# Nets And Blazers Agree To Abdur-Rahim Sign-And-Trade (Merged)



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

A team source said the Nets and Blazers agreed in principle to a sign-and-trade that will get them Shareef Abdur-Rahim on a six-year contract worth roughly $38 million.

In return, *the Nets will send a lottery protected 2006 first-round pick to the Blazers.* 

Way to go John Nash! :clap: 


Linkage


----------



## azsun18 (Aug 12, 2004)

*Re: Nets And Blazers Agree To Abdur-Rahim Sign-And-Trade*

Cool, good job by Nash. 3 picks is too much for next year, so we can use those to help persuade teams to take on bad contracts?? I also think the TE that has no value will be put to use.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Nets And Blazers Agree To Abdur-Rahim Sign-And-Trade*

Watch out for the merge!


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Nets And Blazers Agree To Abdur-Rahim Sign-And-Trade*

This is great news! John Nash keeps impressing me this offseason... at least a lot more than last year.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nets And Blazers Agree To Abdur-Rahim Sign-And-Trade*



Talkhard said:


> Watch out for the merge!


Yea, your right, but I thought that the title alone was worth putting this in its own thread. The other thread is a bit of a monster now.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: Nets And Blazers Agree To Abdur-Rahim Sign-And-Trade*



HOWIE said:


> Yea, your right, but I thought that the title alone was worth putting this in its own thread. The other thread is a bit of a monster now.


Yeah, so did I when I started one yesterday afternoon...only to have it sucked into the SAR monster thread.


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Nets And Blazers Agree To Abdur-Rahim Sign-And-Trade*

:jam:Somethin' for Nothin', and Picks for free!:jam:

Good Job Nash. You never blinked, and that can't help but increase your reputation as a tough negotiator. :cheers:

:banana:

Go Blazers


----------



## ravor44 (Feb 26, 2005)

*Re: Nets And Blazers Agree To Abdur-Rahim Sign-And-Trade*

I'm happy for all the Portland Fans..at least you got a good GM who is also a good negotiator...Congratz to all..and Good Luck for Next Season.
Not only the Portland Team benefited from the S&T but also the New Jersey Nets.. :angel:


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Nets And Blazers Agree To Abdur-Rahim Sign-And-Trade*

Great Job Nash! :clap: Now I wonder what kind of trades he has brewin, he is on a roll he should keep it up!


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Nash makes Thorn eat his words*

Remember what Rod Thorn said only last week about the idea of giving up a #1 pick for Shareef Abdur-Rahim?



> "Sure, we've had these conversations," Thorn repeated. "But I'm not giving a No. 1, I'll tell you that right now."


Uh . . . Care to revise that statement, Rod?

John Nash stared you down and you blinked first, my friend. You gave us the No. 1 pick we wanted, plus the $5 million trade exception. So much for your big talk. Nash has made you look like a fool.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*

:clap:

Next thing you know we'll see Nash on ESPN playing poker.


----------



## ThatNetGuy (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: Nets And Blazers Agree To Abdur-Rahim Sign-And-Trade*

Hey guys...wanted to thank those of you who came on our board and were extremely civil. On other boards it wouldn't happen. I think what happened was what everyone expected...as one of you guys said on our board "except for the extreme homers". Anyway nice job, Nash and Thorn both did their jobs well, as did SAR and his agent. The lottery protection probably doesn't mean much we should be atleast in the playoffs next year, but if we have some disaster then we don't have to suffer the loss of the pick too.
TGIF and go have a beer...bill me later. :cheers:


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

*Re: Nets And Blazers Agree To Abdur-Rahim Sign-And-Trade*

Does "lottery-protected" mean the Nets keep the pick for next year if they miss the playoffs regardless of how the ping-pong balls land - or does it just protect if it's in the top 3 (or something)? 

Of course, I agree, that the Nets will likely make the playoffs, and could well be a top 4 team if Carter, Jefferson, Abdur-Rahim and Kidd stay healthy all season. But if things go awry, I'd like to know what exactly happens with that pick.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nets And Blazers Agree To Abdur-Rahim Sign-And-Trade*



Public Defender said:


> Does "lottery-protected" mean the Nets keep the pick for next year if they miss the playoffs regardless of how the ping-pong balls land - or does it just protect if it's in the top 3 (or something)?


Probably the former. If they're in the lottery, our pick would be delayed a year.

Personally, I'd prefer a pick in 2007, because it's going to be a stronger draft and we already have two first rounders next year AND we have so many young guys with guaranteed contracts, but I'm happy we got a first and am not complaining.

Ed O.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

*Re: Nets And Blazers Agree To Abdur-Rahim Sign-And-Trade*

So John Nash has turned the Wallace trade into Theo and a first round draft pick or an additional negoiational tool for trades or moving up in the draft and add the TE exception that means we can possibaly get --- what? 

Not bad for a quy who has been called an"************' many times by many posters on this board. Maybe some of us owe him an apolagy or maybe just a thank you will do. 

A lot of times we get upset because we do not know all the facts and what is going on and has been done and said allready and we over react. 

Years ago I remember Dwight Eisenhower made what seemed to me to be a poor decision as related to the Berlin crisis in the 50s I think. Several years later I read his explanation of that decision and it made perfect sense having the facts that he had. 

I learned to go a little slow on condenation from that point on. At least until I had more info. 

GOOD JOB JOHN NASH!!

gatorpops


----------



## Rip City Road Blocker (Jul 23, 2004)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*

Nash is earning his keep. I think he's got his job figured out now.


----------



## AUNDRE (Jul 11, 2005)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*

Abdur-Rahim is worth it for us tho............. Thorn is making moves, VC and SAR = Top 3 in East....


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



siK_sTyLeZz said:


> Abdur-Rahim is worth it for us tho............. Thorn is making moves, VC and SAR = Top 3 in East....


Thorn is kicking *** for you guys. Carter, Shareef, and Uncle Cliffy for peanuts, plus you still have your MLE to go after Dooling (or someone else who can help fill a hole in your rotation).

I think everyone won in this trade, but I'm reserving judgement on the Blazers end of it until I see what Nash does with the pick and/or the TE. If he can use that pick - and/or any of the other 2 first-rounders he's got in next year's draft - to move Ruben and/or DA for players with expiring contracts who can help in 2005-2006, then I will say Nash did good in this trade.

PBF


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*

Nash did nothing remarkable in my opinion. SAR was definitely worth a 1st round pick and the one we got is lottery protected.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



siK_sTyLeZz said:


> Abdur-Rahim is worth it for us tho............. Thorn is making moves, VC and SAR = Top 3 in East....


on paper, maybe. in reality, who knows.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



siK_sTyLeZz said:


> Abdur-Rahim is worth it for us tho............. Thorn is making moves, VC and SAR = Top 3 in East....


It's time for Shareef to put up or shut up. Dude has never played for a winning team. He's had built-in excuses of being on bad teams, Vancouver, Atlanta, Portland, blah blah blah. The pressure is on him to perform now. He's playing ina weak division, and the Nets should be stacked. Of course, the pressure isn't that bad when NJ is willing to commit six guaranteed years and $40 million to a guy who has never played in a playoff game in his NBA career.

Way to go, Jersey. I still think, long-term, your best player is Richard Jefferson, and you guys have treated him like garbage.

