# OT: Rasheed



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

He did it again. We lived with his attitude for years now Detroit got a taste of Rasheed losing his cool in crucial situation.

:cheers: :cheers:


From the Detroit board
http://www.basketballforum.com/detroit-pistons/361591-rasheed.html#post4792329


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*

Man, that was like Deja Vu all over again.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

*Re: Rasheed*

but this time it was wonderful!


----------



## Ron Burgundy (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*



BBert said:


> Man, that was like Deja Vu all over again.


Sure was . . . and I love what Barkley said it about it in the post-game. "Rasheed needs to grow up, he's the most talented player on the team, he needs to be more of a leader . . " The guy has been in the league for 12 years - he's not going to change. It's easy to gloss over his deficiencies (foul trouble, griping, t-fouls) when you're winning. The guy just makes you shake your head.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

I will always be a Rasheed fan but here is yet another example of him screwing his teammates when they needed him most. He's not a dependable player to have on the floor. You just don't pull that **** in the final minutes of an elimination game.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

Wow that was fun to watch. The guy was, ans still is, a selfish egomaniac.

I would love to see just one of the folks here who defended him to the end, and beyond, and then crowed when he won a championship in Detroit, admit that they were wrong about him.

*He is everything that is wrong with the NBA today*.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



Stevenson said:


> Wow that was fun to watch. The guy was, ans still is, a selfish egomaniac.
> 
> I would love to see just one of the folks here who defended him to the end, and beyond, and then crowed when he won a championship in Detroit, admit that they were wrong about him.
> 
> *He is everything that is wrong with the NBA today*.


Bwahahaha!

Yes, you're right. He's always been a cancer. If the Pistons had only not acquired him, they would have actually won something.

Ridiculous.

Ed O.


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Utherhimo said:


> but this time it was wonderful!



I have to agree!

Congrats (and thanks), goes to Cleveland for a really entertaining night of basketball.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*

anyone else wonder about how the Pistons would've faired against the Lakers, had Shaq no been a fatty boombaladdy, and Malone and Payton not been injured/useless?

It seems that both of the Pistons series wins against the Lakers happened due to the Lakers injuries.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Rashweed were still in Portland? He could teach our young guys how to get thrown out of the biggest game of the season, and disqualify yourself from a Game 7 of the Western Conference Championship. That's exactly the kind of veteran leadership we're missing. Heh, heh.

Thanks for reminding us all of how lucky we are to be rid of your sorry ***, Rashweed. You've always been an embarrassment, and your legend only continues to grow.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Ed O said:


> Bwahahaha!
> 
> Yes, you're right. He's always been a cancer. If the Pistons had only not acquired him, they would have actually won something.
> 
> ...


He was a cancer here, that's for sure. Why do you think he gives thoughtful interviews to all the press now, and no more "both teams played hard"? Because he knew that that BS had played itself out. He knew he got a second chance and wasn't going to make the same mistakes again. 

Did he win a championship in Detroit? You bet. But so did Lindsay Hunter. Put anyone else of similar capabilities on that team instead of Sheed and they would have won that championship. Garnett, Duncan, Pierce, whoever. He lucked out getting traded to the Pistons at the right moment. Heck, even Mel Counts won a championship with the Lakers - does that make him a winner? 

Just ask Detroit fans if they think Sheed is a cancer. Go read their boards tonight.

Ridiculous indeed.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*



Hap said:


> anyone else wonder about how the Pistons would've faired against the Lakers, had Shaq no been a fatty boombaladdy, and Malone and Payton not been injured/useless?
> 
> It seems that both of the Pistons series wins against the Lakers happened due to the Lakers injuries.


*BOTH*of the Pistons series wins vs LA? Wasn't it just one? Detroit met the Spurs in the finals the following year and if it weren't a Robert Horry miracle bomb away from probably beating them too. A lot of people point back to the Pistons-LA sereis and argued that had Malone not hurt his knee, then LA wins. Maybe. There was so mauch drama on that Laker team than went way beyond Karl Malone. Bad charma eventually catches up to you. If you read Philip's book, you know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Stevenson said:


> He was a cancer here, that's for sure. Why do you think he gives thoughtful interviews to all the press now, and no more "both teams played hard"? Because he knew that that BS had played itself out. He knew he got a second chance and wasn't going to make the same mistakes again.
> 
> Did he win a championship in Detroit? You bet. But so did Lindsay Hunter. Put anyone else of similar capabilities on that team instead of Sheed and they would have won that championship. Garnett, Duncan, Pierce, whoever. He lucked out getting traded to the Pistons at the right moment. Heck, even Mel Counts won a championship with the Lakers - does that make him a winner?
> 
> ...


Ding-ding. We have a winner! Points to you, Stevenson.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> Ding-ding. We have a winner! Points to you, Stevenson.


Bro, we agree on almost everything - except politics! If we avoid that sore subject, we are 95% on the same page.

