# Paul Allen turns down blockbuster!



## DirtMcMoses (Aug 25, 2003)

Jason Quick just said the the Blazers had a deal on the table (involving 4 teams) in which they would accuire Pau Gasol, Mo Pete and Antonio Davis and send out Sheed and Patterson. I guess all parties were ready to pull the trigger until Paul Allen said nixed it becaus of AD's contract. Man, he is turning into the worst owner in sports. He is on Donald Sterlings level now. Davis' contract isn't even that bad and he still has some skill. I am so pissed. We could have had Gasol. I say we boycott the games so this cheapskate loses money. He also said no to signing Drobnjak. What a loser.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DirtMcMoses</b>!
> Jason Quick just said the the Blazers had a deal on the table (involving 4 teams) in which they would accuire Pau Gasol, Mo Pete and Antonio Davis and send out Sheed and Patterson. I guess all parties were ready to pull the trigger until Paul Allen said nixed it becaus of AD's contract. Man, he is turning into the worst owner in sports. He is on Donald Sterlings level now. Davis' contract isn't even that bad and he still has some skill. I am so pissed. We could have had Gasol. I say we boycott the games so this cheapskate loses money. He also said no to signing Drobnjak. What a loser.


 

Gasol, Mo Pete, and AD.

as a Mav fan Im glad he turned this down.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Whether he loses $100m or "just" loses $50m, Paul Allen gets ripped. Sheesh.

Ed O.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

He killed it? This that rumored KMart deal?

-Petey


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Whether he loses $100m or "just" loses $50m, Paul Allen gets ripped. Sheesh.
> 
> Ed O.


yah, he's the worst owner in pro sports! I'd rather have our owner lose more money every year (yes, due to his own doing) and stick it to us fans, and not care about us!

give us bloated contracts, or give me death!!!!!


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

If those rumors are true I'm shocked thats the type of deal the blazers need.

I think it was Jason Quick who said that, but still if it is true wtf is allen doing??? AD contract isn't that horrible.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Whether he loses $100m or "just" loses $50m, Paul Allen gets ripped. Sheesh.
> 
> Ed O.


What Ed said. :yes:


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

This was the deal I was hoping for. I think I would take on AD's contract just because we could use him in the middle and he is a good influence on young players.

But, I can understand PA's concern about more big contracts.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

Even though he has become tighter with the purse strings lately, Paul Allen is still one of the best owners in pro sports. You guys are very very lucky to have this guy and it is ridiculous to bad mouth him just because he doesn't want to lose a hundred frickin million dollars a year. Show a little gratitude.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I can see Mr. Allens concerns, but that might have been a real sweet deal.

Gasol at PF
AD to backup Davis at C
Mo Pete at SF/SG.

We woud loose out on some serious D by Sheed and Patterson. But it would provide some depth and Gasol has some skills.

reference thread
http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51038&forumid=14




In the Jason Quick recap, Mr. Allen also turned down a Drobnjak 2 year $2 mill deal. Only $1 mill a year and he turned it down!  Can you say squeek.....


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

:waits anxioustly for a repsonse from cimalee :


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Well, your opinion might be right - that the Blazers turning this deal down was a mistake - but I must take issue with several things you said:



> I guess all parties were ready to pull the trigger until Paul Allen said nixed it becaus of AD's contract. Man, he is turning into the worst owner in sports. He is on Donald Sterlings level now.


This is laughable if you are serious. The Clippers are a laughingstock because of Sterling - even SI proclaimed them the "worst franchise in sports" a little while back. I'm just going to assume that you're exaggerating.....



> Davis' contract isn't even that bad and he still has some skill.


Davis will be 35 on Halloween. He missed 29 games last year. His shooting % was a career-low 40.7% (this from a guy who plays inside!). His rebounding and shot-blocking numbers have gone down the last two years, while his turnover numbers have gone up during the same period. This tells me that his body is wearing down and his skills are declining.

AND, he makes $37 million over the next 3 years, while his skills and numbers continue to go down. No, I totally disagree with you. Davis has one of the WORST deals in the NBA right now.