-Pop


----------



## Rip City Road Blocker (Jul 23, 2004)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



SodaPopinski said:


> Way to go, Jersey. I still think, long-term, your best player is Richard Jefferson, and you guys have treated him like garbage.
> 
> -Pop


Obviously he is their best player long term, because everyone else they have is aging or about to(VC), the Nets better make something happen in the next 2 years, because they will have to be rebuilding after that. They still need to get younger, and that pick would have helped.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



SodaPopinski said:


> Way to go, Jersey. I still think, long-term, your best player is Richard Jefferson, and you guys have treated him like garbage.


How have they treated him like garbage? I haven't heard anything negative between them and him, maybe I've missed something?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



SodaPopinski said:


> Way to go, Jersey. I still think, long-term, your best player is Richard Jefferson, and you guys have treated him like garbage.


How have the treated him like garbage? 

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Ed O said:


> How have the treated him like garbage?
> 
> Ed O.


paid him an obscene amount of money, thats how.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Rip City Road Blocker said:


> Obviously he is their best player long term, because everyone else they have is aging or about to(VC), the Nets better make something happen in the next 2 years, because they will have to be rebuilding after that. They still need to get younger, and that pick would have helped.


I think you overstate their ages. With the exception of Kidd they all have quite a few years left in them. 28 is still in prime territory, and plenty of players are still effective into their 30s.

Jefferson- 25
Abdur-Rahim- 28
Carter- 28
Kidd- 32


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Foulzilla said:


> Jefferson- 25
> Abdur-Rahim- 28
> Carter- 28
> Kidd- 32


You're right... their core isn't _that_ old. They also have a nice component younger players that will play important roles and have a chance to step up over the next few years:

Krstic- 22 (on Monday)
Collins- 26 
Ilic- 21
Wright- 21

The Nets are in pretty good shape. If the Clippers end up stinking (which, on paper, they should not, but they ARE the Clippers) they'll be in even better shape.

Ed O.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Rip City Road Blocker said:


> I think he's got his job figured out now.


I disagree with this statement in the sense that I think he already had the job figured out. John Nash has a fairly consistent pattern of waiting and getting the best deal he can. If he doesn't have a deal he likes in front of him he doesn't do it. 

In this case he just so happened to end up with a deal he liked. If New Jersey hadn't caved he simply wouldn't have done a deal with them.

But there's a lot of people who simply don't like the way he does things. They'd rather he caved into the other team's demands to get the player they want. A prime example of this is the Vince Carter situation. If Nash would have given them the two first rounders they wanted we would have Vince right now. But he held his ground and didn't do the deal. 

Me, I like the way Nash runs things. He figures out what he wants and he sets out to get it. Some times it works and other times it doesn't. But I don't think it's his fault when it doesn't work and I'd rather we not do a deal at all rather than do a bad deal.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*

Nash has a long history of building losing teams.

I'm hoping that the situation in Portland turns out differently--and we've got some nice young pieces--but so far Portland turning into a lottery team with Nash at the helm shouldn't be a big surprise when we look at his history as a GM.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Ed O said:


> Nash has a long history of building losing teams.
> 
> I'm hoping that the situation in Portland turns out differently--and we've got some nice young pieces--but so far Portland turning into a lottery team with Nash at the helm shouldn't be a big surprise when we look at his history as a GM.
> 
> Ed O.


or you take into account the fact that the owner said he was going to "quit spending big money on older players who won't get us the title and end up just alienating the fans".

that and the journey of 1000 steps begins with 1 single step.

that and re-using the same cogs that don't get us much, in the end, don't get us much.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Ed O said:


> Nash has a long history of building losing teams.
> 
> I'm hoping that the situation in Portland turns out differently--and we've got some nice young pieces--but so far Portland turning into a lottery team with Nash at the helm shouldn't be a big surprise when we look at his history as a GM.
> 
> Ed O.



I know you aren't a Nash supporter, Ed, but do you think it's all his fault? I don't think Nash has been great as the Blazers GM, but he's done pretty good. I do fault him for the contracts last year and waiting so long to get value for SAR, but I can't put all the Blazer problems in him. I think Bob has just as much responsibility for this situation, or maybe more than Nash does, since he was in charge when the salaries escalated so much and messed up his chemistry experiment. Also, Paul Allen might have some responsibility as well with his direction of changes he handed down to Nash when he came on. 

I guess it all comes down to if people think everything was fine when Bob left, or if changes needed to be done..


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Scout226 said:


> I know you aren't a Nash supporter, Ed, but do you think it's all his fault?


It's almost certainly NOT all his fault. But it's happened under his watch, and seems to be pretty consistent with the success level he had in NJ and Washington.

Ed O.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*

I wouldn't exactly give him kudos for this (though it sounds like Thorn will indeed be eating his crow), since he held out for a decent deal rather than a truly good one. I'm glad he didn't cave and get taken, of course, but looking at all the time he had to trade SAR, this is still a disappointment to me. I hope it turns out to be a 07 pick instead of an 06 one, at least, but it's a pick that won't be a lottery one and probably not above 20 in any event. The Blazers just paid cash a couple years ago for that and got Khraypa (or Monia, whichever). Is Khraypa or Monia what you would hope to get out of SAR?

It's just ok.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



FeloniusThunk said:


> I wouldn't exactly give him kudos for this (though it sounds like Thorn will indeed be eating his crow), since he held out for a decent deal rather than a truly good one. I'm glad he didn't cave and get taken, of course, but looking at all the time he had to trade SAR, this is still a disappointment to me. I hope it turns out to be a 07 pick instead of an 06 one, at least, but it's a pick that won't be a lottery one and probably not above 20 in any event. The Blazers just paid cash a couple years ago for that and got Khraypa (or Monia, whichever). Is Khraypa or Monia what you would hope to get out of SAR?
> 
> It's just ok.


Nash tried his best to trade Shareef and nearly got the job done with Toronto for Carter. I still haven't figured out how the Nets convinced the Raptors that their pathetic offer was better than the Blazers', but I don't see how you can put the blame for that on Nash. Any opportunity to trade Shareef later was pretty much killed by his injury prior to the trade deadline. This summer, the decision was made to rebuild around the youth movement and keep costs down. With that as a self-imposed limitation, I think getting a traded player exception and a first round pick back is pretty amazing. The most likely outcome, as predicted by many around here, was for Shareef to walk and the Blazers to get nothing.

I'm not thrilled about the title to this thread because all GM's make statements as a part of the negotiation process and then have to adjust them as things progress. Compromise is a part of being a good GM. Both Nash and Thorn did their jobs.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



FeloniusThunk said:


> I wouldn't exactly give him kudos for this (though it sounds like Thorn will indeed be eating his crow), since he held out for a decent deal rather than a truly good one. I'm glad he didn't cave and get taken, of course, but looking at all the time he had to trade SAR, this is still a disappointment to me. I hope it turns out to be a 07 pick instead of an 06 one, at least, but it's a pick that won't be a lottery one and probably not above 20 in any event. The Blazers just paid cash a couple years ago for that and got Khraypa (or Monia, whichever). Is Khraypa or Monia what you would hope to get out of SAR?
> 
> It's just ok.


Actually, yes. Considering that SAR and Goodwin killed his trade value by first threatening to hold out last season, and second by electing to have surgery on his elbow during the season. By all accounts he came to Portland with the injury and could have put it off like he had done previously.

Nash looked for a good deal to get rid of SAR and they just did not exist when following the parameters laid out by Paul Allen. I would say that his value was lower than even SAR had imagined it would be. A late first is good.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



e_blazer1 said:


> I'm not thrilled about the title to this thread because all GM's make statements as a part of the negotiation process and then have to adjust them as things progress. Compromise is a part of being a good GM. Both Nash and Thorn did their jobs.


