# Let's get Petrie!



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Let's get Geoff Petrie signed as our new GM as fast as possible!

The timing couldn't be better. He has done a brilliant job at Sacramento for the last 12 years, and has proven over and over again that he has a great eye for talent. This is the perfect opportunity for him to sweep in and save the franchise that he began his NBA career with. He is universally loved in Portland, even more so than Drexler, Walton, or Schonely. In fact, he is Mr. Trail Blazer to many fans like myself, who were around the first year that Portland joined the NBA and drafted him out of Princeton.

Everyone needs a new challenge once in awhile. That was the main reason that McMillan gave for taking the Blazer job last summer. I think Petrie is itching for a new challenge, and returning to the city he loves and that loves him is just the ticket. 

This is also a chance for Paul Allen to do something very popular with the fans, and to reconnect with the "good old days" in Blazer history. It's a win-win proposition for Allen, the team, and the fans. Let's sign Geoff on the dotted line in time for him to make our draft pick this year.

Make it happen, Paul!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I could definitely go for that. Not sure if it's possible/reasonable/likely, but it would be great for the Blazers and their fans.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

ESPN said:


> I shake my head every time Geoff Petrie fleeces another NBA team. He does it every summer, and it's to the point that he's put together the most talented, most diverse roster in the league. Mitch Richmond for Chris Webber? That's criminal. Jason Williams for Mike Bibby? That's stealing. And now Mateen Cleaves for Jumaine Jones? That's unfair.
> 
> In a matter of three years, Geoff Petrie -- the executive of the decade -- has turned the Kings into the NBA's model franchise. It's not that the Jones-Cleaves trade is earth-shattering, it's just that virtually every move Petrie makes is one-sided. Every year.


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1430813&type=story


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Until the ownership mess is cleared up, I don't see any of the top GM candidates as likely to be willing to jump onto the deck of what right now is a sinking ship. If Paul Allen suddenly relocates his basketball love and his cojones, buys back the Rose Garden, and announces he's going to give his new GM whatever it takes to get back into the title race, then we have a shot. As it is, who needs this mess on their resume?


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> Until the ownership mess is cleared up, I don't see any of the top GM candidates as likely to be willing to jump onto the deck of what right now is a sinking ship. If Paul Allen suddenly relocates his basketball love and his cojones, buys back the Rose Garden, and announces he's going to give his new GM whatever it takes to get back into the title race, then we have a shot. As it is, who needs this mess on their resume?


great post i agree , Its up to Paul right now , I hope he stays our owner


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Petrie might be extra-motivated to leave Sacramento now, given the way the Maloof brothers handled the firing of Rick Adelman. The following story is a pretty good explanation of what happened.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/basketball/kings/story/14255310p-15070661c.html#more_images


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

He'd be my first choice, but I'm not sure that the ownership is ready to give 100% of the control to the GM yet, and that's what Petrie would want, need and deserve. Coop would be an interesting choice too.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I think the only way Petrie would agree to come back is as President.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> I think the only way Petrie would agree to come back is as President.


Works for me.

Among other things, getting Patterson out of here might at least temporarily tone down the Oregonian's war against the Blazers, much of which seems rooted in Canzano's personal hatred for Patterson.

I think Petrie, who built up a huge reservoir of good will in Portland in his playing days and in his first stint in the front office building the Drexler team, would get a free pass from all the idiotic controversies (Miles fine-gate, new media policy, etc., etc.) that have plagued the Patterson regime.

Also, maybe he wouldn't do those things 

Stepping Razor


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I don't see Patterson going anywhere, but I wouldn't mind seeing a Petrie (president) and Cooper (GM) combination. That combination would be smart and welcomed by the fans.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Petrie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kiki

No contest. Petrie has had a brilliant career. Kiki did a "Nash" job on Denver, lucked into a franchise player, and otherwise has made several pretty bad moves and draft picks overall.

Heck, IMO Nash >> Kiki. I'd much rather have Nash running our draft and draft day trades than Kiki.

