Look at what is happening in SAC now, GM Petrie even said it, their "championship" window has closed, they are at the beginning of the "retooling" process...They aren't as good of a team now as they were with Webber, and not as good of a team as they were 2-3 years ago....

I would maintain though that they at least had better pieces (players) than POR had when Sheed was traded.....Who was POR Bibby then? heck now? Who was POR Stojakovic or Miller? At least SAC has some more valuable pieces to build around than POR had at the time....

Do you still lament the loss of Bonzi Wells after seeing his act in Memphis this year? Was\Is he anywhere near as talented as Stojakovic? I surely don't think so....

I agree with some of your criticism Ed, when it comes to what Nash didn't accomplish this year...Losing SAR for nothing (if he does) is nothing but a negative IMO....The failed trade for Carter? or for Redd? Nash maintains POR offer was far superior to NJ, and thatTOR wanted picks first and foremost and young players....Would trading Outlaw and the #3 pick have been worth putting Carter AND Rose on this team? I don't think so....and I don't think it would have made POR anything but (at best ) an also ran playoff team...nothing more....

I was under the impression that POR offered a 1st round pick and Outlaw for Redd and MIL pulled that deal off the table b\c they felt that Redd wnated to resign with them....

I can't necessarily blame Nash for failing to close either of those deals....nor so badly wanting to acquire a guy that he trades a way a young guy (like Jermaine O'Neal)....at least with Dale Davis the team had a legitimate playoff title chance...Now? It does nothing but MAYBE make POR a playoff team, but heck if the young guys improve, that could just as likley happen w\o a guy like Carter....Who really knows?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Spoolie Gee said:


> I understand where you’re coming from Ed and I agree with some of what you say. But instead of being upset at Nash shouldn’t you direct it towards Paul Allen? Nash is just doing what they hired him for, the decision to tear down and rebuild this team had to come from Paul Allen.


Maybe you're right... I just don't find the moves that Nash has made to be that great even given the parameters that Allen has imposed (and I agree that he's got a much tighter leash on PatterNash than on Whitsitt).

The Rasheed Wallace deal is the main example. Not JUST that we traded our best player--I would have preferred that we keep Rasheed, but I can understand the motivation to trade him--but what Portland walked away with.

They got SAR, who made about $20,000,000 during his time in Portland. He was never going to start ahead of Zach Randolph. And Portland hasn't been able to extract any value from him in a trade (although there's still a chance of doing so).

They got Theo, who has made about $15,000,000 during his time in Portland, definitely filled a need and played great basketball at the end of last year. But everyone knew he was on the wrong side of 30 and had had some major injury issues... and that his entire game was based on blocking shots and that ability will be negated pretty easily by injuries. When it should have been clear that the team wasn't going to compete this year, the Blazers should have kept Theo on the last year of his deal and looked to trade him to a team that could really use a defensive presence for their playoff run. Instead, Nash signed him to a 3 year, $35,000,000 extension that not only impacts our cap situation a year beyond where Derek Anderson and Ruben Patterson do but also reduces his trade value because he's so overpaid.

If Nash was serious about rebuilding, he would have flipped Rasheed for prospects (like the Hawks did, and they ended up walking away with the pick that because Josh Smith). Failing that, Nash should have secured some cap flexibility by not extending Theo to such a large contract... if we hadn't signed Theo to that extension we'd be looking forward to making a big impact on the FA market this summer (even WITH the big Zach extension and the generous deal for Miles).

This is longer than I'd expected to make it, but the bottom line to me is that yes, he has a hard job, and yes Paul Allen's reported demands are tough. But Nash either doesn't have a plan or his plans have failed to materialize. Or, I guess, he had a bad plan. 

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> I can't necessarily blame Nash for failing to close either of those deals


There are at least two levels of criticism here:

-- give someone credit, or
-- assign someone blame

Because of the incredible lack of knowledge about what deals were possible, I think it's ENTIRELY reasonable for someone to look at the lack of moves and say, "Well, I can't blame him for not getting those players because the acquisition cost must have been too high."