I am fine with the title. Thorn should not have been so jockular to the press just to impress them and his fan base. He lost this pissing contest and by most accounts it seemed obvious that he would (at least to me). Nash had more leverage than anybody would give him credit for, especially after SAR/Goodwin painted themselves into a corner.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



BIG Q said:


> I am fine with the title. Thorn should not have been so jockular to the press just to impress them and his fan base. He lost this pissing contest and by most accounts it seemed obvious that he would (at least to me). Nash had more leverage than anybody would give him credit for, especially after SAR/Goodwin painted themselves into a corner.


So Portland walks away with a TE it says it won't work and a low first rounder in what promises to be the worst draft class in a long time... and New Jersey walks away with an all-star caliber power forward at a reasonable salary and gets to keep the Clippers' first they have in the same draft.

And the NETS lost this pissing contest?

Wow.

Nash got something for SAR, and I'm glad he did. But the Nets clearly made out very very well here, and the same can't be said for Portland as far as I can tell.

Ed O.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: Nets And Blazers Agree To Abdur-Rahim Sign-And-Trade*



Talkhard said:


> Watch out for the merge!


Heh heh heh...

I think this is big enough news to stand out on its own. I won't be merging it anyway.


----------



## ThatNetGuy (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



e_blazer1 said:


> I'm not thrilled about the title to this thread because all GM's make statements as a part of the negotiation process and then have to adjust them as things progress. Compromise is a part of being a good GM. Both Nash and Thorn did their jobs.


I agree with you here and in general. Everyone did their job. Everyone compromised. Nash got a PROTECTED 1, SAR got less then MAX contract, Thorn GAVE a number 1. Glad for you guys, Nash got something, we gave up something but got helped out SAR got a bit more and got to go where he wanted. Everyone is happy but not as happy as could be.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Ed O said:


> So Portland walks away with a TE it says it won't work and a low first rounder in what promises to be the worst draft class in a long time... and New Jersey walks away with an all-star caliber power forward at a reasonable salary and gets to keep the Clippers' first they have in the same draft.
> 
> And the NETS lost this pissing contest?
> 
> ...


Althought from previous posts it appeared you would have been happy to receive two 2nd round picks from New Jersey... :biggrin:


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Ed O said:


> So Portland walks away with a TE it says it won't work and a low first rounder in what promises to be the worst draft class in a long time... and New Jersey walks away with an all-star caliber power forward at a reasonable salary and gets to keep the Clippers' first they have in the same draft.
> 
> And the NETS lost this pissing contest?
> 
> ...


The market dictated that there was nothing else to be had. It even dictated the perceived "reasonable salary." And SAR was an all-star once, but not now. And he never played at that level while in Portland. The pissing contest I reference is only in regards to getting the FRDP that Thorn said he would not give up. 

Sure, the Nets get a good player and keep the Clippers FRDP, but I am sure that most on this board never figured on getting that. Ask for it yes, then settle on the NJ FRDP.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nets And Blazers Agree To Abdur-Rahim Sign-And-Trade*



> The Nets see Abdur-Rahim, 28, as their replacement for the departed Kenyon Martin. The Nets refused to pay Martin a maximum contract of around $92 million and traded him to Denver in July 2004. They get Abdur-Rahim at less than half the cost and he gives them a low-post scoring presence they have been lacking.
> 
> The Blazers likely will receive a lottery-protected first-round pick in 2006. Abdur-Rahim will be able to sign a contract when the league lifts the moratorium. That date was supposed to be today, but the league and the players' union still are working out the final details of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement. The two parties decided to postpone the announcement and push the date back to sometime *next week, possibly Wednesday. *


I can't wait to get this put into the history books!!!! 

more linkage


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



> So Portland walks away with a TE it says it won't work and a low first rounder in what promises to be the worst draft class in a long time...


They've said that about every draft class except for the 2003 class....It gets old...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



tlong said:


> Althought from previous posts it appeared you would have been happy to receive two 2nd round picks from New Jersey... :biggrin:


I would have preferred it to nothing, which seems to have put me in the minority here. I am happier getting the first rounder, I think.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



zagsfan20 said:


> They've said that about every draft class except for the 2003 class....It gets old...


It might be "old" to you, but it's entirely legitimate: there will be no prep players in the next NBA draft. Couple that with the fact that most of the top-tier NCAA players (e.g. Bogut, MWilliams, Paul) chose to come out this year, it leaves the upcoming class as a uniquely thin one.

2007 should be better because Oden and Caracter and the studs one year removed from high school graduation will be eligible.

Ed O.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Hap said:


> paid him an obscene amount of money, thats how.


any time you want to treat me like garbage you go right ahead then. I could handle being treated like that!


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Ed O said:


> I would have preferred it to nothing, which seems to have put me in the minority here. I am happier getting the first rounder, I think.
> 
> Ed O.


You don't play much poker, do you?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



tlong said:


> You don't play much poker, do you?


What does that have to do with this? I'm not putting myself in Nash's place, and I've never criticized him for asking for--or even demanding--a first round pick.

I just didn't want Portland to walk away with nothing for SAR.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Ed O said:


> What does that have to do with this? I'm not putting myself in Nash's place, and I've never criticized him for asking for--or even demanding--a first round pick.
> 
> I just didn't want Portland to walk away with nothing for SAR.
> 
> Ed O.



The negotiations between Thorn and Nash were like a game of poker. One side bluffing, the other side calling the bluff. It was easy to see if you play poker.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



tlong said:


> The negotiations between Thorn and Nash were like a game of poker. One side bluffing, the other side calling the bluff. It was easy to see if you play poker.


I don't see how that analogy holds.

A "bluff" only can exist if there is unequal information... if one player holds better cards (or worse) than the opponent(s) think. That's not the case here. Nash and Thorn both had equal information. They each had more information than any of us did, clearly, but I don't see it like a bluff.

Maybe it was more like a game of chicken, where both sides are worse off if neither caves in.

Ed O.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Ed O said:


> It might be "old" to you, but it's entirely legitimate: there will be no prep players in the next NBA draft. Couple that with the fact that most of the top-tier NCAA players (e.g. Bogut, MWilliams, Paul) chose to come out this year, it leaves the upcoming class as a uniquely thin one.
> 
> 2007 should be better because Oden and Caracter and the studs one year removed from high school graduation will be eligible.
> 
> Ed O.


I'm not holding out hope that the '07 lotto protected pick will "Net" us a stud, and I agree with you Ed that Nash did nothing spectacular here. I do think it's a little early to evaluate the '07 draft pool though. Look at guys like Dwayne Wade, Deron Williams, Ben Gordan, Josh Childress, etc. These are all college players that sort of came out of nowhere to catipult themselves into top tier prospects. It's not just the lotto guys either. There will be a Bobby Simmons, or a Josh Howard, or a T. Prince in there. In other words, there will be players in '07 that aren't even on the radar right now. There always is.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Nash has a long history of building losing teams.


You and Mixum been hanging out?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



kaydow said:


> In other words, there will be players in '07 that aren't even on the radar right now. There always is.


Agreed. I didn't mean to entirely minimize the pick or the draft, but it's not a typical draft and I don't think that can be ignored.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> They've said that about every draft class except for the 2003 class....It gets old...


