# Nash: "I Don't Like The Chemistry of the Team......"



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> ..........and I think a lot of it had to do with the one player we have traded (Bonzi Wells). I'm not saying it's all his fault, but certainly the chemistry hasn't been as good as I would like to see it. We don't operate as a team many nights. We do things individually."





> "We are not a well-oiled machine and that is probably the mark of a mediocre team," Nash said. "And that's what we are, a mediocre team."




From: Jason Quick



> General manager John Nash says he is not happy with the state of the Trail Blazers, so much so that he is convinced that more roster changes are needed before the February trading deadline.
> 
> Through the first 21 games, Nash has spent extensive time around the team, traveling to six of the eight road games and becoming a fixture in the locker room and practice facility....
> 
> ......"Chemistry is a very hard thing to define. When you've got it, you know it, and when you don't got it, you know it as well," Nash said. "And right now, I don't think we got it. Whether we can get it with this group remains to be seen. The coaches continue to try, but my suspicion is we are probably going to have to continue to change personnel."


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Gosh, you don't need chemistry you just need highly athletic, mediocre players, right? 

I mean if you pound a square peg long enough it will fit in a round hole, right?  

Gee, Portland is continually out of the playoffs in time to watch the second round at home, does John Nash even know what he is talking about?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

"I'm not a chemistry major, but even I see this team doesn't have enough"~ Trader Bob.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Potential trades... did someone mention a possible change on the team :drool:
Is Atlanta still on speed dial?


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

I'm not sure I believe what Quick is saying based on the quotes he's using to back up his argument. Nowhere does Nash say anything stronger than "there's still a good chance" or something to that effect, in regard to a trade. 

Should Derek Anderson come back ready to contribute starter's minutes, or near starter's minutes, next month, I see no reason to make another move... especially one that's likely to be lateral or downwards on the talent scale.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

I believe it is the talk of trades that breeds bad chemistry.

I live with someone who's job is in jeopardy-it isn't fun, and you can't just ignore it. It hurts household chemistry and I believe it hurts team chemistry.

Nash and the O need to shut up. Support the team and see what happens.

It is a factor.

But hey-they have broken Rasheed now-he was made to aplogize, talk to media after the game, etc. etc....he is doing what they ask...if he is complying and playing VERY WELL in the mean time-then why on earth don't they give it a rest? That crowd the other night went from booing Rasheed to cheering him like a king. Fickle man-fickle.

If they've broken the horse-why give it away? Stupid.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

_They_ may mot have broken him. it just could have been his agent talking to him, or Wallace himself realizing that it could damage his bottom line....CTC.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> _They_ may mot have broken him. it just could have been his agent talking to him, or Wallace himself realizing that it could damage his bottom line....CTC.


I agree-either scenerio is possible. I am hoping that he has come to realize that he will face these same issues regardless of where he is. League rules are league rules....so, if he does want to stay here and keep his family here...perhaps he is coming to realize that he is just going to have to try and play the game both on the court and off the court to survive.

I think it's a shame it had to come to this but the flip side is that if Rasheed DOES find a way to meet everyone's criteria...why on earth would we want to let him go? Other teams are chomping at the bit to get him and they know full well how he is, yet they are willing to take him.....I think Nash would be outright foolish to let him go now.

"O" be beaver damned!


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

i heard his wife ripped him a new ******* after his stupid comments, and his agent agreed with her.

lol at big bad sheed getting pummelled by his wife.


if Portland had chemistry you'd see a lot more smiling faces on the floor, as it is they seem to just play at whatever mood level they happen to be in that day.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> ....lol at big bad sheed getting pummelled by his wife.


Yeah, big momma's house.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

"They broke" Rasheed? That is absurd. The guy, for once, decided to take some responsibility for his words/actions, and actually gave an interview to boot! Oh, the horror!!! He's clearly cracked under the pressure of the exploiters. Stern and the Evil Empire have toppled the great Wall of Sheed.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> i heard his wife ripped him a new ******* after his stupid comments, and his agent agreed with her.
> 
> lol at big bad sheed getting pummelled by his wife.


He's said she runs the show in their family... just curious, where did you hear that she got on his case and that his agent agreed?