Go Blazers!
Go Oden!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



Ron Burgundy said:


> *BOTH*of the Pistons series wins vs LA?


yes, both series wins vs LA. 



> Wasn't it just one? Detroit met the Spurs in the finals the following year and if it weren't a Robert Horry miracle bomb away from probably beating them too. A lot of people point back to the Pistons-LA sereis and argued that had Malone not hurt his knee, then LA wins. Maybe. There was so mauch drama on that Laker team than went way beyond Karl Malone. Bad charma eventually catches up to you. If you read Philip's book, you know what I'm talking about.


we know all about karma. 

but do a little research. the Pistons first ever title came against the Lakers, when Magic, Worthy and Cooper (I think?) all had injuries and basically didn't play.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

It was Byron Scott. Both he and Magic went down with thigh injuries 

I think the guy above was confused about the one Pistons' title in 2004, v. back to back in 90 and 91.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



Stevenson said:


> He was a cancer here, that's for sure.


And when we removed the cancer, the patient died. When you have a cure that's worse than the disease, I think it's unfair to use the term "cancer".



> Did he win a championship in Detroit? You bet. But so did Lindsay Hunter. Put anyone else of similar capabilities on that team instead of Sheed and they would have won that championship. Garnett, Duncan, Pierce, whoever. He lucked out getting traded to the Pistons at the right moment. Heck, even Mel Counts won a championship with the Lakers - does that make him a winner?


I don't understand what your point is, other than that you've for some reason placed Rasheed in a class where he's never belonged (Duncan and Garnett). I'm not claiming that he's a "winner". I don't really think that many players are "winners" or "losers". It's a team sport, and players are either "good" or "bad", and Rasheed is "good".

Would the Pistons have won a championship if they hadn't been able to get Rasheed so cheaply?

Would they have been better off in this series if he hadn't been there?



> Just ask Detroit fans if they think Sheed is a cancer. Go read their boards tonight.


I don't trust Pistons fans any more than I trust Blazers fans. And, based on the halflife of irrational complaining about the best Blazer in the last decade, I don't trust us (as a whole) much at all.

Was it Rasheed's fault that Prince was horrible? That Billups forgot how to play? Of course not.

Getting tossed was stupid, and it spoiled any chance they had of coming back from a 12 point deficit. But blaming Rasheed for this loss or the series loss overall is silly.

Ed O.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*



Ed O said:


> And when we removed the cancer, the patient died. When you have a cure that's worse than the disease, I think it's unfair to use the term "cancer".
> <snip>
> 
> Ed O.


Patient didn't die, just taking a few years to rehab.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



mgb said:


> Patient didn't die, just taking a few years to rehab.


Is that what Nash and Patterson would call it? 

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



> And when we removed the cancer, the patient died.


Nonsense. Removing the cancer is what has allowed the patient to survive. And the Portland Trail Blazers are surviving very nicely, in case you haven't noticed.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> Nonsense. Removing the cancer is what has allowed the patient to survive. And the Portland Trail Blazers are surviving very nicely, in case you haven't noticed.


Again: ask Patterson and Nash how that worked out for them... 

*Eventually* every team can overcome any mistake. Can overcome the loss of any player or coach or whatever... but in the mean time, the team had the worst run in franchise history after getting rid of Rasheed.

Ed O.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*

And it was the smartest move they ever made.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*



Ed O said:


> but in the mean time, the team had the worst run in franchise history after getting rid of Rasheed.


The worst run in the history of the franchise was their first four years when they won a total of 95 games (23.75 wins per season). By comparison, they've won 121 games over the last four years (30.25 wins per season).

And, if you recall, their record in 2003-2004 was actually better after the Rasheed trade than before. Trading Rasheed was just one piece of the rebuilding process. Nash's boneheaded moves, inability to make trades, and poor drafting set everything back further. 

But, in the end I'm happy with where we are today, VERY HAPPY. Yeah, the road getting here was painful at times, but now that we're here I'm glad Rasheed Wallace is the Detroit Piston's problem and I can go to bed happy again tonight knowing we have some of the best young talent in the league and the first pick in the upcoaming draft. At this point, Rasheed Wallace is totally irrelevent to this Blazers fan. I didn't really enjoy seeing Rasheed implode tonight, but I've seen that act so many times I can't say I was surprised.

BNM


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



RW#30 said:


> He did it again. We lived with his attitude for years now Detroit got a taste of Rasheed losing his cool in crucial situation.http://www.basketballforum.com/detroit-pistons/361591-rasheed.html#post4792329


Yep. Thank god we made it to the conference finals without Rasheed this year. 

barfo


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

Ed O, as soon as I saw this thread I knew you'd be on here and I knew who's side you'd be one. I've been reading your posts for years and in almost every other case you are spot on...in my opinion. With Rasheed, however, I've never agreed with you. You sound like his agent/brother/mother. The guy is a loser. Sure, he's ok when everything is great, but who isn't. The going gets tough and he melts like a first grader.