Yep. Every year the NBA draft is "terrible" until it is actually held. Then everybody discovers some very good players in the draft after all. Happens every time. It's as predictable as the sun coming up every morning.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm bummed about this. We bought a pick that will probably be a lot like this one for $3 mil last year. 

Essentially, we traded Rasheed Wallace for Theo Ratliff and another Victor Khryapa. If you think that is a fair deal, imagine putting those two guys on the Pistons and seeing if they win an NBA championship and another East Conference. We gave up a proven performer for a gimpy one-trick-pony center and 25% chance of drafting a player who will be in the league in five years. From a talent perspective, we got thoroughly ripped off. We'd have been far better off keeping Sheed and using him at center. 

Yeah, half the fans hated his personality, but all the fans loved the success he helped bring to the team. 

It's just depressing to see how far our team has fallen that so many people here are giddy over this deal.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> I'm bummed about this. We bought a pick that will probably be a lot like this one for $3 mil last year.
> 
> Essentially, we traded Rasheed Wallace for Theo Ratliff and another Victor Khryapa. If you think that is a fair deal, imagine putting those two guys on the Pistons and seeing if they win an NBA championship and another East Conference. We gave up a proven performer for a gimpy one-trick-pony center and 25% chance of drafting a player who will be in the league in five years. From a talent perspective, we got thoroughly ripped off. We'd have been far better off keeping Sheed and using him at center.
> 
> Yeah, half the fans hated his personality, but all the fans loved the success he helped bring to the team.


they also hated the reputation he was helping make for the team.

not only as 1st and outer's, but "whiners".

the team will love the success the next group brings too. Thats why it was ok to trade Drexler, and let go of other guys. There will always be the next group that people will grow to love. Since the team was in such a mess *BEFORE* Nash took over, it's ok to blow it up because of what Trader Bob did.



> It's just depressing to see how far our team has fallen that so many people here are giddy over this deal.


when a team doesn't hold the leverage, and the player already publically said he'd agree to play for the other team, what exactly could ANY team get out of this situation?

maybe if Shareef hadn't tried to force a trade in the pre-season, or people would realize that his worth isn't as much as we think it is (in retrospect, Atlanta got the better of the deal talent wise, by a long shot).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> It's just depressing to see how far our team has fallen that so many people here are giddy over this deal.


I think that one of the most unsettling things about the state of the Blazers is the way our expectations have been destroyed. All of us were willing to give PatterNash a chance to make changes, and most of us were willing to go into the lottery for a year.

But two? Fewer, I'd say.

Three? Four? 

I'm taking small victories where I can get them at this point, but with things in such a bad state it'll take a while to get back to where we were... with nothing approaching a guarantee that we'll actually be better off.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

See this is what I don't get about some fans. They ***** and moan about how we had a bad rep, but we were winning. So we trade away the bad apple to make those fans happy, but we start to lose because of that. Then those fans comeback and say look what they have done, made our team lose, when they were the ones wanting it in the first place. (theWanker, this isn't directed at you at all, I'm just saying most Blazer Fans in general.)

It really pisses me off.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Ed O said:


> It might be "old" to you, but it's entirely legitimate: there will be no prep players in the next NBA draft. Couple that with the fact that most of the top-tier NCAA players (e.g. Bogut, MWilliams, Paul) chose to come out this year, it leaves the upcoming class as a uniquely thin one.
> 
> 2007 should be better because Oden and Caracter and the studs one year removed from high school graduation will be eligible.
> 
> Ed O.


It's even worse than not having any of next year's prep players, since it also won't have any of _this_ year's prep players (who would have gone to school and come out next year). 2007 won't have the best HS players of 2007, but it will at least have the best HS players of 2006 (as Ed points out). 2006 loses out coming and going, so while I'm sure someone good will come out of it, the odds are stacked against it being anywhere near average. Late 2nd rounders next year will likely be equivalent to undrafted players from this year.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Ed O said:


> So Portland walks away with a TE it says it won't work and a low first rounder in what promises to be the worst draft class in a long time... and New Jersey walks away with an all-star caliber power forward at a reasonable salary and gets to keep the Clippers' first they have in the same draft.
> 
> And the NETS lost this pissing contest?


That seems like an unfair characterization of this. You imply, with the way you set this up, that Portland "had" SAR and lost him in the negotiations.

SAR was an unrestricted free agent. Further, he was a free agent who, in an almost unprecedented move, completely undervalued himself and was willing to sign for just the MLE. The net effect (no pun intended) of that is that SAR was actually already essentially in the *Nets'* hands, not the Blazers'.

So, to fairly set this up, Nash went in with nothing to trade and came out with a first-round pick. The Nets went in with SAR already a de facto Net and a first-round pick and came out with SAR a de facto Net and no first-round pick.

A first-round pick seems like good return on nothing.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I don't really have a problem with how Nash handled the trade in the past week. If all you look at is the bad spot he was put in by SAR and his agent, then yes, he did pretty well. 

I don't even really mind seeing Sheed go. He'll always be one of my favorite players, but I could (and still can) see that he'd run his course. 

Mostly, I hate that we lost Sheed to a team that used him to get to two NBA finals, and now we're losing SAR to a team who will ride him to the second round (at least). Meanwhile, all we got to show for it is (like I said) Ratliff, another Khryapa, and yet another season in the lottery. 

I remember the good old days when we'd hose teams like Atlanta and Washington and Houston, sucking out their talent and foisting our crap on them, and then riding that talent to wins. Wasn't that fun? Do you still remember what it felt like? 

How we handled the Sheed situation is just like how Atlanta handled Steve Smith. Or Houston handled Pippen. Or Washington originally handled Rasheed. 

I had very little respect for those teams when they allowed themselves to get raped so badly. I feel similar about our current Blazers.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> I think that one of the most unsettling things about the state of the Blazers is the way our expectations have been destroyed. All of us were willing to give PatterNash a chance to make changes, and most of us were willing to go into the lottery for a year.
> 
> But two? Fewer, I'd say.
> 
> ...


I think that Nash and Patterson underestimated how hard it would be to stick with the 3 objectives they set for rebuilding the team: character, quality of play, & financial responsibility. They chose to deal with character and financial responsibility for immediate action and found that you can't dump high-priced players with bad reps without impacting the win/loss record in a negative way. According to the team plan that Canzano leaked a couple of weeks ago, the plan is now to get back into the playoffs and even be a top-four team in the West by 2007. If they can achieve that objective by then, Nash will be viewed favorably by most of the fan base. Much longer than that, and I think he loses his job.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Freak said:


> See this is what I don't get about some fans. They ***** and moan about how we had a bad rep, but we were winning. So we trade away the bad apple to make those fans happy, but we start to lose because of that. Then those fans comeback and say look what they have done, made our team lose, when they were the ones wanting it in the first place.


Actually, it's always seemed to me that the Blazers fans who wanted the so-called "bad apples" out of Portland are a different camp of fans than those who are blasting Nash for the deals he's made regarding those players.

You can roughly draw the line betweent he two camps based on who prefers Nash and who preferred Whitsitt.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> According to the team plan that Canzano leaked a couple of weeks ago, the plan is now to get back into the playoffs and even be a top-four team in the West by 2007.


Seems reasonable to me. I assume that this goal was part of their original plan, and not one they just adopted. Last year was the first rebuilding year, so that means the Blazers gave themselves 3 years to get back in the thick of things. That's about right.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Freak said:


> See this is what I don't get about some fans. They ***** and moan about how we had a bad rep, but we were winning. So we trade away the bad apple to make those fans happy, but we start to lose because of that. Then those fans comeback and say look what they have done, made our team lose, when they were the ones wanting it in the first place. (theWanker, this isn't directed at you at all, I'm just saying most Blazer Fans in general.)
> 
> It really pisses me off.