> We could have had Gasol.


At the price of losing financial flexibility over the next couple of years. Say that Gasol and Wallace each sign a contract that starts at $9 million when their current deal runs out. Here's what the bottom line for the Blazers' finances would be if they did not make the trade:

2003-04: Wallace = $17.0 million
2004-05: Wallace = $9.0 million
2005-06: Wallace = $10.1 million

Here's what it looks like if they made the trade:

2003-04: Gasol+Davis+Peterson = $17.0 million
2004-05: Gasol+Davis+Peterson = $20.7 million
2005-06: Gasol+Davis+Peterson = $24.5 million

That's a big difference in team salary! I'm not saying that I totally agree with the Blazers' decision to turn down this trade, only that I understand why.

And who's to say that the Blazers won't be able to trade Rasheed in a better deal as the season progresses, as teams have to pay less of his salary and will be looking to dump contracts the further into the season that we go? If they decide to trade him at all....



> I say we boycott the games so this cheapskate loses money.


Allen lost over $100 million last year. Is it any wonder why he's tightening the purse strings? Especially since he's expected to lose $60 million this year? 

You want a bad owner, look to someone like Sterling. Or even Jerry Reinsdorf. Jerry made more profit than any other NBA owner last year, continues to raise ticket prices, and puts a pitiful team on the court year after year. THAT's a bad owner....


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DirtMcMoses</b>!
> Jason Quick just said the the Blazers had a deal on the table (involving 4 teams) in which they would accuire Pau Gasol, Mo Pete and Antonio Davis and send out Sheed and Patterson. I guess all parties were ready to pull the trigger until Paul Allen said nixed it becaus of AD's contract. *Man, he is turning into the worst owner in sports. He is on Donald Sterlings level now.* Davis' contract isn't even that bad and he still has some skill. I am so pissed. We could have had Gasol. I say we boycott the games so this cheapskate loses money. He also said no to signing Drobnjak. What a loser.


Paul Allen is a great owner, sure he isn't a Mark Cuban and the thinking over at One Center Court has changed, but to compare him to Donald Sterling is way off base.

Portland has thrown money at the players with contracts that just don't make sense and now he wants to clean it up and get things under control? I mean would you buy something for $1.00 or pay $5.00 for the same product. Allen has given the players the contracts and what have they produced? If anything, Paul Allen has been overpaying for this Blazer product for years!

Allen is still losing money on this team and you compare him to Donald Sterling? If he was a Donald Sterling you wouldn't have a Wallace or Stoudamire to worry about. You wouldn't need to worry about the playoffs, heck, why goto any games?


----------



## NYsteak (Aug 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DirtMcMoses</b>!
> Jason Quick just said the the Blazers had a deal on the table (involving 4 teams) in which they would accuire Pau Gasol, Mo Pete and Antonio Davis and send out Sheed and Patterson. I guess all parties were ready to pull the trigger until Paul Allen said nixed it becaus of AD's contract. Man, he is turning into the worst owner in sports. He is on Donald Sterlings level now. Davis' contract isn't even that bad and he still has some skill. I am so pissed. We could have had Gasol. I say we boycott the games so this cheapskate loses money. He also said no to signing Drobnjak. What a loser.


more details needed. I don't get it.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> Even though he has become tighter with the purse strings lately, Paul Allen is still one of the best owners in pro sports. You guys are very very lucky to have this guy and it is ridiculous to bad mouth him just because he doesn't want to lose a hundred frickin million dollars a year. Show a little gratitude.


Right on, he is so generous he screwed other owners. Didn't he build your b-ball arena out of his own pockets? 

-Petey


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

*Re: Re: Paul Allen turns down blockbuster!*



> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> At the price of losing financial flexibility over the next couple of years. Say that Gasol and Wallace each sign a contract that starts at $9 million when their current deal runs out. Here's what the bottom line for the Blazers' finances would be if they did not make the trade:
> 
> 2003-04: Wallace = $17.0 million
> ...