STOMP


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> "They broke" Rasheed? That is absurd. The guy, for once, decided to take some responsibility for his words/actions, and actually gave an interview to boot! Oh, the horror!!! He's clearly cracked under the pressure of the exploiters. Stern and the Evil Empire have toppled the great Wall of Sheed.


I think you are letting your hatred for Rasheed cloud the truth of human nature.

A broken person is referring to a person that concedes to going against their nature to please authority of any sort.

Easy example: A child's nature is to pee when they gotta pee...they become "broken"-aka "potty trained" when they learn they have to go use the potty...the authority being mommy and daddy. It's called growing up-learning the rules.

What about all the great people out there who have successfully reformed their lives? These people deserve much credit and ususally turn out to be even better people than those that never had problems. It is HARD. It is extremely difficult to admit you have been wrong and then do something about it.

Rasheed is now conceding to the authority that is making him go against his nature of not wishing to speak to reporters. He has made that abundantly clear. But-it went against the league rules.

This is what I mean by broken. It could be said that Ron Artest has been broken too...Van Exel? Etc etc...

Someone who did not conform or allow themselves to be "broken" was Dennis Rodman-look what that refusal got him....

Rasheed is showing signs that he is breaking.

Like it or not-it is a sign that Rasheed is growing up. 

He is learning the hard way-but learning is exactly what he is doing.

Seems to me the smart thing to do is to see where he goes from here. Getting rid of him now is simply stupid and there is no real reason for it as long as he is working at conforming to the rules and playing well-Rasheed is doing both.

I am a firm believer in a person's ability to change. I truly believe there are signs of change coming from Wallace. I applaud him for trying.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I find it interesting that Nash seems to blame the Blazers' current chemistry woes on Bonzi Wells... I can understand if he thought the team HAD bad chemistry when Wells was there, but the way the quote is formulated, with lots of present tenses, it sounds like moving Wells didn't do the trick in terms of clearing things up.

It seems to me that Patterson is going to be gone relatively soon, and if that's the case hopefully he can keep playing well so we can get something of value beyond future cap relief for him...

Ed O.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

What trade is coming up that has Patterson in it? Why would we trade our spark plug off the bench? He's our defense! Trade DA and Jeff before Patterson.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I find it interesting that Nash seems to blame the Blazers' current chemistry woes on Bonzi Wells... I can understand if he thought the team HAD bad chemistry when Wells was there, but the way the quote is formulated, with lots of present tenses, it sounds like moving Wells didn't do the trick in terms of clearing things up.


I noticed the same thing. He does paint a scenario where Bonzi's impact on the team still has some residual, lingering effect. I wonder if Quick tried to get details on this and if Nash declined to offer any (which I could see happening) or if Quick missed the opportunity (which I could also see happening).



> It seems to me that Patterson is going to be gone relatively soon, and if that's the case hopefully he can keep playing well so we can get something of value beyond future cap relief for him...


:yes:


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

As much as I got fed-up with Bonzi, I still like Ruben P. and wish there were a way that the Blazers could keep him.

Yes, Ruben has done some very stupid things. But, it seems like he has been truly remorseful, while working his tail off on the team.

Yes, apparently, Ruben sold his house and moved the family off to Ohio, but it also seems that, since his little meeting with Patterson/Nash at the beginning of the season, he's been a "model" employee and, seemingly, made great strides to be the type of player/citizen that the Blazers are wanting to be exemplified as? :whoknows:

If so, I certainly have room in my heart for those types. :yes:


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> 
> I think you are letting your hatred for Rasheed cloud the truth of human nature.
> ...



I guess I misunderstood your use of “broken.” And I don't hate Sheed. In fact, I want nothing more than for him to grow up, and I personally had very little problem with his interview. Some did. And he took some responsibility for his words. I liked that. “Broken” or not, I still think you said it best – he's growing up. A grown up Sheed I would love.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Agreed Professional Fan... a grown up Sheed would be nice indeed. And I might add Bonzi as well, but its too late now.

I do not think that Nash is saying Bonzi was the total cause of bad team chemistry. Its possible that he is thinking he is a part of it, and that it may require another move or maybe more than one move to clear the team of his perceived bad chemistry. Maybe its Patterson and Q gone, or maybe even Sheed :whoknows: Only the Blazer brass know for sure. They could do a whole house cleaning as many posters have talked about over the last year.