I'm not sure that the fans who were upset about the rep, are the same ones who are upset about the losing.

I think there are those who are just upset at the team no matter what they do, because thats how they get their jollies off (this group DOES NOT include Ed O or the Wanker).


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> I remember the good old days when we'd hose teams like Atlanta and Washington and Houston, sucking out their talent and foisting our crap on them, and then riding that talent to wins. Wasn't that fun? Do you still remember what it felt like?


but I also remember what it's like to trade a young player for an aging Stale Davis, and having people act like it was such a smart move. or trading for Shawn Kemp. Or bringing back Rod Strickland and Detlef.

or trading for DA, when we already *had* Bonzi Wells.

or basically thinking that tinkering with the team was all that was needed, when they had no real star to lead the team.

I remember that as much as I remember 2 good seasons. I remember the collapse of 2000-01 very vividly too. It, not coincidentially imho, started the first game we had Detlef and Rod back. 

If Trader Bob had tinkered half as much as he did, and accepted not getting Kemp, I bet things would've turned out better. But he fell for (and fans do to) the "now now now now!!" mentality. 

Instead of priming the pump, he basically drained the well and bought magic beans hoping they'd grow a bean-stalk...but turned out to grow dandylions.

(Kemp is the big fan giant in this parabole)


> How we handled the Sheed situation is just like how Atlanta handled Steve Smith. Or Houston handled Pippen. Or Washington originally handled Rasheed.
> 
> I had very little respect for those teams when they allowed themselves to get raped so badly. I feel similar about our current Blazers.


I think the Sheed situation was handled good originally (he more than likely was going to leave, and he needed to leave). It got worse (as a lot of us think) when they extended Theo's contract by about (a min) 15 million too much and a year too long. 

But sometimes you gotta take your lumps. And have some patience.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I'll certainly concede I was a big fan of the Jermaine O'Neal trade at the time. (I've noticed I seem to be just about the only Blazer fan around who still admits to it.) And I definitely liked the way Whitsett tinkered, even though it became obvious that he tinkered a bit too much. 

This was different, though. This wasn't trading a kid like Jermaine with unrealized upside. It wasn't about piling on whiny veteran talent like Detlef or Strickland. 

The issue that bothers me so much is that we took our VERY BEST PLAYER, a guy who has now been a key player on four conference finals teams and one championship, and got Theo Ratliff and the equivalent of Viktor Khryapa. That's not tinkering, that's core overhaul. 

And what we got out of it weren't lumps, my friend. This is a giant boulder that has set our team back years.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Minstrel said:


> That seems like an unfair characterization of this. You imply, with the way you set this up, that Portland "had" SAR and lost him in the negotiations.


They've had SAR on their team for almost a year and a half. That they were able to use him as nothing other than a bit player on a pair of lottery teams or ultimately turn him into anything more than cap space, a trade exception, and a late first rounder is disappointing to me.

Looking just at the last week ... I don't accept that it was a "pissing contest", but if one is going to take that position then I would say that NJ did significantly better than Portland.

Portland was in a position to help SAR go anywhere he wanted to in the NBA. They had alienated SAR and his agent by making it clear he wasn't wanted back, but they were able to take back any collection of players or picks that other teams were willing to offer. 

New Jersey had a trade exception and multiple picks next year. They had selected a player that Portland was intrigued by in the second round of the past draft. They gave away very little to lock in a 28 year-old who's going to be an important part of their team for the next several years.

Again: I don't think that one needs to say that one side lost and another won, but if we do, then I think NJ made out much better than Portland.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> I'll certainly concede I was a big fan of the Jermaine O'Neal trade at the time. (I've noticed I seem to be just about the only Blazer fan around who still admits to it.) And I definitely liked the way Whitsett tinkered, even though it became obvious that he tinkered a bit too much.
> 
> This was different, though. This wasn't trading a kid like Jermaine with unrealized upside. It wasn't about piling on whiny veteran talent like Detlef or Strickland.
> 
> ...


rasheed, like shareef, kind of pissed on his own value.

In Portland, Rasheed was a malcontent cry baby whiner T fest jerk.

what exactly are we going to get for him?

where are these other offers that prove that we didn't get fair market value for him?

would you have rather got what the Hawks got for him? bupkiss?

it seem's to me, you're more mad that they got rid of Rasheed, than what they got for him (considering they realistically couldn't get squat).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> where are these other offers that prove that we didn't get fair market value for him?
> 
> would you have rather got what the Hawks got for him? bupkiss?


The Hawks got the pick that became Josh Smith.

The Mavericks were reportedly offering Antawn Jamison, who later was traded to Washington for the #5 pick in the 2004 draft.

Whether there were other offers or not is unclear.

Ed O.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Ed O said:


> They've had SAR on their team for almost a year and a half. That they were able to use him as nothing other than a bit player on a pair of lottery teams or ultimately turn him into anything more than cap space, a trade exception, and a late first rounder is disappointing to me.
> 
> Looking just at the last week ... I don't accept that it was a "pissing contest", but if one is going to take that position then I would say that NJ did significantly better than Portland.
> 
> ...


I do not see how you come to this conclussion. SAR knew Portland would help with a S&T if it fell with in their parameters. Otherwise they would just take the cap savings. That is not a bad strategy.

SAR did his little tour and then married the Nets. Considering their was not much of a clamor for him in the first place because of 1) He wanted to go to a playoff team (which for the most part were capped out and only had the MLE) and 2) would not consider going to a team with cap space such as NO, LAC or Char I would say the Blazers maximized their profits. 

Last season the only remotely interesting offer for SAR was VC and Jalen Rose's huge contract. Since Portland wanted to cut payroll and VC stated he did not want to go to Portland I would say that there really wasn't a good offer/deal to be had. Maybe now that SAR is gone we may hear of other offers that were declined, but I would doubt it.

It is a shame that you are so disappointed Ed O but you are looking for a miracle worker. Be disappointed with SAR/Goodwin as they killed his value. Portland tried everything, including giving the 3 to him when it was painfully obvious that he did not belong there to raise his value. 

It would have been great if he blew up and became an all-star, but he did not put in the effort as Garnett, Duncan, Amare and Nowitski do. It seems that you are just working off of the glass half empty idiom, thinking things could always be better.

Portland had a good run until the past two seasons. But even the Lakers, Celtics, Rockets and Bulls have had to re-tool and drop into the lottery. They come back though. Do you really think Paul Allen will stand for five years of lotteries? 

I am looking at this as a glass half full thing. Getting a FRDP for SAR was a good thing because between him killing his value and the Blazers unwilling to take on boat anchor contracts there was little else available. I accept/support the Blazers current vision of building thru the draft, dumping bad contracts and then bringing in the right complimentary players to make a new run. 

This will hopefully be like drafting Drexler, Porter and Kersey. Then trading for Duck and Buck to round it out.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



BIG Q said:


> I do not see how you come to this conclussion. SAR knew Portland would help with a S&T if it fell with in their parameters. Otherwise they would just take the cap savings. That is not a bad strategy.


It's a losing strategy. The Blazers stink, and allowing a piece to walk away when it would cost them nothing to acquire assets in a S&T would have been a bad move.