Hold on - it's not quite that bad. You have to add on Ruben Patterson to Portland's side of the ledger... that'd mean comparing something like 

would have to be even this season (to make the trade work) but must be closer to $21 mil on each side... then comparing $13 mil to $20.7 mil next year, then $14 mil to $24.5 mil the year after. I don't know the exact numbers because I don't know if Patterson's set to make more in the future. If so, the numbers get even closer to balancing out. 

I think in terms of talent this would have been a slight improvement mainly because Gasol is going to get better, and there's no guarantee either Sheed or Patterson will. Looked like a good deal, but I'm not ready to cash in my tickets and tear up my t-shirts over it. 

Stop me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Jerry West is one of the very best in the business of understanding basketball talent. Anyone wondering why he is happy to trade Gasol? Seems to me that this is a red flag in itself, unless someone knows that Gasol absolutely hates living in that fine southern city. Given Gasol's relatively cheap current contract, why trade him? There must be something clearly lacking.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Paul Allen turns down blockbuster!*



> Originally posted by <b>Public Defender</b>!
> 
> 
> Hold on - it's not quite that bad. You have to add on Ruben Patterson to Portland's side of the ledger... that'd mean comparing something like
> ...


Ruben Patterson $5,445,600 $5,899,400 $6,353,200 $6,807,000 

So wouldn't it be:
21m vs 21m
14.9m vs 20.7m
16.5m vs 24.5m
6.8m vs 0m since rubens contract is one year longer

59.2m vs 66.2 Total

So thats a 7mil difference plus we'd have more players (AD Mo Gasol vs Wallace Patt)


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Paul Allen turns down blockbuster!*



> Originally posted by <b>Public Defender</b>!
> 
> Hold on - it's not quite that bad. You have to add on Ruben Patterson to Portland's side of the ledger... that'd mean comparing something like
> 
> ...


The trade that I heard reported last week did not include Patterson. Rasheed's deal alone matches with the 3 that Portland would have gotten in return. If Patterson was included, then Portland would probably have to take back a similar contract ($5.4 million this year) because the other 3 teams are also over the cap.

So, the $20.7 million jumps to over $26 million and the $24.5 jumps to over $31 million unless Portland can get an expiring contract in return for Patterson. Of course, we're speaking in theoretics because I don't know who the Blazers were supposed to get back in return for Patterson.


----------



## lakerman83 (Aug 26, 2003)

*Great Deal Gone Sour*

That sucks! 
How could they turn down the sweetest deal? I'd take Gasol/Mo Pete/AD any day for Sheed and Ruben, three players for the price of one.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

the other big question I have is what would happen to Zach Randolph if we acquired Gasol. Both play power forward. I can't help but remember Zach's career night he had while thoroughly dominating Pau. 

we'd probably have to play Pau at SF or C, which he can't really do as well as Wallace. 

however, if a year from now we are watching Wallace just walk as a free agent (as Quick suspects might happen) so we can save money, I will be thoroughly, thoroughly peeved about this missed opportunity.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

It wouldnt have been a bad deal , i say if they plan on letting sheed walk next year they might need to trade him , I love Gasols game even tho hes soft but everyone is not a tiger like Zach


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

I support all that paul allen is doing , he is about making money not losing it , and still when he could get a bigtime free agent will put up the big bucks because he loves basketball he loves winning


----------



## rynobot (Oct 10, 2002)

Gasol is a verstile basketball player. He has the quicks to play som small foward, and he has add muscle to play some center. I think he would have complemented Z-Bo very well. I think this is what your lineup would have looked like

C: Gasol, D. Davis
PF: Z-Bo, A. Davis
SF:Wells, Mo-Pete
SG: Anderson, Woods
PG: Stoudimare, McInnis


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

where is qyntel ???????


----------



## rynobot (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> where is qyntel ???????


 I knew I was forgetting someone.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Iam a huge sheed supporter but if we could get somebody like Gasol I would be down


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

It would be a decent trade, but nothing worth drooling over. Gasol's nice, but there's not much of a gap between him and Sheed. If you think he's going to get a lot better, it's a good deal, and if this is pretty much it, then it's an ok deal. AD's contract is truly awful for what you get, though, and it would be a lot like getting another Damon. I can't blame him for turning it down.