Because we just don't know, I can see that perspective. (Of course, I DO blame him for letting the team go down the tubes under his watch, and I see the lack of upgrade at the 2 spot a failing on his part irrespective of particulars.)

What I cannot see is how his inactivity is a positive. And that's what I am arguing against in this thread: that people are giving Nash CREDIT for what he's done in terms of making this a better basketball team.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Are you implying that that team if left untouched and perhaps with some periphery players added would have been good enough to reach the WC finals again? Or have ANY chance of winning an NBA title?
> 
> B\c I really think they had little chance of doing either....That team was regressing not improving...


Absolutely right. This is so clear to most Blazer observers that I fail to see how others have missed it. Great post, Kmurph.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> If Nash was serious about rebuilding, he would have flipped Rasheed for prospects
> (like the Hawks did . . .


Good grief! If Nash had done that, people like you would have crucified him. You'd be screaming that we traded our best player for a couple of lousy draft picks, and who knows how they'll turn out, etc. . . .



> The bottom line to me is that yes, he has a hard job, and yes Paul Allen's reported demands are tough. But Nash either doesn't have a plan or his plans have failed to materialize. Or, I guess, he had a bad plan.


Or you just can't see the plan, or you don't understand it . . . ?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> I guess I don't understand just where you thought this team was going with Bonzi, Jeff and Sheed?
> 
> Are you implying that that team if left untouched and perhaps with some periphery players added would have been good enough to reach the WC finals again? Or have ANY chance of winning an NBA title?
> 
> B\c I really think they had little chance of doing either....That team was regressing not improving...


First of all, I reject that they were regressing. Losing Pippen was going to hurt, but Zach Randolph was getting much better and a full season of him as a second or third option would have made for an improved Blazers team, not a weaker one.

Secondly, there's no way that Portland would have simply left the team alone and crossed its fingers that it was going to make it deep into the playoffs. Adding decent free agents, or gunning for one of the numerous excellent players that has been available since we started the Nash era, could have improved the team.

What moves could they have made? I don't know. Would they have gone from 50 wins to 55, or 60? Probably not, but maybe. Would they have gone from 50 wins to 41 to 27? Definitely not.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Good grief! If Nash had done that, people like you would have crucified him. You'd be screaming that we traded our best player for a couple of lousy draft picks, and who knows how they'll turn out, etc. . . .


Maybe I would have. But if I had known that he was going to half-*** keeping our team competitive, I would have been much more upset over the Atlanta deal than I would have been over that one.



> Or you just can't see the plan, or you don't understand it . . . ?


What is there to see or understand? The team has been driven into the ground the last couple of years. It's like you're arguing that a decapitation is a natural step in a brain operation... once I see the head separated from the shoulders I don't need to see any more to know that the surgery wasn't a success.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> What is there to see or understand? The team has been driven into the ground the last couple of years. It's like you're arguing that a decapitation is a natural step in a brain operation... once I see the head separated from the shoulders I don't need to see any more to know that the surgery wasn't a success.


Bad analogy. The Blazers have not been decapitated. They are very much alive, but are going through some growing pains right now. Many of us see this as a necessary step on the road to something much better.

THE PLAN, as I see it, is pretty simple. Ship out the troublemakers and the underperforming players, and replace them with young talented guys with good character. In the process, create a team with a bright future that the people of Portland can feel good about again. 

This process is well under way. Most fans are pretty excited about Telfair, Outlaw, Kryhapa, Pryzbilla, and our new No. 1 draft pick, who will probably be Gerald Green. Ed, before you know it, this Blazer team is going to be the hottest and most dynamic team of young studs in the NBA. 

The Celtics are a good example of a team that held on to its veterans too long, and ended up paying a price. They should have traded Kevin McHale before he completely broke down, but they were reluctant to part with him for sentimental reasons. Bird and Parrish also ended their careers with the Celtics when they were past their prime, and the team has sucked ever since. Portland is going to turn it around much faster than the Celtics have, and it's because we have made an aggressive commitment to a youth movement.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

> Most teams that tear down don't (can't) rebuild any more quickly than teams that stay in the playoffs on a yearly basis.