I'm not passing judgment on Nash over that, though, because we'll never know if he would have taken the two second rounders or not.



> It is a shame that you are so disappointed Ed O but you are looking for a miracle worker. Be disappointed with SAR/Goodwin as they killed his value. Portland tried everything, including giving the 3 to him when it was painfully obvious that he did not belong there to raise his value.


Portland acquired him in spite of Zach Randolph's presence and then played him out of position and it's HIS fault that he didn't have trade value?



> It would have been great if he blew up and became an all-star, but he did not put in the effort as Garnett, Duncan, Amare and Nowitski do. It seems that you are just working off of the glass half empty idiom, thinking things could always be better.


You do know that SAR was an all-star before he came to Portland, right?

And I don't think that it takes a "glass half empty" approach to look at the worst Blazers team in decades and think that things could be better.



> Portland had a good run until the past two seasons. But even the Lakers, Celtics, Rockets and Bulls have had to re-tool and drop into the lottery. They come back though. Do you really think Paul Allen will stand for five years of lotteries?


I don't know what he'll stand for. He's already been there twice, and if we're not there again this year it'll be a shock. A fourth year seems pretty likely, and a fifth is too hard to tell at this point.

I wish that Allen would stand for NO lottery appearances, but it's too late for that.

Ed O.


----------



## Blaze_Rocks (Aug 11, 2004)

Thats all we get for Sheed? Yeah John Nash is a genius.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

so, theo ratliff with a terrible contract and a lottery protected first-round pick for the best player of the team (not to mention $17M in cap savings)... with the contract nash gave theo, portland would have been better of letting sheed walk in 2004.

which, by the way, his haters on this board would probably have preferred, since he wouldn't have the ring then...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> The Hawks got the pick that became Josh Smith.
> 
> The Mavericks were reportedly offering Antawn Jamison, who later was traded to Washington for the #5 pick in the 2004 draft.


if Detroit offered the Blazers what they offered the Hawks, you would've pinched a fit from here to texas.



> Whether there were other offers or not is unclear.
> 
> Ed O.


because another team got a better trade for a different player bears absolutely 0 on what the blazers could get.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

I'm just curious as to when this line of discussion will end around here. Both Rasheed and Bonzi are now two trades away from having been Blazers. Isn't it time to just let it go and start enjoying the development of a new team around an exciting bunch of young players? Sure, wins will be a lot fewer the next couple of years than we'd like, but there's a core here that can develop into a very good team down the road. Phoenix went down this road a few seasons ago and now they're looking like they'll be contenders for the next several years. I'd hoped for a quicker rebuilding plan with more veterans brought in, but if the choice is to go young, then I intend to enjoy the youth movement.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Ed O,

Yes, I know that SAR was once an all-star. Pippen was also an all-star before we got him, but he was never an all-star in Portland. Point being we did not lose an all-star to NJ, just a former all-star that would never be one again in the West. 

Yes, it is SAR's fault for not increasing his value. He played the three before with the Grizzlies. He just didn't want to in Portland. He went so far as to say that Darius would be better there than just doing his job and playing his best. That is all that was asked of him. He made it painfully obvious he did not want to be in Portland. Also, the timing of his elbow surgery has been highly debatable.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> Isn't it time to just let it go and start enjoying the development of a new team around an exciting bunch of young players?


So we're supposed to see our team's teeth get kicked in for a couple of years and not even complain about it, or wonder why other teams have managed to not become so terrible?



> I'd hoped for a quicker rebuilding plan with more veterans brought in, but if the choice is to go young, then I intend to enjoy the youth movement.


If we were starting fresh, and we were where we currently are, or if all the moves PatterNash had made since taking over had been made with the intent of rebuilding, I could find our situation more palatable.

The fact is, though, that isn't the case. Trading Rasheed for two veterans with no trade value doesn't help us now, and it hasn't helped us much in the past year and a half. Signing Theo to an extension doesn't help us now, and it won't help into the future.

I have very little confidence that the rebuilding effort will be committed to for the long haul, and I have even less confidence that Nash will be able to successully pull it off.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Ed O said:


> They've had SAR on their team for almost a year and a half. That they were able to use him as nothing other than a bit player on a pair of lottery teams or ultimately turn him into anything more than cap space, a trade exception, and a late first rounder is disappointing to me.


If you're arguing that Nash has done a poor job of maximizing SAR's value, either directly to Portland or indirectly through trade, then I agree. That wasn't what I was argung, though...I was only arguing this latest transaction, in a vacuum. As in, forgetting about how we got here, considering that we are here, I think Nash "won" if there was a winner.



> Portland was in a position to help SAR go anywhere he wanted to in the NBA. They had alienated SAR and his agent by making it clear he wasn't wanted back, but they were able to take back any collection of players or picks that other teams were willing to offer.


Portland was in that position...assuming SAR wanted to go there. However, SAR said he wanted to go to New Jersey and was willing to take the MLE to go there. Therefore, Portland had zero say in where SAR went. Houston could have offered Tracy McGrady and it wouldn't have made a whit of difference, because Portland couldn't have signed him to trade him anywhere but New Jersey.



> New Jersey had a trade exception and multiple picks next year. They had selected a player that Portland was intrigued by in the second round of the past draft. They gave away very little to lock in a 28 year-old who's going to be an important part of their team for the next several years.


Yes, there's a reason for that. Because SAR wasn't Portland's to trade anymore. New Jersey could have signed him directly, for absolutely nothing in terms of talent.

The reason the Nets were willing to talk trade was in order to keep their MLE free for the ability to perhaps make one other acquisition. So, really, New Jersey wasn't negotiating for SAR, a 28 year old All-Star-caliber forward. They were negotiating for a free MLE spot. What is that worth? I'm not sure. I think, however, that a trade exception and a first-round pick is probably a good return on that, since Portland didn't give up anything to get it (again, SAR was no longer Portland's, so they didn't "lose" him in this trade).



> Again: I don't think that one needs to say that one side lost and another won, but if we do, then I think NJ made out much better than Portland.


New Jersey did better in their off-season, because they got SAR. But I think Nash did better in this transaction, because he got a first-round pick for a departing free agent that he had no power to trade, except to a single team who could acquire him without the trade.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

e_blazer1 said:


> *I'm just curious as to when this line of discussion will end around here.* Both Rasheed and Bonzi are now two trades away from having been Blazers. *Isn't it time to just let it go and start enjoying the development of a new team around an exciting bunch of young players?* Sure, wins will be a lot fewer the next couple of years than we'd like, but there's a core here that can develop into a very good team down the road. Phoenix went down this road a few seasons ago and now they're looking like they'll be contenders for the next several years. I'd hoped for a quicker rebuilding plan with more veterans brought in, *but if the choice is to go young, then I intend to enjoy the youth movement*.


 :cheers: :clap: 

Very, VERY well said, e_blazer1!!! Great post! (Repppppppppp-Up! IF I knew how! :biggrin


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Minstrel said:


> If you're arguing that Nash has done a poor job of maximizing SAR's value, either directly to Portland or indirectly through trade, then I agree. That wasn't what I was argung, though...I was only arguing this latest transaction, in a vacuum. As in, forgetting about how we got here, considering that we are here, I think Nash "won" if there was a winner.


Understood. We agree on the long-range situation and disagree on the short-range one, then.