Petrie, Petrie, he's our man! If he can't do it, no one can!! :clown: 

:clap:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Blazer Bert said:


> Petrie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kiki
> 
> No contest. Petrie has had a brilliant career. Kiki did a "Nash" job on Denver, lucked into a franchise player, and otherwise has made several pretty bad moves and draft picks overall.
> 
> ...


 I don't follow Denver, but did Kiki really do a Nash job? I thought he turned a non-playoff team into a playoff team. Isn't he the bizzaro Nash? :biggrin:


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Petrie has been at the top of my shortlist of experienced GMs I want to give a shot at running the Blazers for sometime now - even before Whitsett was fired.

I am not sure if this is the right team, right coach, right ownership situation - but if Petrie is willing to come - that would be great.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm just curious, but what substantially separates Petrie from Whitsitt?

Both were regarded as clever traders who pulled off a number of "fleecings." Both built extremely deep and talented teams that reached the Western Conference Finals twice (IIRC about Sacramento). Both had plenty of other winning teams in addition.

I thought Whitsitt was an excellent GM and I think Petrie is, too. I'm just surprised as Petrie being lauded when a GM with virtually the same qualities and track record was essentially run out on a rail.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I don't follow Denver, but did Kiki really do a Nash job? I thought he turned a non-playoff team into a playoff team. Isn't he the bizzaro Nash? :biggrin:


I was for Kiki at first, but when you look at his trades and draft record, it really isn't as good as some think. The Nugs did come around, but he benefitted from a lot of good draft picks because they were so bad.

from a Denver paper:


> Other than his selection of Anthony in 2003 and the draft-day deal for Brazilian forward Nene in '02, *Vandeweghe's draft record was dismal*. Fans never forgave him for bypassing Amare Stoudemire, the eventual rookie of the year, for forward Nikoloz Tskitishvili in 2002.
> 
> Still, Vandeweghe was so adept at dumping salary and luring free agents that he reshaped the Nuggets from a perennial lottery team to one that won its first division title since 1988 despite a slew of noteworthy injuries.
> 
> ...


I think Kiki's record is a mix of good and bad. I like the Camby, Nene trade, but getting Kmart was questionable too. Tskitisvili was a huge blunder. You can't afford to make mistakes that big.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> I'm just curious, but what substantially separates Petrie from Whitsitt?
> 
> Both were regarded as clever traders who pulled off a number of "fleecings." Both built extremely deep and talented teams that reached the Western Conference Finals twice (IIRC about Sacramento). Both had plenty of other winning teams in addition.
> 
> I thought Whitsitt was an excellent GM and I think Petrie is, too. I'm just surprised as Petrie being lauded when a GM with virtually the same qualities and track record was essentially run out on a rail.


I think people liked Whitsitt's ability to pull off fleecings, they just didn't like either his odd notions about team chemistry (i.e, there's no such thing) or his personality (which, IMO, shouldn't really matter but does to many fans).

Petrie seems to be able to do many of the things Whitsitt did well, without his track record of Shawn Kemps, Dontonio Wingfields, etc.

Plus he's got history with the Blazers franchise, both as its first good player and as a front-office person associated with the beloved Drexler-era team. He won't set off Portlanders' inferiority complex about Seattle the way Whitsitt did.

Stepping Razor


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I'm just curious, but what substantially separates Petrie from Whitsitt?
> 
> Both were regarded as clever traders who pulled off a number of "fleecings." Both built extremely deep and talented teams that reached the Western Conference Finals twice (IIRC about Sacramento). Both had plenty of other winning teams in addition.
> 
> I thought Whitsitt was an excellent GM and I think Petrie is, too. I'm just surprised as Petrie being lauded when a GM with virtually the same qualities and track record was essentially run out on a rail.


Until recently I would have said that Petrie was better at pulling in team players with solid chemistry and good ethics. Bonzi and Artest destroyed that thought. Was it the last acts of a desperate man? Bob's fleecings were almost always picking up players with off-court issues (hence the discount price). I hope Petrie hasn't crossed over to the Bob . . . I mean dark side.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Petrie wouldn't come here with our current situation. Allen would have to fire Patterson and promise to give Petrie complete control in order to even get Petrie to come in for an interview.