You're spot wrong when it comes to Rasheed.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



TP3 said:


> The guy is a loser.


And yet, he keeps winning. 

What a paradox.

barfo


----------



## smeedemann (Jul 16, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

The biggest problem with players like Rasheed is that they are allowed to continue on with the childish behavior. In nearly any other profession someone like him would not be able to act like that. I wonder how many of us could have behavior remotely like that and keep our jobs?

I think professional sports should hold players much more accountable and not put up with that crap. I don't care how talented a player is, they are making millions of dollars to play a game. Why can't they at least have a small amount of professionalism?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*



barfo said:


> And yet, he keeps winning.


Well, except for tonight and that time he left Robert Horry wide open for the game winning three in the finals against San Antonio a couple years ago. Oh, and game seven against Dallas when he scored 2 points in the first half. Or, missing six consectuive field goal attempts and two free throws in the fourth quarter of game seven against the Lakers in the 2000 WCF. Other than those minor lapses, he's a true winner in every sense of the word. Except, of course, when a play-off series is on the line. Then he folds like a cheap cot. Again, I'm glad he's Detroit's problem and not ours. We're about to have two talented big men that will make Rasheed Wallace the distant memory he deserves to be for Blazer fans. Geeze, the guy's been gone for 3 and a half years and he still polarizes Blazer fans.

BNM


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Boob-No-More said:


> Well, except for tonight and that time he left Robert Horry wide open for the game winning three in the finals against San Antonio a couple years ago. Oh, and game seven against Dallas when he scored 2 points in the first half. Or, missing six consectuive field goal attempts and two free throws in the fourth quarter of game seven against the Lakers in the 2000 WCF. Other than those minor lapses, he's a true winner in every sense of the word. Except, of course, when a play-off series is on the line. Then he folds like a cheap cot. Again, I'm glad he's Detroit's problem and not ours. We're about to have two talented big men that will make Rasheed Wallace the distant memory he deserves to be for Blazer fans. Geeze, the guy's been gone for 3 and a half years and he still polarizes Blazer fans.
> 
> BNM


He certainly does (polarize blazer fans). 

So he screwed up tonight in the conference finals. And in the finals two years ago. And in game 7 against Dallas. And in the conference finals against the Lakers. 

Now, which current Blazer has a better record in the playoffs? 

Oh, right. None of them. 

Is getting deep into the playoffs and failing to win the championship really a greater stain than failing to make the playoffs at all? 

If so, I'm the greatest player of all time, because I've accomplished absolutely nothing in basketball.

barfo


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

When we needed him most he pulled the crap he pulled tonight. The classic front-runner. He's only good on a good team. He's just not tough.

He was GREAT when the Blazers were great and GREAT when the Pistons were great. Think about it.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*



barfo said:


> Now, which current Blazer has a better record in the playoffs?
> 
> Oh, right. None of them.


Yet. Check back when Oden, Aldridge and Roy are the same age as Rasheed. Sheed's certainly had his chances at greatness, but he'll be remembered as a guy who melted down when his team needed him most. That's his legacy and he's earned it. I expect a lot more from the young core we are assembling. I don't picture them wilting under pressure like Wallace has repeatedly.

BNM


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



TP3 said:


> When we needed him most he pulled the crap he pulled tonight. The classic front-runner. He's only good on a good team. He's just not tough.
> 
> He was GREAT when the Blazers were great and GREAT when the Pistons were great. Think about it.


Uh huh. And how is it that he happens to be on all these GREAT teams? 

"He's only good on a good team".

Is that worse than being good on a bad team? Is that worse than being bad on a good team? Is that worse than being bad on a bad team? 

barfo


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Boob-No-More said:


> Yet. Check back when Oden, Aldridge and Roy are the same age as Rasheed. Sheed's certainly had his chances at greatness, but he'll be remembered as a guy who melted down when his team needed him most. That's his legacy and he's earned it. I expect a lot more from the young core we are assembling. I don't picture them wilting under pressure like Wallace has repeatedly.
> 
> BNM


Well, I will indeed check back then. Hopefully, all three will be multiple-time all-stars, league champions, and so on. If they aren't, I'll still be a fan of all three of them. Even if they aren't perfect.

barfo


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



barfo said:


> Well, I will indeed check back then. Hopefully, all three will be multiple-time all-stars, league champions, and so on. If they aren't, I'll still be a fan of all three of them. Even if they aren't perfect.
> 
> barfo


If the Blazers go less then 574-0 over the next 7 regular seasons, I will feel let down.


----------



## porkchopexpress (May 24, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*

First off, the game had been lost prior to his meltdown.

Secondly, they would have been swept without him.

Third, if you want to pass some blame, what about Prince, guy was awful the whole series. Something like 16-65 for the series. At least Sheed showed up to play.


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

The winner of that game was still very much in question when Rasheed threw his tantrum. You're in complete denial on that point. Had there been a game seven he wouldn't have played. Prince is not a star. He's a role player. Prince also doesn't run his mouth like Rasheed. 