Look at this year's final four teams.
Phoenix was in the lottery last year.
Miami was in the lottery two years ago.
I don't remember when Detroit was last in the lottery but it was in the last 5 years.
So only San Antonio has had an unbroken playoff string since they drafted Tim Duncan. And getting Tim Duncan happened because they had an awful year and were lucky enough to both get the #1 pick and to have a franchise player available in that year's draft.

Look at the rest of the playoff teams. Griz were in the lottery two years ago, Seattle last year. Denver 2 years ago. Chicago, Washington last year. Boston 2 years ago. 
I am going by memory so it's possible I may be wrong on a team. But by my count 8 of 16 postseason teams were in the lottery either last year or two years ago.

There is a difference between perennial lotto teams like the Clippers and Warriors and teams going through retooling. Portland began the retooling 2 years ago. They barely missed the playoffs in 2004. This year, with a TON of injuries, remember, they stunk. And yet so many here are ready to put them in the Clippers category rather than the Suns, or at least Wizards, category. And I've seen no real reason why except "I hate Patternash". 
I've yet to see ONE PERSON tell what deal they COULD have gotten for Wallace, McInnis or Wells that was better than what they had; when GM's know a team wants to dump someone it's hard to get any kind of value. I've yet to see ONE PERSON tell what deal they COULD have made for a starting two guard that would not involve trading the team's future for a max deal guy late in his career. Telling what you hoped, wanted, or heard what might happen is not the same as telling what could have actually happened in reality. 
It's been clear from Day One that those days of trading the future for aging superstars are over.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> The Celtics are a good example of a team that held on to its veterans too long, and ended up paying a price. They should have traded Kevin McHale before he completely broke down, but they were reluctant to part with him for sentimental reasons. Bird and Parrish also ended their careers with the Celtics when they were past their prime, and the team has sucked ever since. Portland is going to turn it around much faster than the Celtics have, and it's because we have made an aggressive commitment to a youth movement.


Quick question: how many years did the Celtics lose 55 or more games (which is the number Portland lost this year)?

Answer: one. Only once were they as bad or worse than we were this year.

The Celtics are held up as a classic example of holding onto your players too long, but that example has nothing to do with Portland's situation. 

If Len Bias hadn't died six years earlier, the Celtics probably wouldn't have had the dramatic dropoff they did. Losing a talent like him drained the franchise of the successor to Larry Bird.

Reggie Lewis's death, of course, was closer to the team's decline following the 92-93 season. He was 27 years old and coming off a year where he got over 20 ppg while playing nearly 40 minutes a night.

That sudden loss of their best player, rather than the retirement of McHale, was the reason for the team's descent to where Portland is now.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> Phoenix was in the lottery last year.


One year in the lottery. If only the Blazer fans were so fortunate. Actually, they were in it 3 years ago, too, sandwiching a 44 win playoff team.

Do you see an MVP free agent signing on Portland's horizon?



> Miami was in the lottery two years ago.


Yep, and three years ago. Their two years in the lottery were ended with adding Wade and Butler in the lottery and then Odom as a free agent. That gave them the pieces to get Shaq. 

Other than the Shaq part, that's at least POSSIBLE for Portland to aspire to, but I don't see it happening this year (which is the second after the first lottery appearance).



> I don't remember when Detroit was last in the lottery but it was in the last 5 years.


In 2000-1, they slipped down from their previous year's 42-40 record to 30-52. The next year they were up to 50-32.



> It's been clear from Day One that those days of trading the future for aging superstars are over.


When was that day EVER here?

I can't think of a single time where Whitsitt traded the future for aging superstars.

Was Brian Grant the future when we traded him for Shawn Kemp? Was Dale Davis an aging superstar when we traded Jermaine O'Neal for him?

Did we trade the future when we got Rasheed? Or Damon? Or Pippen?

It's easy rhetorically to set up a straw man and differentiate Nash from that, but the reality is quite different.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> One year in the lottery. If only the Blazer fans were so fortunate. Actually, they were in it 3 years ago, too, sandwiching a 44 win playoff team.
> 
> Do you see an MVP free agent signing on Portland's horizon?