But if he did do that. Oh man good times. :clap: :cheers:


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yes and geoff actually lived in portland


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I'm just curious, but what substantially separates Petrie from Whitsitt?
> 
> Both were regarded as clever traders who pulled off a number of "fleecings." Both built extremely deep and talented teams that reached the Western Conference Finals twice (IIRC about Sacramento). Both had plenty of other winning teams in addition.
> 
> I thought Whitsitt was an excellent GM and I think Petrie is, too. I'm just surprised as Petrie being lauded when a GM with virtually the same qualities and track record was essentially run out on a rail.


Are you serious?

Whitsitt threw around money like it was candy, got us way over the salary limit, paid no attention to character or team chemistry, and created the debacle in public relations and fan discontent that led to the breakup of the team and the present situation. Petrie, on the other hand, has built (and now rebuilt) a very successful King's team with hardly any of those problems.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Petrie, on the other hand, has built (and now rebuilt) a very successful King's team with hardly any of those problems.


Is that still true with the addition of Bonzi and Artest?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Reep said:


> Is that still true with the addition of Bonzi and Artest?


Admittedly, the jury is still out on those moves. If Bonzi and Artest pan out, and don't disrupt the team chemistry, those moves will look brilliant. If those guys fall back into their regular patterns of behavior, then Petrie will have egg on his face.

But that wouldn't negate 12 years of almost flawless management in Sacramento.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I don't follow Denver, but did Kiki really do a Nash job? I thought he turned a non-playoff team into a playoff team. Isn't he the bizzaro Nash? :biggrin:


He did turn a non-playoff team into a playoff team, but the team got worse for his first few years until they got a high draft pick.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Whitsitt threw around money like it was candy, got us way over the salary limit


Which Petrie did, also. The successful Kings teams, or even the latest edition, were hardly budget teams. The Maloofs were as happy to spend as Paul Allen.



> paid no attention to character or team chemistry


And was vindicated by successful teams, as successful as Petrie's, going to show that his "chemistry doesn't matter" claims may well have been true. Billy Beane, one of the best-respected executives in sports, has said that "Winning builds chemistry," which is basically exactly what Whitsitt believed.



> and created the debacle in public relations and fan discontent that led to the breakup of the team and the present situation


Petrie went after talent. Webber was of arguable "character," but looking at his track record suggests that he got fortunate with his first core (Divac, Webber, Bibby, Stojakovic) in terms of "good people" and with his second core (Bibby, Artest, Wells, SAR), he's getting the normal random mix of good people and "character problems." Also, I notice he added "loser" Abdur-Rahim...no doubt if Whitsitt had done the same, he'd be labelled "Whitless."

Of course, the first core had to be broken up due to squabbling, so one could certainly question what model citizens that group was, too.

I still don't see a substantial difference between them.


----------



## ThePrideOfClyde (Mar 28, 2006)

Stepping Razor said:


> I think people liked Whitsitt's ability to pull off fleecings, they just didn't like either his odd notions about team chemistry (i.e, there's no such thing) or his personality (which, IMO, shouldn't really matter but does to many fans).
> 
> Petrie seems to be able to do many of the things Whitsitt did well, without his track record of Shawn Kemps, Dontonio Wingfields, etc.
> 
> ...


Most people realize this. I'm sorry that some can't...




talkhard said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> Whitsitt threw around money like it was candy, got us way over the salary limit, paid no attention to character or team chemistry, and created the debacle in public relations and fan discontent that led to the breakup of the team and the present situation. Petrie, on the other hand, has built (and now rebuilt) a very successful King's team with hardly any of those problems.


Again, to most people this comes as common sense. To others it is over their head's.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Reep said:


> Until recently I would have said that Petrie was better at pulling in team players with solid chemistry and good ethics. Bonzi and Artest destroyed that thought. Was it the last acts of a desperate man? Bob's fleecings were almost always picking up players with off-court issues (hence the discount price). I hope Petrie hasn't crossed over to the Bob . . . I mean dark side.


If you think Sactown would've been nearly as good a team without Bonzi and Artest, you are insane. In the playoffs they were clearly the Kings' best two players. 