If you get an expensive deal that lands you a legit franchise player, then I'd be unhappy about it being turned down for financial reasons. I'm at best indifferent about a deal that doesn't make your team much better (if any) while costing a bundle.


----------



## MrWonderful (May 18, 2003)

*Don't badmouth P. A. over the money!*

You guys might not have been around during the Weinberg era, or have forgotten how frustrating it was to have a tightwad owner.

If you want to criticize Paul, talk about his propensity to tinker (the Carlisimo experiment is a good example). Then I'd have to agree with you.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

More Blazer payroll cutting...

This would of been a pretty good deal. You get Gasol, who is similar to Sheed, but he's younger and doesn't have character problems. Mo-Pete could of been your back up SG/SF, nad Davis could of been your back-up or starting center.

I can see why he turned it down though. AD's 3 years and $37 Mill probably killed the deal. I can see another problem too, in that Zach and Gasol would need to be resigned the same offseason. Portland might of had to make a choice between them...:whoknows:


Turning down the Drobnjak deal seems bizzare to me. 2 years at $2Mill ? That's $1Mill per season! That is a very reasonable deal. What is the worst that could of happened...the Sonics matching the offer sheet ? :no:


----------



## King Of The World (Sep 12, 2003)

The Davis Boyz coulda been reunited!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> More Blazer payroll cutting...


Where?

Refusing to take on additional salary isn't cutting.

You must have attended some robyg1974 math classes.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

More on the proposed trade, slightly diff scenario presented by the post

http://www.nypost.com/sports/40082.htm


If Toronto wants Mutumbo. They need to cough up something more than AD. In the three way = PDX, TOr, NJ. NJ gets a steal.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bwatcher</b>!
> Jerry West is one of the very best in the business of understanding basketball talent. Anyone wondering why he is happy to trade Gasol? Seems to me that this is a red flag in itself, unless someone knows that Gasol absolutely hates living in that fine southern city. Given Gasol's relatively cheap current contract, why trade him? There must be something clearly lacking.


I completely agree, Bwatcher. Further, 'Sheed is better suited to play with Zach than Gasol is, IMO, by a fairly large margin. All in all, I'm inclined to remain patient about this whole thing for the time being.


----------



## Blazer4ever (Feb 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bwatcher</b>!
> Jerry West is one of the very best in the business of understanding basketball talent. Anyone wondering why he is happy to trade Gasol? Seems to me that this is a red flag in itself...


I don't care how good a GM Jerry West is and why he wants to trade Gasol. For Pau, I would send-out any player in Red-and-Black, he's better than anyone we got.
I live in Europe and have seen him play in the European championship this past week, leading the Spanish team to an unbeaten record so far and simply destroying every competition. He has been better than Novitzky, Peja or Parker, more dominant than any other Euro-Star. And He's Just Gonna Get Better!!
If we can get Gasol AND Mo Pete for Rasheed and Ruben, we would be guaranteeing (sp?) a VERY bright future for this franchise. One good point-guard away from being a power-house for years to come!
I honestly think that in 2-3 years, we would look back at the summer of 2003 and remember the time we could have gotten Pau Gasol but didn't as one of the biggest mistakes in Blazer history.

(That doesn't mean that Paul Allen isn't one of the best owners in Sports -- he definitely is -- just that Pau Gasol, IMO, is on his way to being an improved version of Dirk Novitzky and would make him regret this last decision very much...)


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

If Toronto really wanted Mutumbo that bad they can send AD and Mo Pete to NJ in a straight across deal. No need for Sheed to go to NJ.But Maybe NJ does not liek that one.

A NJ team with Martin and Sheed would be interesting.

I still like the version of us getting a young Gasol. Although our D would suffer, but depth would be better with AD behind DD. But too much $ for Mr. Allen.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

question if portland wants either gasol or k mart are they gonna resign them


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> More on the proposed trade, slightly diff scenario presented by the post
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/sports/40082.htm
> ...


Thanks for the link!