I hate to see disruption and the team not playing up to its potential, but on the other hand I hate to see us loose a talent like Bonzi. It remains to be seen what the impact of this winters dealings will be, but I am sure we all hope we can make the playoffs and continue to improve the team somehow.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Is this guy fargin stupid?*

1. First of all, does saying you are going to make more changes make the team play any harder for you?

2. What kind of idiot would tip his hand that he wants to make some deals? I can understand wanting to make some fans happy in order to fill some seats, but comon, is it really good for the team in the long run?

3. By talking about the players in the fashon he does (as "bad chemistry" or "inidividuals, not team players", he does nothing but decrease their trade value. This does nothing to help the team in the future, because it ticks the players off, and makes other teams think that these guys may be players that they do not want on their team.

4. Timing is great. Get a win vs the Lakers, and then beat the team back down with some bad comments. You sure show a lot of class Nash, so much it astounds me on how you got this job. Can we say, "nobody else would take it". I knew you could.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

*Re: Is this guy fargin stupid?*



> Originally posted by <b>hasoos</b>!
> 1. First of all, does saying you are going to make more changes make the team play any harder for you?
> 
> 2. What kind of idiot would tip his hand that he wants to make some deals? I can understand wanting to make some fans happy in order to fill some seats, but comon, is it really good for the team in the long run?
> ...


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Is this guy fargin stupid?*



> Originally posted by <b>hasoos</b>!
> Can we say, "nobody else would take it". I knew you could.


Wow, dude. That was harsh. I pretty much agree with it, but it was harsh. 

Ed O.


----------



## RoseCity (Sep 27, 2002)

Great post ABM. I really like Patterson and his role on this team. With a couple more guys like him on the bench(Gadzuric!), we would have a super fun to watch bench.

You cannot deny the fact that Ruben has been a model citzen this year and worked his *** off for the better of the team. Besides that, he has been a huge catlyst in our latest wins, off the bench and in limited minutes da boot.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

*Re: Is this guy fargin stupid?*



> Originally posted by <b>hasoos</b>!
> 3. By talking about the players in the fashon he does (as "bad chemistry" or "inidividuals, not team players", he does nothing but decrease their trade value.


Come on now, it's no secret to anyone in the league that some of the Blazer players have question marks. Every GM already knows that regardless of what Nash says. 



> 4. Timing is great. Get a win vs the Lakers, and then beat the team back down with some bad comments.


These guys are grown men and should be able to take such critisism. Nash is testing them. He's calling them out to see if they're really committed to the team and want to prove him wrong. If they cry like babies, then it will just prove that they aren't winners to begin with in that case we don't need them. 

Bill Parcells tore into the Cowboy players with much harsher critisism than what Nash did. They responded by shutting out the Redskins. That's having character and responding to the challenge. Can the Blazers do that?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*He is not their coach*

That's nice and all, but he is not their coach, he is the GM. His job isn't to call them out. His job is to bring in key personalities necessary to put together a successful franchise. By lowering their value he does not help the issue any. The comments he makes and the amount he discloses, I find at the very least, unprofessional. :upset:


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

well said, hasoos. 

in times like this, it's best to ask "what would the Godfather Bob have done?" 

Don Vito Whitsitt's Rules of Team Management: 

1. keep your friends close and your enemies closer. 

2. never let somebody outside the family know what you're thinking. 

3. whack anybody on the team named Fredo. 

well, I don't have any proof about #3, but then we never had to confront that situation here in Portland.


----------



## talman (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> well said, hasoos.
> 
> in times like this, it's best to ask "what would the Godfather Bob have done?"
> ...


LOL!!!!!!!

I hereby nominate theWanker's post for post of the year.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: He is not their coach*



> Originally posted by <b>hasoos</b>!
> That's nice and all, but he is not their coach, he is the GM. His job isn't to call them out. His job is to bring in key personalities necessary to put together a successful franchise. By lowering their value he does not help the issue any. The comments he makes and the amount he discloses, I find at the very least, unprofessional. :upset:


Nash is definitely pursuing a rather new and potentially disturbing GM course of action. "Let's belittle the goods, then try to move them for good parts."