If Rasheed only had a brain (or if he had ever grown up), he would have been twice the player that he is. He severely damaged the reputation of the Blazers, insulted all Blazer fans, and then generally tried to pass it off as a "local" problem rather than his own. He deserves to be exposed for the jerk that he is. Now his legacy is forever tarnished and the Blazer's image improves in retrospect. What a great off season this has been so far.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

Bunch of sour grapes.

Rasheed's an awesome player and we went in the toilet when he left.

And that's putting it mildly.

He's the most talented player on Detroit, as he was here, and the most reliable.

The fact that he has human emotions and actually cares about winning are concepts too difficult for some sports-moralists to grasp.

If we're extremely lucky, LaMarcus will someday show a tenth of his talent.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



barfo said:


> And yet, he keeps winning.
> 
> What a paradox.


Yeah, that was quite the victory last night! Rashweed was magnificent, wasn't he?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Man, talk about holding a grudge. Every year the haters wait until Detroit loses deep into the playoffs to display all of their bitterness and roll out crazy theories of how he took down Portland and now Detroit is wallowing in his wake. I absolutely love *Boob No More*'s critisisms. Only scoring 2 points in the first half of game 7 vs. the Mavs... what a cheap folding chair jerk Sheed was for only scoring 15 points in the 2nd half 

http://www.nba.com/games/20030504/PORDAL/boxscore.html

...and nitpicking through his 13-26, 30 point game 7 vs the Lakers to again claim he was some sort of imploding failure when his teammates were injured, fouled out, or simply sucking down the stretch

http://espn.go.com/nba/2000/20000604/boxscore/porlal.html 



mgb said:


> And it (trading Rasheed for crap) was the smartest move they ever made.


I said it at the time, but I don't know what to say for anyone not taking advantage of the crystal clear 20/20 hindsight available showing what a horrible move that was for the club. Waiting until the offseason to S&T him or letting him walk and having his salary clear would have been much better moves... taking the Detroit offer (that Atlanta quickly accepted) of #1s (Josh Smith) and expiring contracts would have been genius. That move was a failure from the outset which was compounded by Nash's resigning that puke Theo for 10+Mil trying to justify it. Anyone crediting that blunder as some sort of cause and effect of the team getting the #1 this year is about as far as one can bend backwards without making themselves into a human pretzel. Nash was easily the worst GM the club has ever had and the Sheed trade ranks amoung his defining moments wasting the club's resources and opprotunities. It is no coincidence that he is completely out of pro hoops.

This was a very smart move... http://ezinearticles.com/?Portland-Trail-Blazers-Dump-GM-John-Nash-Prior-To-Draft-Day&id=212481

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> Yeah, that was quite the victory last night!


It's pretty telling that the only response mustered to barfo's point is, "Yeah, but he hasn't won EVERY game in his life!"

Translation: yes, Rasheed _has_ been a winner throughout his basketball career, but that's inconvenient to our point about him.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



MARIS61 said:


> Rasheed's an awesome player and we went in the toilet when he left.


What a simplistic analysis. Portland management was fully aware that we would take a step backwards when we started unloading all the malcontents on this team, including Rashweed Wallace, Bonzi Wells, Dale Davis, and Damon Stoudamire. It's called R E B U I L D I N G. We had a bunch of talented but underachieving characters on the team that consistently flamed out in the first round of the playoffs. There was no upside to that team. Now we have a young nucleus with more promise than Detroit, Miami, Dallas, or even San Antonio. We have the best young collection of players in the NBA, bar none. And we did it in less than 4 years--and it started when we dumped Rashweed's sorry ***. 

By the way, no one has mentioned the time Rashweed was kicked out of the first game of a big playoff series against the Lakers--a game that Portland went on to lose. This is not the first time that Wallace has wilted under pressure. 



> He's the most talented player on Detroit, as he was here, and the most reliable.


Hardly. When they needed him the most last night, he was in the locker room punching things and screaming profanities. 



> The fact that he has human emotions and actually cares about winning are concepts too difficult for some sports-moralists to grasp.


Huh? If Rashweed really cared about winning, he would make sure he didn't get kicked out of big playoff games. It's hard to help your team win when you're sitting in the locker room watching the game on TV. The fact is, Rashweed is a punk who can't control his emotions. He's constantly throwing tantrums on the court and screaming at the officials. He's been ejected, fined, warned, and suspended for his behavior, but he keeps right on doing it anyway, as if he doesn't have to comply with any rules that he doesn't want to. Did you see the look on Billup's face last night when he was asked about Rashweed's ejection? It was clear he was upset that Wallace let himself get ejected during a "crucial moment" in the game (Billup's words, not mine).