The weird obsession many Blazer fans have with "character guys", even above winning, is probably as good a reason as any for Petrie not to come to Portland (and that's saying something, given that there are plenty of other reasons for Petrie to hate the idea of coming here). 

Why would he want to come to Portland where he knows a brilliant deal like Artest for Peja could never happen for dumb PR reasons? There are lots of places he could go to where his hands won't be tied like they will here.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

petrie's team went farther than any of whitless's


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> petrie's team went farther than any of whitless's


how do you figure? both got within a game of the NBA finals.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Utherhimo said:


> petrie's team went farther than any of whitless's


Really? Did Petrie's team come within a few minutes of getting to the NBA Finals? That said, I would love to get Petrie.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

Utherhimo said:


> petrie's team went farther than any of whitless's


Uh, how do you figure?

Whitsitt's team made it to Game 7 of the WCF. Somehow I don't remember the Kings ever playing in the Finals, so that's just not true.

I think Petrie's a better GM than Whitsitt, for a variety of reasons, but that's no reason to make things up.

Stepping Razor


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

theWanker said:


> Why would he want to come to Portland where he knows a brilliant deal like Artest for Peja could never happen for dumb PR reasons? There are lots of places he could go to where his hands won't be tied like they will here.


Unfortunately, that's what it seems to come down to. He'll come in as the conquering hero, and eventually be villified for picking up the Artests and Wells of the world--players who help teams win but aren't necessarily great guys to hang out with.

Where's the incentive in that?


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Utherhimo said:


> petrie's team went farther than any of whitless's


Utherhimo, I think Whitless did a lot of damage but in fact your statement is not true. The Blazers under Whitsitt went to the WCF twice and the Sonics went to the NBA finals. The Kings under Petrie went to the WCF once, if memory serves.

As for spending, there is a difference between spending and wasting. Most teams do need to spend to win. The Kings did, the Suns did, the Mavs and Pistons and Spurs and Heat did. They spent top salary on top talent. Could anyone argue with paying top dollar for a Shaq, a Tim Duncan, a Nash or Nowitzki? But that is not the same as the Knicks, to take a non Blazer example, with the biggest payroll, no draft picks, terrible record, little to no young talent to build on, spending a fortune on underachieving oft-injured head cases. 

The fact is that in the year when they had their largest payroll the Blazers also had their most disappointing season BASED ON EXPECTATIONS. They were expected to win it all, instead they were in 7th place, swept out of the playoffs in 3 noncompetitive games, fractured internally, a joke nationally, an embarrassment to fans. That is not spending, that is wasting. That is spending Tim Duncan money on Shawn Kemp.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> petrie's team went farther than any of whitless's


thats a misnomer. Petrie's "teams" in Portland were already manufactored (and he didn't get in charge till after the 92 season anyways). So really, he can't be given credit for the 91 and 92 teams. Because he wasn't the GM in 90 (he was VP for business operations). And he wasn't the "GM" in 91, he was the senior vice president of operations. He didn't have enough of a say to change that team or the 92 team really. Since the only additions that Petrie could be credited for was Ainge, and I'm not sure if he actually was responsible for that. The team was already really good before Petrie was.

I think Spolestra was the GM in 89-92...right? Anyone? 

the sacramento kings and the whitsitt blazer teams were basically mirror images of themselves. 

Both should've beaten the lakers in the WCF's, but didn't. Both under performed too.


----------



## ThePrideOfClyde (Mar 28, 2006)

Utherhimo said:


> petrie's team went farther than any of whitless's


True. 

Is it just me, or are people forgetting the fact that Petrie was the GM of the Blazers when we went to the finals 2 times in 3 years?

I'm guessing it's selective memory on their parts. After all, we have to have something to argue about, or our lives would be devoid of anything meaningful.... :raised_ey


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

gambitnut said:


> Really? Did Petrie's team come within a few minutes of getting to the NBA Finals? That said, I would love to get Petrie.


actually, I believe the Kings did in 2002, losing game 6 in LA by 4 (which would've won the series) and losing game 7 @ home by 6 which would've obviously sent them to the finals.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ThePrideOfClyde said:


> True.
> 
> *Is it just me, or are people forgetting the fact that Petrie was the GM of the Blazers when we went to the finals 2 times in 3 years?*
> 
> I'm guessing it's selective memory on their parts. After all, we have to have something to argue about, or our lives would be devoid of anything meaningful.... :raised_ey


no he wasn't.