I hate to point out the obvious, but if Allen turned down the deal because of Antonio Davis' contract already, what makes anyone think that he will take Davis this time around?

BTW, according to this source, if the Blazers got A. Davis, they wouldn't have to pay him $37 million - they'd have to pay him $42.55 million! I didn't realize he had a trade kicker. That's 5.55 million more reasons to say no to this deal.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> According to this source, if the Blazers got A. Davis, they wouldn't have to pay him $37 million - they'd have to pay him $42.55 million! I didn't realize he had a trade kicker. That's 5.55 million more reasons to say no to this deal.


Is that perhaps how the Grizzlies and Raptors were going to balance out Patterson's contract? 

As far as I understand it, the numbers only need to balance out at the time of the trade, and a trade kicker is meant to be included in that number. 

After all, according to J-Quick, the trade _was_ for Sheed and Ruben, not Sheed alone as you were alleging. Unless you have information to the contrary?


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> question if portland wants either gasol or k mart are they gonna resign them


I would think so, KMart should be the cheaper of the 2 or 3 (if you include Wallace).

-Petey


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rynobot</b>!
> Gasol is a verstile basketball player. He has the quicks to play som small foward, and he has add muscle to play some center. I think he would have complemented Z-Bo very well. I think this is what your lineup would have looked like
> 
> C: Gasol, D. Davis
> ...


Does anyone know the Grizzlies' side of the equation...? West must have had a very enticing offer to give up a versatile player like Gasol. If we would have received Wallace in return, I would be highly disappointed.

Also, an interesting note in that the Davis's's's would be reunited.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

There is always filler required, but the principal players I believe were as follows

In the 4 team scenario

NJ gets Sheed
Memphis gets Kenyon Martin
Toronto gets Mutumbo
Portland gets AD, Mo Pete, and Gasol


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Public Defender</b>!
> 
> 
> Is that perhaps how the Grizzlies and Raptors were going to balance out Patterson's contract?
> ...


Perhaps, but only partially. The trade kicker would count for $1.8 million while Patterson makes $5.4 million - meaning that Portland would almost certainly have to take back other contracts.

BTW, go back and listen to the Quick chat again. No mention was made of Patterson in this reported deal. They do talk about Patterson being traded in the next segment, but here's what was said in the discussion about this trade:


*Q -* "(CSMN) said that there was a 3 way deal that - the - involving Rasheed Wallace going to New Jersey, Kenyon Martin going to Memphis, Mutombo going to Toronto and Antonio Davis, Morris Peterson and Pau Gasol coming to Portland. Have you heard anything about that? What's the likelihood of something like that happening? Or are those talks completely dead?"

*A -* "Uh, yes, I have heard that. Umm, I heard again, umm, that Paul Allen shot down, uhh, that deal because of the - Antonio Davis being included in that. I think Antonio has 3 years left on his contract and I think he's in the double digi - digit range. He didn't want to take on that much contract, so I think that deal is dead."


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

In the very short term, we save money this year.

Portland sends Sheed $18 mil = $18 mill OUT
Portland receives Gasol $3.4 mill, Antonio Davis $12 mill, and Morris Petterson $1.6 mill = $17 mill IN

plus we not only save money, but it gives us the depth we want so we do not need to sign any more FA's. This further enhances the trade. We save even more money due to not having to spend more for depth.

We actually save $1 mil + $1 mil in luxury tax for a total of $2 mill over the roster as is. Money is money, and before you say its only $2 mill to Mr. Allen.... according to Jason Quick, he passed on a 2 year $2 mill total deal for Drobjnak. Not $2 mill a year... $1 mil for each year for a total of $2 mil. So it does apparently matter.



PF Stoudamire, McInnis
SG Wells, Anderson
SF Peterson, Patterson, Woods
PF Gasol, Randolph, Outlaw=IR
C DD, AD, Boomtje

DD, AD and Gasol can rotate around at PF, C. I think either Davis might be better D at the PF spot for the big PF's in the league.



Then possibly follow it up by trading Patterson to Denver or Utah for a future pick to save more money.