Lots of great players "care about winning," and they demonstrate it by keeping cool and keeping themselves under control in crucial moments of a game. That's when true greatness is defined and memorialized. Guys like Jerry West and Bill Russell and Bill Walton NEVER got ejected from big games because they knew it would hurt their team, and because they wanted to stay in the game and make their contribution. Wallace isn't smart enough or mature enough to see that.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



STOMP said:


> Man, talk about holding a grudge. Every year the haters wait until Detroit loses deep into the playoffs to display all of their bitterness and roll out crazy theories of how he took down Portland and now Detroit is wallowing in his wake.


I think this sentence pretty much summarizes why I don't even really bite on these threads anymore. Anyone still arguing that dumping Sheed was good or that Sheed is a loser simply can't be reasoned with. 

Is he mentally unstable? Sure. According to the FDA 22% of all Americans suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder. link. I think it's pretty obvious Sheed is in that group. 

But mentally unstable does not necessarily equal loser.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

Wallace always has, and obviously still does put his need to cry and swear at the referees above the needs of the team. Doesn't matter what the circumstances, he's going to vent, and team be damned.

I lmao when he had his meltdown. You go Sheed, tell them zebras how it is! Don't worry that you're letting your team down, again.


Go Blazers


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



> *THE HERO AND THE GOAT
> 
> THE HERO
> 
> ...


http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/SPORTS03/706030725


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

Gibson and LeBron were handed a score of FT's by the refs.

That was the deciding factor, nothing else.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



> *Wallace blows Piston chances*
> 
> " . . . You could see it going when Wallace opened his mouth and put his foot -- and any chance the Pistons might have had at Game 7 -- squarely inside it. He was thrown out of the game with his team trailing, 81-69. Because of his previous laundry list of technicals, even if this series had gone to Monday night, Wallace would have been watching in street clothes.
> 
> ...


http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/COL01/706030722&imw=Y


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*

Portland was heading into the toilet before we traded Sheed and he was leading the way until he realize he better start playing a little better because of it being a contract season. Of course for us it was to late by then. He lead the dive and was so lucky to land at Detroit after we traded him to Atlanta, I believe if was. He fell into just the right situation for a talented headcase to win a championship. Actually I wish we had just kept him and let him walk instead of trading him which led to his winning a championship. The pro Sheed camp has finally convince me, we shouldn't have traded him.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

this is sad.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

mgb said:


> The pro Sheed camp has finally convince me, we shouldn't have traded him.


:clap: 

way to go. I read a Cotton Fitzsimmons quote a while back that summarizes much of how I root for my beloved Trailblazers. He said that every year he used to greet his team by telling them how proud he was to have aquired each and every one of them and that someday he hoped to trade them for someone better. I was never pro-Sheed at the expense of the team, it's always been whats better for the club in the big picture. Wallace definitely had/has his visible warts as a person/player but that didn't justify the team shooting themselves in the foot. Hopefully the current management keeps it's eyes on the prize and not the headlines.

STOMP


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



STOMP said:


> :clap:
> 
> way to go. I read a Cotton Fitzsimmons quote a while back that summarizes much of how I root for my beloved Trailblazers. He said that every year he used to greet his team by telling them how proud he was to have aquired each and every one of them and that someday he hoped to trade them for someone better. I was never pro-Sheed at the expense of the team, it's always been whats better for the club in the big picture. Wallace definitely had/has his visible warts as a person/player but that didn't justify the team shooting themselves in the foot. Hopefully the current management keeps it's eyes on the prize and not the headlines.


I think you missed the sarcasm in mgb's post.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



barfo said:


> Is getting deep into the playoffs and failing to win the championship really a greater stain than failing to make the playoffs at all?
> 
> If so, I'm the greatest player of all time, because I've accomplished absolutely nothing in basketball.
> 
> barfo


For many people, the answer is "yes."

In fairness, this isn't unique to Blazer fans.....this warped view seems to infest all sports. Some people can only see "heroes" and "goats". "Second place is first loser". "I would rather spend all season wallowing in misery, then have the team give me hope only to come up short."

If you want the fans to like you, you had better be either Tim-Duncan-great, or a Mark-Madsen-lovable-nobody. If you land anywhere in between, there is a subset of the fans who will despise you. To this day, there are fans who cling to the surreal claim that Sheed coulda/woulda/shoulda been as good as Duncan - and that he "underachieved" and fell short of that just to bring pain to Blazer fans!


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> I think you missed the sarcasm in mgb's post.


Nope. I just reread it and I'm pretty positive that it's you who has missed his point that I quoted.

STOMP


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



STOMP said:


> Nope. I just reread it and I'm pretty positive that it's you who has missed his point that I quoted.


Really?? How do you explain this?



> I wish we had just kept him and *let him walk* instead of trading him which led to his winning a championship. The pro Sheed camp has finally convince me, we shouldn't have traded him.