If it works, my faith in a logical universe will collapse and I'll look into such equally illogical, hopefully effective techniques like, "healing by inflicting gunshot wounds."


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> These guys are grown men and should be able to take such critisism.


Just because they _can_ take it doesn't mean they should _have to_ take it, nor does it mean it's conducive to success.

Between Cheeks and Nash's comments to the media this year, it's amazing the players even bother showing up to work. Their presence obviously isn't appreciated.

Dan


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> well said, hasoos.
> 
> in times like this, it's best to ask "what would the Godfather Bob have done?"
> ...


I'm disappointed in you, *hasoos*

Don MICHAEL had Fredo whacked.....Don Vito had too much of a soft spot in his heart for his children....


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

*Re: He is not their coach*



> Originally posted by <b>hasoos</b>!
> That's nice and all, but he is not their coach, he is the GM. His job isn't to call them out. His job is to bring in key personalities necessary to put together a successful franchise. By lowering their value he does not help the issue any. The comments he makes and the amount he discloses, I find at the very least, unprofessional. :upset:


Coach, GM, it doesn't matter. He's still a big part of the management team. If he thinks Mo is being too easy on them then maybe he feels like he should be the bad guy. It doesn't bother me. These guys make millions of dollars to play a game. If they're too hypersensitive that something like this bothers them to the point where they can't go out and actually earn their fat guaranteed contracts, then we don't need 'em.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> Between Cheeks and Nash's comments to the media this year, it's amazing the players even bother showing up to work. Their presence obviously isn't appreciated.


Wah. I have to believe the millions they make in guaranteed contracts is appreciation enough. And if the management feels that they aren't doing their part to be good teammates and put out a good effort every night to earn that money then they shouldn't have to bite their tongues.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Your sense of compassion is truly touching.

Funny that people who are convinced chemistry is bad on the team, Nash included, show no apparent concern for how their own actions and/or views contribute to that bad chemistry.

Dan


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I'm not sure that I would argue that Nash is being incredibly shrewd here...

However, the idea that coddling the players and not holding them accountable for their play or their actions will somehow make this team better is way off. 

That's exactly what has been wrong with the team for too long. The players were given a free pass, and they ran with it.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> 
> That's exactly what has been wrong with the team for too long. The players were given a free pass, and they ran with it.


All the way to the WC Finals. Twice.

It's possible that the Blazers will do better than that in the next several years, but I think it is more likely to happen if they get better players, not players who Nash feels he doesn't have to badmouth.

Ed O.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> I'm disappointed in you, *hasoos*
> 
> Don MICHAEL had Fredo whacked.....Don Vito had too much of a soft spot in his heart for his children....


yes, well it is interesting that in your post you correct somebody on mistaken identity, only to correct the wrong poster. 

why did you do it, So Cal? you broke my heart. *kiss of theWanker*


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> ...I think it is more likely to happen if they get better players, not players who Nash feels he doesn't have to badmouth.
> 
> Ed O.


Can't we have both?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> Can't we have both?


Sure. Maybe they'll play for free, too, in that fantasy land.



Ed O.


----------



## mavsman (Jun 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> 
> I think you are letting your hatred for Rasheed cloud the truth of human nature.
> ...


So Wallace gives one lame apology for saying one of the most
asinine things anyone could say and this means that he has
grown up.

I hope you are not a parent. You could one of the most easily
manipulated parents out there.

How about waiting until you see a pattern of changed behavior
before you give him the benefit of the doubt? People did not
start coming down on him after his first offense. It took a pattern
of bad behavior before people got down on him. Now it should
take a pattern of good behavior before people get off his case.
One apology and a couple of games without technicals is not
enough to say he has changed.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mavsman</b>!
> Now it should take a pattern of good behavior before people get off his case.
> One apology and a couple of games without technicals is not enough to say he has changed.