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> *Q -* "(CSMN) said that there was a 3 way deal that - the - involving Rasheed Wallace going to New Jersey, Kenyon Martin going to Memphis, Mutombo going to Toronto and Antonio Davis, Morris Peterson and Pau Gasol coming to Portland. Have you heard anything about that? What's the likelihood of something like that happening? Or are those talks completely dead?"
> 
> *A -* "Uh, yes, I have heard that. Umm, I heard again, umm, that Paul Allen shot down, uhh, that deal because of the - Antonio Davis being included in that. I think Antonio has 3 years left on his contract and I think he's in the double digi - digit range. He didn't want to take on that much contract, so I think that deal is dead."


many things to say: first, i'm not sure who was being interviewed here, but i don't think it could be much of a credible source at all if he's not even sure what AD's remaining contract looks like. i mean, he THINKS "he's in the double digit range"- if he's not precise enough to know exactly how his contract impacts this potential deal, then he's all the more likely to have forgotten some other important detail. he's just not the ideal messenger.

in other words, he may have the right idea regarding the goings-on behind board room doors, but that short comment reflects somebody who is just not detail-oriented. people like that often tend to forget other pieces. i can't put much creedence in the information provided by a source who knows less than the average out-of-the-loop NBA fan.

second, these rumours regarding mutombo are getting worse and worse by the day. on the raptors board, i had just read that it was murray and AD for deke; now it's mopete and AD for deke. if it's truly something that's on the table, i'm disgusted. mopete and AD are far more valuable to toronto than anyone that can be acquired in return. in that respect, it doesn't make sense.

it also doesn't make sense for the following reason: AD has reportedly sold his house in toronto. however, glen grunwald was interviewed soon thereafter (on wednesday) to comment on speculation and said, in no uncertain terms, that he fully expects AD to be one of the most important contributors on this year's roster. he made it obvious that he felt AD was an undervalued trading piece at this time, and that the sale of his property should not at all signal an imminent trade. he said that AD may be the second most important raptor due to what he brings to the team in terms of size, toughness, leadership, rebounding, etc. 

in response to this, i wondered: 

1) okay, if he hasn't yet jumped on the anti-AD bandwagon, then he's probably expecting to get someone valuable in return in order to justify a possible transaction. furthermore, if he thought mutombo was worthwhile in this regard, he probably wouldn't include mo peterson (of all players) as "filler". mo peterson if not "filler" for the toronto raptors (he has the cheapest contract you could imagine), and dikembe mutombo (with HIS contract) is probably not considered to be in current demand around the league. the trade wouldn't make sense from that angle...

...however...

2) a day later (yesterday), grunwald was interviewed live on prime time sports (here in canada). he got into some conversation with the host of the radio program, and seemed to be educating him on the raptors cap situation. the host then asked, "when will the raptors have enough cap room to pursue the marquee name free agents?" grunwald replied, after *much* hesitation and deliberation, "uhh...uhh... two years." 

i thought, TWO years? two years happens to be the remaining length on mutombo's contract. none of the big contracts in toronto currently expire in two years. it would lead one to believe that grunwald is anticipating the consummation of a trade for a high-priced player with 2 years left on his deal (mutombo).

but of course, the earlier points would lead to the opposite conclusion. 

the point is that nothing seems to making much sense to me at the moment. it's usually at times like these that the big trades seem to happen. 

anyway, there's your toronto perspective. sorry for the long post.

peace


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*ballocks* -

The quote is from Jason Quick, a beat writer from the Oregonian (newspaper) who did an internet chat yesterday through Oregonlive.com. I posted that specific piece only to point out to *Public Defender* that Patterson's name was not part of this specific trade rumor.

As to what Toronto gets out of this deal, you're right - nothing more than a year shorter contract in Mutombo. I wonder, too, since there is a rumor that Mutombo might be willing to accept a buyout that's $5 million less per year than his current deal if Toronto is banking on them being able to use that option with him. Of course, that leaves the Raptor really thin at center, so that doesn't really make sense either.

It doesn't sound like it will happen, in any case....