Unless I'm just blind, that remark suggests that mgb wanted to get rid of Rashweed, but didn't want us to enable him to win a championship in the process. And, unless I'm just blind, that's an anti-Sheed sentiment. But maybe mgb himself can clarify things.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Really?? How do you explain this?
> 
> Unless I'm just blind, that remark suggests that mgb wanted to get rid of Rashweed, but didn't want us to enable him to win a championship in the process. And, unless I'm just blind, that's an anti-Sheed sentiment.


Rashweed? Do you really think Pete Vescey is in any way witty... namecalling is pretty gradeschool stupid in general, especially repeatedly. 

I'm supposively part of the pro-Sheed camp, yet like many others I was in favor of letting him walk at the end of the season. Whether *mgb* is pro or anti Sheed is not in question or what was being discussed, it was whether dumping Wallace for a pile of crap was the right move. You thought that was a genius move, others of us recognized this as a horrible move and wasted opportunity that (combined with other boneheaded moves) hamstrung the club finacially for years and helping produce the horrible ball we saw afterwords. I'm giving *mgb* credit for overlooking his personal distain for a player and seemingly keeping the team's best interest first. 

STOMP


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



STOMP said:


> Rashweed? Do you really think Pete Vescey is in any way witty... namecalling is pretty gradeschool stupid in general, especially repeatedly.


"Rashweed" is an apt nickname for Rasheed Wallace, who was once arrested in a smoke-filled vehicle along with that other pothead, Damon Stoudamire. Moreover, Rashweed's mental instability on the court only reinforces the idea that he is living in another world half the time. Some nicknames just make more sense than others, including "Wrong Way Riegal" or "The Round Mound of Rebound." 



> Whether *mgb* is pro or anti Sheed is not in question or what was being discussed, it was whether dumping Wallace for a pile of crap was the right move.


You have a very selective memory. At the time, getting Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Theo Ratliff for Wallace was considered by most NBA analysts as an excellent trade for Portland.



> I'm giving *mgb* credit for overlooking his personal distain for a player and seemingly keeping the team's best interest first.


You're still missing the point. Mgb said he wished we had let Wallace "walk" rather than allowing him to go to Detroit. If he wanted only what was best for the team, he would have argued that we just needed to trade Wallace for some good player(s) in return. THAT would have helped the team--not letting him "walk."


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> "Rashweed" is an apt nickname for Rasheed Wallace, who was once arrested in a smoke-filled vehicle along with that other pothead, Damon Stoudamire. Moreover, Rashweed's mental instability on the court only reinforces the idea that he is living in another world half the time. Some nicknames just make more sense than others, including "Wrong Way Riegal" or "The Round Mound of Rebound."


Are you trying to tell the board you don't know the difference between nicknames and namecalling? One is endearing, one is juvenile. No one besides you and Vescey go for the Rashweed gradeschool bleep.



> You have a very selective memory. At the time, getting Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Theo Ratliff for Wallace was considered by most NBA analysts as an excellent trade for Portland.


I have a pretty good memory in general, but I choose to select what is relevant to the discussion. I can recall what a lot of the principles, talking heads, and posters said at the time. I recall David Aldridge saying Blazer fans "would fall in love with Reef" and then immediately starting to speculate how the Lakers could trade for Sheed. I recall how thrilled Quick and Canzano were which is an indictment in itself. I recall Patterson saying "This is a watershed day for the franchise... we get a younger core and can remain competitive in both the Western Conference and the league." And I can recall you repeatedly telling everyone what a genius Nash was and Jackie Jackle and Terrible agreeing with you (of course). Terrible said that attendance would undoubtably spike (it went way down). Curious that shortly after Wallace was shipped out JJ and Terrible abondoned ship in our chatting community. For all of PatterNash's wisdom and great decision making, they are now unemployeed. The *O*'s writers are so distrusted by the club that it's now policy to record every interview so they can't distort things for their tabloid interests. David Aldridge still roots for the Lakers.

Do you recall me (and others here) saying it was completely idiotic for the reasons I laid out earlier? Management choose the worst of all options. 



> You're still missing the point. Mgb said he wished we had let Wallace "walk" rather than allowing him to go to Detroit. If he wanted only what was best for the team, he would have argued that we just needed to trade Wallace for some good player(s) in return. THAT would have helped the team--not letting him "walk."


Letting Sheed walk would have removed 17 Mil from the cap which would have gone a long ways towards getting their books in order. They had 3 more 10Mil+ guys set to expire the following year. Letting Wallace walk would have started the rebuilding process in earnest and allowed them to be players in Free Agency by the following season. 

This has been explained to you prior and post RW trade many times. It's not me who is missing the point.

STOMP


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*

Given that dealing Sheed got us Ratliff which was the reason Boston was willing to do Bassy for Roy + Raef, I personally do not feel too bad about this trade. It was fun to watch Sheed when he was on - but his off-court and on-court meltdowns did get annoying. At least with Zach it is mostly limited to the off-court stuff (and hopefully no more of this).