> Portland was in that position...assuming SAR wanted to go there. However, SAR said he wanted to go to New Jersey and was willing to take the MLE to go there. Therefore, Portland had zero say in where SAR went. Houston could have offered Tracy McGrady and it wouldn't have made a whit of difference, because Portland couldn't have signed him to trade him anywhere but New Jersey.


SAR and his people said repeatedly that they would only take the MLE as a last resort. He didn't, if reports are at all accurate, decide to go to NJ for sure until earlier this week. That means there were a couple of weeks where Portland could have (and, to be fair, probably did) work the phones to get value for him.



> New Jersey did better in their off-season, because they got SAR. But I think Nash did better in this transaction, because he got a first-round pick for a departing free agent that he had no power to trade, except to a single team who could acquire him without the trade.


A basic difference between our positions might be that SAR agreed to go to NJ, even for the MLE, PROVIDED THAT they offered a first rounder as part of a S&T deal with Portland. That is my understanding from initial reports, although it might not be accurate.

Ed O.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Talkhard said:


> Remember what Rod Thorn said only last week about the idea of giving up a #1 pick for Shareef Abdur-Rahim?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Apparently the mighty Nash did not get what he wanted either...



> "The Blazers initially wanted the rights to second-round pick Mile Ilic but the Nets refused. The Nets were willing to offer a conditional first-round pick beyond next summer's draft in order to use their trade exception on Abdur-Rahim, a 6-9 forward who averaged 16.8 points and 7.5 rebounds per game last season. Perhaps worried about losing other free agent targets, they finally gave in to Portland GM John Nash by surrendering a first-rounder for next summer."
> 
> -New York Daily News


It was a comprise by both, I think both are losers.

-Petey


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Ed O has it right. Losing sucks. If you're going to rebuild, then rebuild. Don't overpay for Theo, Zach, & Miles then complain about going over the cap. THAT is how you end up in the lottery for 4 years (or more) Just commit to something and stick to it. We haven't seen any consistency, which makes some of us fear we may be stuck in this cycle for the forseable future. Oh, and you can't make me believe Nash was anything more than adequate in his handling of SAR. To me, it's like he flunked the test, but turned in enough extra credit work to pass . . . nothing more with a C -


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Nash makes Thorn eat his words*



Ed O said:


> A basic difference between our positions might be that SAR agreed to go to NJ, even for the MLE, PROVIDED THAT they offered a first rounder as part of a S&T deal with Portland. That is my understanding from initial reports, although it might not be accurate.


If that's so, then I agree that Nash did not pull off anything particularly noteworthy. He had a little bit of leverage and got only what that leverage entailed.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> ......I have very little confidence that the rebuilding effort will be committed to for the long haul, and I have even less confidence that Nash will be able to successully pull it off. Ed O.


I agree with you Ed O that APN didn't go fully down the rebuild mode until March of 2005. Up till then, they were toying with the idea of acquiring another All-Star Vet who could be paired with Zach and Co. When the players around Zach weren't performing up to abilities - at that point in time - the decision was made "to commit to the rebuilding effort for the long haul".

APN has turned over the roster with pretty good young talent. Point, Shooter, Slasher, Power down-low and some all-around reserves. Remains to be seen of course, whether any of them can play at a higher level.

Adding another high selection in 2006 will further us down that road.

Be patient, Ed O, we'll be back in contention soon. This is a team that we'll be proud of.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Not only did Thorn lose his battle with Nash, but he lost out on Dooling too. Dooling has agreed to terms with the Magic.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Its pretty easy to sit here in HINDSIGHT and say the Portland GM should of been able to do this or that with the talent base we had only 5 years ago when we were close to being in the finals. That is not that long ago.

But as much as we all talk about scenarios around here, we do not have a clue as to what goes on in the NBA war rooms. Nor do we have a clue as what it takes to close a deal either. 

Sure, we had some pretty good talented assets, but over time they tend to go sour or south on you. The players demand more money, or more playing time, or they want to win 80 games a season, or they want a new shoe deal or something... they will find a way to be disgruntled and want more money. Its extremely difficult to keep them happy and remain competitive.


I loved the 21 season run of being in the playoffs. But to give you some perspective on it... it was almost a record for professional sports. Meaning it does NOT happen very often at all. We were very lucky to have done so. Now, there are those who say... well so what.. we only got out of the 1st round.. so many times in that 21 years. Well, IMHO, its better than the lottery. I very much prefer winning and going to the playoffs. I am sure many of you do as well.

Go ahead and complain or fume about the Blazers loosing 2 seasons in a row. Its your right to do so. Yes, we have lost a lot of games in the last 2 years. Get upset that they did not rebuild on the fly and remain in title contention. But as a matter of history, it does not happen. The Blazers and the Jazz were neck and neck for 21 years in the playoff streak race. No others teams have done so since. It was a very remarkable run, and I for one enjoyed the ride.

The Blazer brass makes mistakes just like we do. They make wrong decisions on talent evaluations, trade scenarios, and teams forcecasts, etc.. They react, and try again, and will undoubtably make more mistakes. Decisions due to market forecast seem right at the time, but come back and bite you in the hiney later on.

They made some bad decisions IMHO last summer about Theo and Darius's extensions. Although Darius IMHO is not really that bad of a deal. Zach I am not so sure we had much of a choice to offer him anything else considering what AK47 got at the time. It was a market driven decision on Zach.

Complaining about Sheed or Bonzi or McInnis or Ryder or Strickland or Sabas or Pippen or ? and who we got for value in return is fine, but its in hindsight and lacks perspective. The real GMs know what goes on and what the real values are at the time of the need and dealings of the transactions. Even as good as the professional GMs are, they have a time window as well. They are not too much different than the coaches. They can get fired after 3-4-5 years as well. How long would us desktop GMs last?

It sure is a lot easier to talk about it in hindsight and say they should of done this or that. OR they should of got a much better return on their investments. I guess that is what makes watching our retirements funds go up and down such fun. 

Go ahead and make some decisions of importance, and see how they do. Then go ahead and analize them. I am willing to bet we will not make the correct decision each and every time. Its never easy.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I have very little confidence that the rebuilding effort will be committed to for the long haul


This is an issue which I think doesn't get discussed here as much as it ought to.

Most rebuilding efforts seem to get torn down after a couple of years. A 'youth movement' turns into a 'we need some veteran leadership'. So the promising kids are traded off for a over-the-hill not-quite-star. That doesn't work out, so the not quite star is traded off for some spare parts. Pretty soon, your team is in permalottery with a bunch of aging, injured has-beens and never-wases.

How long will the kids (and PatterMcNash) be given before the next wrecking ball swings through? 

barfo


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Not only did Thorn lose his battle with Nash, but he lost out on Dooling too. Dooling has agreed to terms with the Magic.


Let us not forget that Damon Stoudamire is out there, waiting for someone to offer him a contract!


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> So we're supposed to see our team's teeth get kicked in for a couple of years and not even complain about it, or wonder why other teams have managed to not become so terrible?


It's been a year and a half Ed.

Let it go.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> It's been a year and a half Ed.
> 
> Let it go.


Year and a half since what?

Since the end of the worst season that I've ever seen as a Blazers fan?

It's actually only been a couple of months, and we're on the verge of another sub-30 win season.

Ed O.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Only an NBA championship every season, year after year, would keep Ed happy.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

we will be better than last season


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Only an NBA championship every season, year after year, would keep Ed happy.


I think it would be a good idea to keep Ed happy.

barfo


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Utherhimo said:


> we will be better than last season


Well, of course we will be. We've got another season under our belts, we've gained wisdom and experience.