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Where?
> 
> Refusing to take on additional salary isn't cutting.
> ...


Instead of dealing Sheed and taking on other players, they are gonna let Sheed walk, cutting payroll...That's my opinion anyway. 

You are right in the sense that turning the trade down isn't cutting payroll, but it is reducing future payroll by not taking on the extra contracts.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

It kinda sucks because he's lost so much money on crappy players like Kemp and Stoudamire, he may as well make a deal that will really help us out in the long run by getting Gasol. 

Imagine a frontline of Woods, Randolph and Gasol!


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> The quote is from Jason Quick, a beat writer from the Oregonian (newspaper) who did an internet chat yesterday through Oregonlive.com. I posted that specific piece only to point out to *Public Defender* that Patterson's name was not part of this specific trade rumor.


BTW, SCBF - I never listened to the chat myself (my MAC doesn't seem to get along well with Oregonlive's streaming capability), so I was going off a second-hand account from a post earlier in this thread... and trying to figure out how it would work. 



> originally posted by the originator of this thread - <b>not</b>SCBF
> 
> Jason Quick just said the the Blazers had a deal on the table (involving 4 teams) in which they would accuire Pau Gasol, Mo Pete and Antonio Davis and send out Sheed and Patterson.


I didn't mean to impugn your knowledge but it seems that neither of us know exactly how it would've worked. All we know is that there's general agreement that Paul Allen took one look at the numbers accompanying Antonio Davis' contract and the buck stopped. 

One question, though - if Davis has a five million dollar trade kicker, why does it count only $1.8 mil in trade? Seems odd, but the fine details of the CBA escape me.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> 
> 
> Instead of dealing Sheed and taking on other players, they are gonna let Sheed walk, cutting payroll...That's my opinion anyway.
> ...


Or they might just sign him to a more realistic contract next season. I think that if as long as he gives half the game he should get half the green.

What team out there is going to sign him to a 17 million a year contract? Let me answer for you .................................no one!


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

If that is the case, and Allen turned down this deal b\c of A.Davis contract, Then he is just plain dumb, and quite frankly too involved in personnel moves. There is NO ONE that we are going to sign through FA that would have been better than Gasol, NO ONE, And you can forget those pipe dreams of getting McGrady, KG or Kobe, that is pure lunacy. So who, in 2005 were we going to get that would be better than Gasol?, who at age 23 is looking like quite a player. A.Davis deal is a bitter pill to swallow, but most likely one we will only have to suffer through for two years, he may actually be a tradeable commodity in the last year of his deal. But, even if he isn't, he is well worth the price of getting GAsol and Mo Pete, who is another nice young player as well. That would be a nice young core to see develop 2-3 years from now - Gasol, Zach, Qyntel, Wells, Mo Pete, Outlaw, that is a good young core IMO. 

Dumb move , if true, and quite frankly a REALLY bad sign of things to come.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Is it that hard to believe that Wallace will re-sign with Portland for less money next year?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Is it that hard to believe that Wallace will re-sign with Portland for less money next year?


Yeah, for a reasonable amount. I think Sheed wants J.O'Neal type jack, and he isn't worth it, not by a longshot. But even if we could sign him for a greatly reduced ($6mil or less) amount, why would you want to Howie? We are not going anywhere with him on this team, better to trade him for another young player IMO, than waste another 4-5 years watching him underperform. Gasol would be a great talent to get for him, and one who is SEVEN years younger.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> Yeah, for a reasonable amount. I think Sheed wants J.O'Neal type jack, and he isn't worth it, not by a longshot.


I generally agree with this. I don't think Jermaine's a better player, but because of his age and additional upside, I think that he's worth more per year than Rasheed is.



> But even if we could sign him for a greatly reduced ($6mil or less) amount, why would you want to Howie? We are not going anywhere with him on this team, better to trade him for another young player IMO, than waste another 4-5 years watching him underperform. Gasol would be a great talent to get for him, and one who is SEVEN years younger.