Nash was the MVP before he signed with Phoenix?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> Nash was the MVP before he signed with Phoenix?


No, and his name's not David, either. So what?

Is Portland going to get someone who's going to be an MVP as a free agent signing?

The answer is almost certainly no.

Ed O.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Well, hind-sight is 20/20. It's to easy to critisize the moves of the past now. Maybe we'll get a superstar in this years draft. Who knows.

Debating the Whitsitt/Sheed era gets old. When it comes to evaluating this season, I'm giving them a muligan. How many injuries did we have? Zach was down almost the whole season. SAR was down a good portion of the season hurting his trade value. Miles was down. Oh, and we had Mo. That's like having another season long injury. If we had a healthy season with Zach improving and a decent coach, I'd say we would have been in the playoff hunt this year. If that happened we wouldn't have the #3 pick though.

To stay on topic, I'm not giving Nash an A+, but I'm not giving him an F- either. I think his biggest mistakes so far were the extensions last off season, but who would have guessed Zach and Theo would be down most of the year. 

In the end, I'm just happy to see some changes and some promissing young talent on the team to give me some hope.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> No, and his name's not David, either. So what?
> 
> Is Portland going to get someone who's going to be an MVP as a free agent signing?
> 
> ...



ooh, so phoenix signed him because they knew he'd be an MVP this season?

they must be able to tell the future, because no only did no one think he'd improve the team as much as he did, but no one thought he'd even come close to being an MVP.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Well I don't give Nash an "A" either...not by a longshot...however I don't think he has been as awful as some people think either...

Ed - 
As for the 27 wins last year, I think you and I and most people can agree that POR record last year, particularly at the grisly end was self inflicted...When you sit the vets you have, and heavily play young (too) young players, the results are what they were...ugly. 
But the end result IMO was that this team was not going to make the playoffs WITH the vets we had in the first place....I give Nash\Pattersen credit for the foresight to see that...even though it was ugly and I watched all of those games, and it was downright brutal at time....I'd rather watch young guys lose and grow though than overpaid vets lose a little less ugly...

If we had heavily played SAR, NVE, Damon, Ruben, DA & Theo we might have had 8? more wins? Still a non playoff team, w\o the benefit of getting young guys valuable experieince and the benefit, now confirmed, of a much better draft pick. 

It's not the young guys that are the problem IMO....maybe a small part in the fact that they are just a lot farther from ready than POR currently needs them to be...its the vets...the loss of Zach hurt...Theo's off\on injuries hurt....DA's oddball injuries and downright weird behavior didn't help....The whole Miles\Cheeks\Media triumviate that messed with Dr Darius' head a little more than it should have (That and his yo-yo playing time) didn't help on or off the court....but in the end the bottom line IMO was that our "vets" were just not good enough....not even close....Damon, NVE, SAR, DA, Ruben, Theo.... they aren't good enough, and yet they are paid like they should be....
The good news is at minimum3 and hopefully as many as 5 will be gone from the roster this offseason....

Yeah the signings of Miles, Zach and Theo are all in some form or another errors in judgement, adn NAsh as GM is the architect of these deal...or is he? regardless thought he has to take blame for it b\c those are under hi umbrella of responsibility....

I think Zach was overpaid....

I think Miles is looking like he was overpaid, but $6-8mil isn't as bad as many people here think it is...he still has room to improve....

I think Theo is overpaid, but then again I think in general ALL FA centers are overpaid...nonetheless I don't see WHY POR could not have waited on contracts for ALL THREE players....I can't believe Nash would let himself be buffaloed by Zach's agents threats....

AS for POR with Sheed, Bonzi & McInnis having the pieces needed to be a title contender...Well you and I just disagree on that point....IMO no amount of makeup was going to improve that pig of a team.

As for acquiring a Carter, not sure what other players you think they should have traded for, But surely there is a price that you would be unwilling to pay? Unfortunately we don't know the details of POR offer, nor what TOR wanted from POR.