The Blazers, on the other hand, are gonna suck.

barfo


----------



## Blaze_Rocks (Aug 11, 2004)

New management ruined what used to be my favorite team,A team I've followed for 14 years....And we trade a guy that could have netted us a half way decent player for a draft pick??? In 2007?

pfffft...

Yeah Portland is doing big things. :laugh:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blaze_Rocks said:


> New management ruined what used to be my favorite team,A team I've followed for 14 years....And we trade a guy that could have netted us a half way decent player for a draft pick??? In 2007?
> 
> pfffft...
> 
> Yeah Portland is doing big things. :laugh:


we traded Clyde Drexler for Otis Thorpe (for basically half a season) and nothing else, and we survived that.

And trading Clyde Drexler monumentally a bigger deal (and a bigger rip off), and we got over it. We'll get over this "bad trade" too.

especially considering Drexler was significantly more important to the franchise than Rasheed is, was and ever could be, and the same for anything Rasheed got us via a trade (Shareef).

If you can't survive this, than you're really not a Blazers fan in the first place.


----------



## Blaze_Rocks (Aug 11, 2004)

Hap said:


> If you can't survive this, than you're really not a Blazers fan in the first place.


In case you havent noticed I'm not a Blazer fan anymore...Soon as Damon's gone I am too.

The Blazers are going to suck for years to come, and its because of all the whining and complaining you guys(the fans) did over the years.

Pat yourselves on the back, you deserve it. :clap: 

We can all enjoy the lottery together now, I'll be pulling for the Hawks and Hornets though.. :king:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blaze_Rocks said:


> In case you havent noticed I'm not a Blazer fan anymore...Soon as Damon's gone I am too.
> 
> The Blazers are going to suck for years to come, and its because of all the whining and complaining you guys(the fans) did over the years.


we whined because we became the laughing stock of the nba and pro sports. sorry if we have dignity.


> Pat yourselves on the back, you deserve it. :clap:
> 
> We can all enjoy the lottery together now, I'll be pulling for the Hawks and Hornets though.. :king:


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Blaze_Rocks said:


> In case you havent noticed I'm not a Blazer fan anymore...Soon as Damon's gone I am too.
> 
> The Blazers are going to suck for years to come, and its because of all the whining and complaining you guys(the fans) did over the years.
> 
> ...


Buh-Bye! :clap: 

P.S. Please don't include me in the Ron Tonkin crowd. I always saw through the media bias. I never *****ed about the team or the managment -- just Mini Mouse. Now that Damon's gone, the sun will come out tomorrow, tomorrow, bet your bottom dollar.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

Blaze_Rocks said:


> In case you havent noticed I'm not a Blazer fan anymore...Soon as Damon's gone I am too.
> 
> The Blazers are going to suck for years to come, and its because of all the whining and complaining you guys(the fans) did over the years.
> 
> ...


enjoy your two year vacation from the BLazers. i'm sure we'll see you again soon enough.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

:boohoo:


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Only an NBA championship every season, year after year, would keep Ed happy.


You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Blaze_Rocks said:


> In case you havent noticed I'm not a Blazer fan anymore...Soon as Damon's gone I am too.
> 
> The Blazers are going to suck for years to come, and its because of all the whining and complaining you guys(the fans) did over the years.
> 
> ...


Before you go, please know that you were never a fan. 

If you bolt at the first sign of trouble, you're not a fan. If you wait 'til all seems lost, then bolt for greener pastures, you were never a fan. If you're not willing to suffer through the highs and the lows, the drug busts, Isaiah Rider, Bonzi Wells, the fights, 'Bust a Bucket,' Jermaine for 'Stale' Dale Davis, Shawn Kemp, Blaze the Trailcat, overtime losses, the lottery, constant ridicule from other fans and the national press, etc...If you can't/won't deal with that then PLEASE don't say you're no longer a fan, say you were NEVER a fan, because that's reality. You're not a fan. You never were. You're a frontrunner. You're a mallrat wearing a Spurs jersey. An immature butterfly, flitting from one flower to the next without any sense of committment. That's pathetic. You were never a fan. 

I'll be at the championship parade when we win it in 5 years. Maybe 10 or 20. However long it takes. I'll be there. Something tells me I might just see you there too. Strikes me, that's the kind of person you are.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

I'll never understand why bandwagoners make other sports fans so angry. He can be a bandwagoner if he wants to, it's just basketball after all.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

RP McMurphy said:


> I'll never understand why bandwagoners make other sports fans so angry. He can be a bandwagoner if he wants to, it's just basketball after all.


easy. If someone stakes a claim in your team, and acts like they're a fan and then act like they're too good to be a fan, people are going to be miffed. 

If they didn't act like they were one of "us", I doubt anyone would care. 

Basically, people don't like others taking a liking to a team based on something simple, and than acting like they're leaving makes the rest of us seem inferior to them.

People who become fans of teams only based on a player on a team, to the point of expressing opinions about things that long time fans know infinitely more about, have little room to talk smack about things. Such as, someone who likes the team soley because of player X, comes off like a doof when they criticize something the team does to improve the team, if it's done at the detriment of the player they "follow".

you gotta earn the stripes to earn the right to gripe.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Hap said:


> easy. If someone stakes a claim in your team, and acts like they're a fan and then act like they're too good to be a fan, people are going to be miffed.
> 
> If they didn't act like they were one of "us", I doubt anyone would care.
> 
> ...


 I don't know, I think that Playmaker did a good job of walking that fine line when he was here. Perhaps the difference is that Play never claimed to be a Blazer fan, just a SAR fan, whereas other band wagoners do claim affiliation. 

Personally it does not bother me that much, but I think that it makes the band wagoner look like a disloyal junkie. No more good bball smack here, perhaps they got some in LA. 

I love basketball more then any other sport, so it is in this sport that my team means that much more to me. In football, which I like a lot but don't really have a team (I have adopted seattle and Baltimore from friends) I would not care at all. Baseball, even less.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

thylo said:


> I don't know, I think that Playmaker did a good job of walking that fine line when he was here. Perhaps the difference is that Play never claimed to be a Blazer fan, just a SAR fan, whereas other band wagoners do claim affiliation.


I dont consider him a bandwagon fan, altho it was odd hearing him say 'we' early..



> Personally it does not bother me that much, but I think that it makes the band wagoner look like a disloyal junkie. No more good bball smack here, perhaps they got some in LA.
> 
> I love basketball more then any other sport, so it is in this sport that my team means that much more to me. In football, which I like a lot but don't really have a team (I have adopted seattle and Baltimore from friends) I would not care at all. Baseball, even less.


I agree. I don't care if fans like certain teams more because they're winning (I personally have adopted the red sox about 5-6 years ago, after admiring them from afar). But if someone comes in as a "fan" because they're winning or they have say Captain Cave-Man, that's not an issue for me. I'm not a hard-core Sox fan, so I really don't have any say in it.

I understand why people get upset (I do to a small degree). I was just laying out some of the reasons why.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Got ya hap. I was not trying to pin you into a corner, but just working out how I felt about bandwagoners.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

thylo said:


> Got ya hap. I was not trying to pin you into a corner, but just working out how I felt about bandwagoners.


no problem, I didn't want to come off like I felt you were backing me into a corner, you just brought up a good point and I needed to clarify myself.

if anything, you helped me parlay my point more accurately, and as we all know, any chance I have at making my points clearer is a welcomed sight.

Right Ed O?


----------