Rasheed's "underperforming" at a near all-star level. He's led Portland to two conference finals in the last five years, so I'm not buying that the team is not going anywhere BECAUSE of him. He might not be good enough to carry a team like Duncan, but other than Duncan (and maybe Shaq) there AREN'T any players like that. Gasol certainly isn't there yet, and probably never will be.

If Portland had an opportunity to re-sign him at ~$6m per, they'd be INSANE not to do so. He'd have a ton of trade value, at least. If ZR doesn't develop as hoped/anticipated, Rasheed's still better than most of the starting 4's in the NBA, and the Blazers would love to have such a great bargain.

Ed O.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I generally agree with this. I don't think Jermaine's a better player, but because of his age and additional upside, I think that he's worth more per year than Rasheed is.
> ...


I have to admit that I totally agree with this comment. If Rasheed signs for anywhere from 6 to 8 million a season Portland would be crazy to unload him. Remember that in another year Damon's contract falls off and that would leave Portland in line to go after that free agent superstar that fans in Portland have longed for.

Who is to say that in two years Bonzi or Zach don't step up and become superstars with Rasheed out there "just ballin". I think that Rasheed isn't going to have to many teams looking to give him max money next offseason, so Portland is as likely as any for Rasheed to end up. If he doesn't want to be the superstar then he should understand that he isn't going to get the superstar money and accept his role and pay cut. Seems pretty simple. :yes:


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Again, I ask you... What superstar FA is POR goping to sign, IF we have tons of cap space? Seriously, give me a name that we could REALLISTICALLY get. And don't even bother listing KG, McGrady, Kobe b\c guys that is pure wishful thinking.

This is a moot point anyway, as Sheed signing for $6mil is just not going to happen.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> Again, I ask you... What superstar FA is POR goping to sign, IF we have tons of cap space? Seriously, give me a name that we could REALLISTICALLY get. And don't even bother listing KG, McGrady, Kobe b\c guys that is pure wishful thinking.
> 
> *This is a moot point anyway, as Sheed signing for $6mil is just not going to happen.*


Maybe, but then I ask you. Who is going to offer him max money? There are no teams worth playing for that are going to have the money to sign Rasheed. I believe that if Portland offers him 6 - 9 million a year he will take it. I would be suprised if any team would offer him what he is making now.

In two years there could be a number of players that could be up and coming stars. There isn't anything out there who is outstanding right now on the radar, but who is to say that some Joe Blow isn't going to have some breakout year and rise to the top. How is it that Bonzi Wells was unknown to even Portland fans when he came to town and now is on the cusp of becoming a star calibur player. Player develop and we talking about two years out. I'm sorry that I can't give you a solid name, but I bet you that Portland scouts will be looking at every player worth looking at.

Personally I don't see any blockbusting signings for Portland, but it does give the flexabilty to do so and that is something that Portland has not be able to do in years. They will have the ablity to lure any free agents out there and that is what we want as fans, right?

It is all a matter of becoming financially responsible and that is the bottom line with this new group. So unless you *are* named Duncan, Garnett, or Kidd you aren't going to be getting max money from this new Portland management.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

If in a few years all goes well and Portland's current young guys are ready to step up and star, they'll have Q at 2, Outlaw at 3, Zack at 4, Nedzad at center. Assuming that all of those guys are worthy of starter's type minutes (30-35), there will still be lots of other minutes to be had. If the character concerns many here have with Sheed are as overstated as many Blazer insiders (from coach Cheeks on down) would have us believe, what's bad about the prospect of having a 30-35 year old Wallace available for the 30+ minutes backing up the 4 and 5 spots? Dale (who's 34 now) will likely be gone in two seasons and Wallace, barring injury, should still be a very effective player who's able to get it done on both ends of the court. If he's signed to a reasonable deal (I'd say something around 10-14 per range is that) for say 5 or 6 years, where is the downside?

6'10 guys with ability are not easy to obtain. I'm sure Nash and Co. realize this, and hope they're paying attention to whats really important in putting together a team. Whatever way they decide to go with Wallace, I will give them the benefit of the doubt at that time that they are making the right decisions. Once my perfect 20/20 hindsight kicks in...

STOMP


----------