I can still appreciate the talent that Rasheed had/has, but it was getting harder to cheer for the guy when he was in Portland and I do not miss having him around. I did not even miss having him around when the team sucked - his act certainly got it to the point that it was clear to me that any move to replace him was worth it.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



STOMP said:


> Letting Sheed walk would have removed 17 Mil from the cap which would have gone a long ways towards getting their books in order. They had 3 more 10Mil+ guys set to expire the following year. Letting Wallace walk would have started the rebuilding process in earnest and allowed them to be players in Free Agency by the following season.
> 
> STOMP



With all the crap Ed O. spews about letting Wallace go, he was the one with an avatar of Shareef and Ratliff with a Blazer logo on them. Can't have it both ways now can we?


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> "Rashweed" is an apt nickname for Rasheed Wallace, who was once arrested in a smoke-filled vehicle along with that other pothead, Damon Stoudamire. Moreover, Rashweed's mental instability on the court only reinforces the idea that he is living in another world half the time. Some nicknames just make more sense than others, including "Wrong Way Riegal" or "The Round Mound of Rebound."
> 
> 
> You have a very selective memory. At the time, getting Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Theo Ratliff for Wallace was considered by most NBA analysts as an excellent trade for Portland.
> ...


Yeah, that's how I read it too, and if Rasheed was allowed to walk, Portland would have never received SAR and Theo Ratliff. Ultimately Ratliff's oversized contract was used in the Tefair trade, so it's pretty much certain that Brandon Roy would likely not be a Trail Blazer today if Ratliff's contract wasn't available to trade for LaFrentz's deal. Had Rasheed walked, there wouldn't have been a large contract other than Randolph's on the roster to use as trade bait. It took 3 years, but clearly trading Wallace was the wise move for the long-term success of this this franchise. 

Also note that SAR was eventually traded to the Nets for their 2006 1st-rounder and a trade exception. Ultimately, that extra pick turned into Sergio Rodriguez.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*



papag said:


> Also note that SAR was eventually traded to the Nets for their 2006 1st-rounder and a trade exception. Ultimately, that extra pick turned into Sergio Rodriguez.


Actually, SAR turned into Freeland. Sergio's pick was purchased for cash.

But as noted before, Sheed turned, via Ratliff's inclusion in the 2006 trade with Boston, into Roy.

That was a good enough reason to do it, imho.


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

*Re: Rasheed*

The most important thing to remember in all of this is that it lead us into the situation we are in today... We have the most talented core of young players in the NBA today, and have the option between picking Oden or Durant.... Yes, the bad years were terrible, but it will allow you to appreciate what we have now.... Rip City is back, and we have a great GM at the helm, and a bunch of great kids on the court to root for...... nothing could be sweeter!


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*



andalusian said:


> Actually, SAR turned into Freeland. Sergio's pick was purchased for cash.
> 
> But as noted before, Sheed turned, via Ratliff's inclusion in the 2006 trade with Boston, into Roy.
> 
> That was a good enough reason to do it, imho.


My bad. I forgot that Freeland was a first-rounder. Looking back,what in the hell were the Suns thinking?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



andalusian said:


> [Wallace's] act certainly got it to the point that it was clear to me that any move to replace him was worth it.





papag said:


> It took 3 years, but clearly trading Wallace was the wise move for the long-term success of this this franchise.





OntheRocks said:


> The most important thing to remember in all of this is that it lead us into the situation we are in today... We have the most talented core of young players in the NBA today . . .


Amen to all of the above! Thanks for the dose of common sense, guys.


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*

Despite the insane amount of Sheed bashing on this board, 'Sheed will always be one of my favorite NBA players. I wish more players got emotionally involved into the game at the level 'Sheed does.



I love you 'Sheed (No ****).


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Freshtown said:


> I wish more players got emotionally involved into the game at the level 'Sheed does.


Yeah, me, too. Apparently as Rashweed was being escorted out of the building by police last night, he kept shouting, "F--- you! F--- you!" to the referee. Rashweed is one classy guy, there's no doubt about it. We definitely need more players with his kind of "emotional involvement."


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*

Actually, SAR turned into nothing. The trade with New Jersey was canceled because he failed his physical. He signed with Sacramento as a free agent and we got nothing. The draft pick that landed us Freeland was from Utah. It was one of the three picks we got from Utah in the 3rd pick (Deron Williams) for the 6th pick (Martell Webster) + the 27th pick (Linas Kleiza - sent to Denver, along with Ricky Sanchez selected at 35 for Jarrett Jack selected at 22) + a future first that turned into Freeland (that Utah had got in an earlier trade - don't recall if it was from Detroit or Dallas).

BNM


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



papag said:


> Yeah, that's how I read it too, and if Rasheed was allowed to walk, Portland would have never received SAR and Theo Ratliff. Ultimately Ratliff's oversized contract was used in the Tefair trade, so it's pretty much certain that Brandon Roy would likely not be a Trail Blazer today if Ratliff's contract wasn't available to trade for LaFrentz's deal. Had Rasheed walked, there wouldn't have been a large contract other than Randolph's on the roster to use as trade bait. It took 3 years, but clearly trading Wallace was the wise move for the long-term success of this this franchise.
> 
> Also note that SAR was eventually traded to the Nets for their 2006 1st-rounder and a trade exception. Ultimately, that extra pick turned into Sergio Rodriguez.