I agree that inaction does not contribute to a "good " grade, but it is closer to an "incomplete" (particularly with SAR, NVE and maybe even Damon able to be used in a S&T deal) than a "bad" grade


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> ooh, so phoenix signed him because they knew he'd be an MVP this season?


What do you want me to say? Yes?



> they must be able to tell the future, because no only did no one think he'd improve the team as much as he did, but no one thought he'd even come close to being an MVP.


I think that everyone knew he was a massive improvement at the PG spot. Most of us knew that the Suns were going to be much better with the addition of Nash and Richardson.

That Nash won the MVP is of course a surprise, but even KNOWING that he was going to be a big help, it took a big surprise from Steve Nash to get the Suns to where they are now.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Well I don't give Nash an "A" either...not by a longshot...however I don't think he has been as awful as some people think either...
> 
> ...
> 
> I agree that inaction does not contribute to a "good " grade, but it is closer to an "incomplete" (particularly with SAR, NVE and maybe even Damon able to be used in a S&T deal) than a "bad" grade


I think that this is a fair assessment. I'm 100% willing to concede that Nash might pull something out of the hat. I've said repeatedly that when he does, I will give him credit.

But it seems that the same people on this board who told us to be patient when Wells was traded, and then when Rasheed was traded, and then when the Blazers failed to move an expiring contract last summer, and then when they failed to do anything at the trade deadline are all still telling us to be patient. Meanwhile the team's been worse and worse on the court.

I would like to think that Nash can work some draft-day magic, and I would like to think that he can get some value for NVE, SAR, and/or Damon. I hope that he can.

If he fails to, though, I am interested to see how many people will start to be as frustrated as I am with the team's direction.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> What do you want me to say? Yes?


considering you said 

'Do you see an MVP free agent signing on Portland's horizon?'

I think that implies that Phoenix knew that nash would be a candidate for MVP (which no one did, and whether or not he was one is even debateable) 



> I think that everyone knew he was a massive improvement at the PG spot. Most of us knew that the Suns were going to be much better with the addition of Nash and Richardson.
> 
> That Nash won the MVP is of course a surprise, but even KNOWING that he was going to be a big help, it took a big surprise from Steve Nash to get the Suns to where they are now.
> 
> Ed O.


I think amare playing more of the season helped too.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Is it Nash's fault that Toronto turned down our offer at the last minute for Vince? And is it Nash's fault that Milwaukie changed its mind regarding trading Redd just before the deadline? Other than those two guys, who else did he not go after that he should have? (and actually had a chance at getting)


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I see where both Ed O and Talkhard are coming from.

Patterson & Nash inherited the mess that Whitsitt made. The local media here in Portland was already firmly entrenched in blowing things out of proportion mode by the time Whitsitt left, so that is part of the mess Nash inherited. Another part of it was a large number of huge salaries and a fair number of players who stupidly handed ammunition to the local media. Consequently, Patterson was faced with angry corporate partners / sponsors and declining sales. And because of that, Nash was faced with cleaning up the roster in order to improve PR.

As Ed O abundantly points out, the Blazers were pretty competitive at the time the reigns were passed. I dont think they were as competitive as Ed O and others make them sound, but they WERE much more competitive than they were last season or the season before that. And its likely to be another couple of years before the Blazers return to that level of competitiveness.

But first things first, lets look at what Nash has done on the character front: Bonzi is gone. Rasheed (for better or worse) is gone. McInnis is gone. Qyntel is gone. So I'll give him credit for all of that. But at the same time, he went and extended both Zach and Darius, both of whom have become character concerns themselves over the past year. Maybe they'll change their tunes under a new coaching staff. Or maybe they both truly DO need to start in order to be their most productive. Regardless, at this point I'd have to say Nash's efforts on the character front - which DOES seem to matter a lot to business partners, sponsors, suite holders, season ticket holders, and casual fans alike - have been a wash. At best.