----------



## ThePrideOfClyde (Mar 28, 2006)

SMiLE said:


> thats a misnomer. Petrie's "teams" in Portland were already manufcatored. So really, he can't be given credit for the 91 and 92 teams. Because he wasn't the GM in 90 (he was VP for business operations). And if he was the "GM" in 91, he was the senior vice president of operations. He didn't have enough of a say to change that team or the 92 team really. Since the only additions that Petrie could be credited for was Ainge, and I'm not sure if he actually was responsible for that. The team was already really good before Petrie was.
> 
> I think Spolestra was the GM in 89-92...right? Anyone?
> 
> ...


What color tie was Rick Adelman wearing on February 3rd, 1993? How many times did Kevin Duckworth scratch his butt during the last timeout of the last game of his career with the Blazers?

These and more of your questions answered by your resident know-it-all, "Smile."


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ThePrideOfClyde said:


> What color tie was Rick Adelman wearing on February 3rd, 1993? How many times did Kevin Duckworth scratch his butt during the last timeout of the last game of his career with the Blazers?
> 
> These and more of your questions answered by your resident know-it-all, "Smile."



blue and 18 times.

quick access to facts (online) does not a "know it all" make. Sorry if someone knowing more things than you is troubling to you. It's not troubling to me when minstrel, or ed or maxiep, or odomlol, or schilly or others know stuff (and point it out) that I don't know.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

ThePrideOfClyde said:


> True.
> 
> Is it just me, or are people forgetting the fact that Petrie was the GM of the Blazers when we went to the finals 2 times in 3 years?
> 
> I'm guessing it's selective memory on their parts. After all, we have to have something to argue about, or our lives would be devoid of anything meaningful.... :raised_ey


Except its not true. Petrie got to the finals with Portland. Whitsitt got to it with Seattle. 

They both then went on to a new team and got them to the conf finals. Really, their success has been very comparable.

That being said, I'd still like Petrie, I just doubt he's available to us.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

the question would be who left the team with the most mess = whitless



sorry for my foggy memory i thought it was petrie


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> the question would be who left the team with the most mess = whitless


It was a competitive team when Whitsitt left. Nash, Allen and the "twenty point plan" turned the team into its current mess.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

What happened last night?All i heard about was not picking up pritchards contract?


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

nash fired and they picked up kevin's option more hope for patterson to be PRESandGM!


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

Utherhimo said:


> nash fbring ired and they picked up kevin's option more hope for patterson to be PRESandGM!


If Patterson becomes GM also, it may well be one of the worse decisions made behind Bowie over Jordan. What has Patterson done to garner any respect for the job he is doing. Is the Blazer image better? Maybe a bit, but is still damaged. Has he brought in advertising dollars? Looking at the financial losses, doesn't appear so. People are giving me tickets instead of selling them to me. What incentive do I have to buy season tickets, when I go to 32 games, and 30 of them are free. If he was responsible for cutting payroll and letting players leave for nothing, what makes us think he will have any balls to make risky trades that are costly? Sometimes GM's have to take risk even though they get pounded when it doesn't work. Patterson should have lost his job with Nash and Paul should have brought in outside help (not Vulcan) to rebuild the image and organization. People will return if the product is better and they see progress better than at a snails pace.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

peace you know why he get so much pull from allen? patterson is the sleezy greezy 7-'s leasure suit vulcan front man that vulcan has allen believe he is walking on water and nash was evil. 

maybe nash didnt like vulcan?.....now thats a thought!


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

I need a _Cap'n Crunch_ decoder ring!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> maybe nash didnt like vulcan?.....now thats a thought!


He didn't like Vulcan so he ran the team into the ground?

Interesting theory.

Ed O.


----------