To continue your child/parent thing... It seems as if you've got a favorite child who can't do wrong in your eyes and another who you're blaming for more then they've done. Maybe you could start paying attention to your team's actions rather then the spin on Portland before you advise us how we should root for our team? Wallace had a T count in the low teens last season. Several Mavs had more and overall your Dallas Mavs had much more then the Trailblazers. Am I sensing a pattern here... http://www.sportsline.com/nba/stats/teamsort/regularseason/yearly/NBA/MISC?&_1:col_1=10

When is your management going to clean up that awful mess in Big D? I'm sure you've got at least as much spite for that  

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

...thinking about this further... the Mavs were one of the most T'd up teams in the league last year, and then their reckless management traded for Antoine Walker who led the whole league. Making matters even worse they traded for Danny Fortson who wouldn't show up to practices or games because he didn't like his coach. That flagrant when he threw down on the Suns rookie was disgusting IMO. Mavs fans must be real proud.

STOMP


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I've said all along Rasheed was at his best when he led the league in technicals. Sure, he occasionally hurt the team by being thrown out of a game here and there, but his level of play the rest of the time was high enough to more than counter any such negatives. People that complain about his lazy and disinterested demeanor should try remembering back to how fiery he used to be... Sorry folks, you can't have it both ways, at least not with Sheed.

I don't really expect the media to pick up on such things, though. Same goes for the majority of fans, who simply believe what they read. From that standpoint at least, I can understand why Rasheed feels misunderstood and misrepresented.

Dan


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mavsman</b>!
> 
> 
> So Wallace gives one lame apology for saying one of the most
> ...


As a matter of fact I am and I don't care for your insinuation. 

#1-I didn't say changed-I said conformed. Sheed is Sheed, but he is caving in to the demands and trying to do what they ask. I am not blind that he is very rough around the edges...but I am not going to crucify him because I don't like the way he answers questions. He's not a child.

It was not a lame apology. I saw the rolling of the eyes of the newscasters on the news-that was totally uncalled for. It's the same thing-Sheed offers an apology and since it isn't worded perfectly-he is maligned for that. 

*why don't you read the NY Times article in a thread on this board.*

I take the person into consideration. Rasheed is not a good speaker, he is not good with PR, he is not personable when he is being made to be...he has tried to get people to understand this but they keep insisting he speak. His opinion is reflected by others-people just flipped out over the language which made the message get muddled. I blame the "O" for not editing-they made a conscious choice to not do so-given their pattern-I saw that as malicious. *note how the NY Times reported the same paragraphs. Of course Rasheed should have chosen his words more carefully....I am sure he spoke believing it would be edited. It would be a logical assumption.

Maybe it's time to re-evaluate this rule of forcing players to speak to media. If they were all forced to it would be one thing-but they are not. Each and every player should be forced to do a certain number of interviews a year-that makes it fair. Since it isn't that way-why peg Sheed when they KNOW that it isn't going to go well. No-I will never support that.

Dale, Damon, Ruben, Jeff, Zach all LOVE to talk-talk to them.

I DO recognize his efforts both on and off the court. Since his suspension last season in Jan. he has been better. For me that is NEARLY a year of pattern. Nearly a year of lesser techs (and that goes even further back really). Nearly a year without drug trouble. He continues to be a charitable person in spite of all the hatred spewed his way.

One thing about it-only a guy like Rasheed could continue to function in this atmosphere-that is a credit to him. You don't hear him lashing out in response-he just takes it quietly. 

The team doesn't seem to have a problem with Rasheed-that means something-they see what we do not. If they were speaking out-I'd listen. Other than typical game stuff-I have not heard any Blazer say anything about wanting Rasheed punished or gone. Their opinions matter far more than anyone elses to me.


I'd be curious to hear what you have to say about Damon and Zach? Since they speak well and do nice interviews and since Damon has become "clutch" and Zach averages double doubles-does that make their offenses more tolerable?


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> 
> yes, well it is interesting that in your post you correct somebody on mistaken identity, only to correct the wrong poster.
> ...


 Whoops, I messed up on that one, didn't I? :laugh:


To *hasoos* I offer up my deepest, sincerest apology.


----------



## mavsman (Jun 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> 
> *why don't you read the NY Times article in a thread on this board.*


Why don't you read the article by about Sheed by Bill Walton
on ESPN.com? That is how most people feel about Rasheed
except for die hard Blazer fans.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mavsman</b>!
> 
> 
> Why don't you read the article by about Sheed by Bill Walton
> ...


Thanks for clarifying that you are willing to put Bill Walton's words above the NY Times. 'nuff said.


----------