Now, back to competitiveness. Nash got some decent return for Bonzi, Rasheed, and McInnis. Not stellar, talentwise, and it all definately had the effect of creating imbalance in the roster (which, itself, has led to friction and decreased competitiveness). But he did get some decent pieces to work with... and I think the key to the Blazers' return to competitiveness is whether or not Nash can convert those pieces into a balanced roster of contributing players. Nash & Co. made some very good picks at their draft positions last summer, and their positions are even better this summer. So this summer, to me anyway, represents the real test of Nash's ability to rebuild this team.

In summary: I think the decrease in competitiveness we've seen the last 2 seasons was due in large part to addressing the character issues that were taking such a toll on the franchise as a business. Both directly (talent traded away) and indirectly (roster imbalance causing friction causing decreased production). Hopefully that's all behind us now (jurys still out on Zach and Darius, it seems), and Nash can start making moves that directly improve the competitiveness of the team. He's got some nice pieces to work with, and has shown he's a competent drafter. So THIS summer is the true test. 

However, even if everything falls into place this summer - even if the Blazers land the perfect head coach / coaching staff for their young roster, even if Zach and Darius rekindle their passion for the game and become leaders and model locker-room citizens, even if Nash obtains some top-flight perimeter shooting, even if the roster becomes perfectly balanced, even if ALL of our youngsters step up to the next level - it's STILL going to be another season or two before the team gels enough to get back to where it was 3 seasons ago.

And, like Ed, I'm not going to be singing Nash's praises until I see that happen. IMO, he (& Patterson) have been a wash on the character front, and the team has definately taken a step back, competitively, in the process.

Time will tell all. But I *will* be watching. And hoping for the best.

PBF


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Is it Nash's fault that Toronto turned down our offer at the last minute for Vince? And is it Nash's fault that Milwaukie changed its mind regarding trading Redd just before the deadline? Other than those two guys, who else did he not go after that he should have? (and actually had a chance at getting)


Nope. Nothing is Nash's fault. Clearly Allen hired him to cut the number of wins we achieved in half within two years, to reduce the attendance, and to get us a high lottery pick.

Nash for GM of the year?

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I think Ed O. and all of Nash's critics out there will change their tune when we get an all-star caliber pick in this coming draft...With Telfair, Outlaw and Pryzbilla and the incoming pick along with the Russians as our future core, I see nothing but good things with this team in the future...After 21 straight years of being in the playoffs (many of those years when we were first and out, I would have much rather had a lottery pick) I can handle taking a couple years back, missing the playoffs and retooling and building a strong youth...It will also be nice when we can drop the whole "Jailblazers" stigma thats attached to the organization...

IMO many Blazers fans are spoiled, no other team has had as many winning years in a row as we had, yet when we finally start to lose people ***** and moan....There's no where this team can go but up...It's just sad that some fans have such a pessimistic attitude towards the organization, despite the 21 years that we were fortunate enough to be in the playoffs...


Telfair
future #3 pick
Outlaw/Khrapya
Zach
Pryzbilla (hopefully)

I think that team has a better young core than the Bulls...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Nope. Nothing is Nash's fault. Clearly Allen hired him to cut the number of wins we achieved in half within two years, to reduce the attendance, and to get us a high lottery pick.
> 
> Nash for GM of the year?
> 
> Ed O.



here's a little diddy, dedicated to Eddie.



> The ink is black, the page is white
> Together we learn to read and write
> A child is black, a child is white
> The whole world looks upon the sight, a beautiful sight
> ...


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Is it Nash's fault that Toronto turned down our offer at the last minute for Vince? And is it Nash's fault that Milwaukie changed its mind regarding trading Redd just before the deadline? Other than those two guys, who else did he not go after that he should have? (and actually had a chance at getting)



GSW got Baron Davis for Dale freakin' Davis.

When someone is selling an all-star caliber player for pennies on the dollar, you DO NOT turn your back because you have a 19 year old rookie who might, someday, maybe, be that good himself. :krazy:


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

We got NVE for Dale Davis...that's as good as B Davis, right?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> GSW got Baron Davis for Dale freakin' Davis.
> 
> When someone is selling an all-star caliber player for pennies on the dollar, you DO NOT turn your back because you have a 19 year old rookie who might, someday, maybe, be that good himself. :krazy:


Pennies? Have you looked at Baron's contract and his history with injurys?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Tince said:


> We got NVE for Dale Davis...that's as good as B Davis, right?


hm..by that thinking, we should've traded jermaine o'neal for baron davis!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Pennies? Have you looked at Baron's contract and his history with injurys?


He's actually been pretty good about playing games in his career. Here's what it looks like:

99-00: 82
00-01: 82
01-02: 82
02-03: 50
03-04: 67
04-05: 46

He's clearly missed chunks of the last three seasons, but he's only 25 and he looked healthy at the end of this year... in fact, it was his attitude (and the Hornets suckiness) that caused him to miss as many games as he did this year, so the list above might overstate his games missed due to injury.

He's more of an injury risk than someone who's never been injured, but I don't think that he will be prevented from having a long career in the NBA.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> hm..by that thinking, we should've traded jermaine o'neal for baron davis!


The Blazers and the Hornets make out pretty well while the Pacers and Warriors would be a bit happier keeping things as they actually turned out 

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> The Blazers and the Hornets make out pretty well while the Pacers and Warriors would be a bit happier keeping things as they actually turned out
> 
> Ed O.



bah! there's always a snag!


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Ed O said:


> He's actually been pretty good about playing games in his career. Here's what it looks like:
> 
> 99-00: 82
> 00-01: 82
> ...



Here is another set of numbers to ponder - minutes per game.

00-01 38.9 MPG
01-02 40.5
02-03 37.8
03-04 40.1
04-05 34.4

In 02-03 and 03-04 they KNEW he had injuries, and continued to play him until the wheels fell off. As long as GS doesn't make the same mistake, the odds are pretty good that he will be fine.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> GSW got Baron Davis for Dale freakin' Davis.
> 
> When someone is selling an all-star caliber player for pennies on the dollar, you DO NOT turn your back because you have a 19 year old rookie who might, someday, maybe, be that good himself. :krazy:


They got Speedy Claxton as well who is a pretty decent point guard...but you're right we should have went after Baron and I was saying it all along....I even emailed Nash and he said "At this point in his career, we have no interest in Baron"...


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> John Nash seems to be very slow to react to market conditions. I still have a hard time understanding why he did not get any kind of shooting guard for us in the last year and a half. As I have said before, I think he is not quite the closer on a deal that Whitsitt was. Bob could sell a deal and make it happen. I am not so sure about Nash.
> 
> but I accept the fact that there were no deals that made sense for the franchise
> 
> ...




OK, I poised this situation almost a month ago. My fear of him not reacting quickly or closing a deal still exists. He said he made an offer to a team with multiple 1st round picks. He may or may not of closed the deal as of Tuesday, or if necessary July 1, or they flat out rejected it.

Has he impressed you with the way he has prepared for the draft? Has he done all he should of in getting the players to work out that we needed to see?

Has your thoughts changed at all, seeing what they have brought in?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> Has your thoughts changed at all, seeing what they have brought in?


Nope. I'm a bit disappointed that we don't have a coach in place since this thread was opened, but I'm not worried that they haven't made any moves yet... the draft just has too many variables to plan ahead very far, and I'm hoping that Nash has contingencies in place to adjust to whatever happens.

Ed O.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Wasnt the rumored Redd deal SAR, Outlaw and this years first round pick? Does anyone think this would have been a good deal? :no:


Could you imagine? The Bucks get the #1 pick, the #3 pick, and Outlaw? (not to mention #36) However, at the time this trade was being talked about nobody knew the Blazers would get the #3 pick. Before the trading deadline came & went, Blazer fans weren't AS high on Outlaw either (simply because we hadn't seen much of him) Almost everyone on this board must admit they would have done this trade had they the choice. Does Nash deserve credit for this? Well, I'm not sure he DIDN"T offer this trade and it was the Bucks who said "No Thanks". Plus, the Blazers probably would have finished with a better record with Redd and may not have even been in the lottery. Who knows. I don't mean to be a Nash hater, I'm probably just mentally preparing myself for a draft day dissapointment. Nice attitude, heh?


----------