BNM has pointed out the problem with the second paragraph. The problem with the first paragraph is that Ratliff had a big contract because we gave him a big contract. It wasn't the Sheed trade that brought us that contract. If all we needed to get Roy was a guy with a big contract, we could have signed any random player to a big contract. 

Secondly, it is not 'certain' that we wouldn't have Roy if a bunch of things had happened differently 3 years earlier. There's no way to know what would have happened. 

barfo


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: Rasheed*

How many more years are we going to have threads about Sheed?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Spoolie Gee said:


> How many more years are we going to have threads about Sheed?


As long as it takes.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*



Boob-No-More said:


> Actually, SAR turned into nothing. The trade with New Jersey was canceled because he failed his physical. He signed with Sacramento as a free agent and we got nothing. The draft pick that landed us Freeland was from Utah. It was one of the three picks we got from Utah in the 3rd pick (Deron Williams) for the 6th pick (Martell Webster) + the 27th pick (Linas Kleiza - sent to Denver, along with Ricky Sanchez selected at 35 for Jarrett Jack selected at 22) + a future first that turned into Freeland (that Utah had got in an earlier trade - don't recall if it was from Detroit or Dallas).
> 
> BNM


Aha! Thanks for the info.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*



barfo said:


> BNM has pointed out the problem with the second paragraph. The problem with the first paragraph is that Ratliff had a big contract because we gave him a big contract. It wasn't the Sheed trade that brought us that contract. If all we needed to get Roy was a guy with a big contract, we could have signed any random player to a big contract.
> 
> Secondly, it is not 'certain' that we wouldn't have Roy if a bunch of things had happened differently 3 years earlier. *There's no way to know what would have happened. *
> barfo


What we do know for certain is what did happen, and trading Wallace played a role in it.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> As long as it takes.


What is the halflife on irrational hatred, anyway?

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



papag said:


> What we do know for certain is what did happen, and trading Wallace played a role in it.


Good to have you onboard! But watch out--you're making too much sense. That isn't allowed around here.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Ed O said:


> What is the halflife on irrational hatred, anyway?
> 
> Ed O.


I have no idea. What is the halflife on people who insist on posting their signatures after each message, or who love to argue just for argument's sake?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



papag said:


> What we do know for certain is what did happen, and trading Wallace played a role in it.


And, by the same logic, so did drafting Sam Bowie. Because, if we hadn't drafted him, the future would have been changed and we'd need that Delorean to go back and put it right. So now we can feel good about Bowie... he got us Roy!

barfo


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Stevenson said:


> Wow that was fun to watch. The guy was, ans still is, a selfish egomaniac.
> 
> I would love to see just one of the folks here who defended him to the end, and beyond, and then crowed when he won a championship in Detroit, admit that they were wrong about him.
> 
> *He is everything that is wrong with the NBA today*.


I defended him to the end and I crowed when he won a championship. But I wasn't wrong about him. He DID win a championship in Detroit and it was BECAUSE OF HIM that they won. Every player on Detroit and Larry Brown said so. Yes, he has his problems with his temper and technical fouls, but he's a still a fantastic one of a kind player. The Pistons didn't lose the ECF because of Sheed (on the contrary, he hit the game winner in Game 1, or was it Game 2?). They lost because LeBron James turned in one of the greatest performances in NBA history. Period.

Go Blazers


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



NathanLane said:


> They lost because LeBron James turned in one of the greatest performances in NBA history. Period.


That's not what the analysts on TNT said. To a man, they agreed that the Pistons didn't play well in all 6 games.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

Yes, they never turned out a solid effort, but it was STILL enough to beat the Cavs up until the final moments of Game 5. If LeBron only scores 43, the Pistons win Game 5 and the series. That fading three that LeBron shot to tie the game at 107 was a very difficult shot. If it didn't go down, the Pistons would've won the game and the series.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

AND with Rasheed's defense on Tim Duncan, they might've won it all.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



NathanLane said:



> Yes, they never turned out a solid effort, but it was STILL enough to beat the Cavs up until the final moments of Game 5. If LeBron only scores 43, the Pistons win Game 5 and the series. That fading three that LeBron shot to tie the game at 107 was a very difficult shot. If it didn't go down, the Pistons would've won the game and the series.


And yet the Pistons still could have won last night, tied the series, and gone on to win the whole thing. But Wallace threw his tantrum when Game 6 was still within their grasp, and killed them with his stupidity.



> AND with Rasheed's defense on Tim Duncan, they might've won it all.


Exactly! Which makes his bone-headed ejection last night all the more inexcusable.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

He has still been a POSITIVE for Detroit.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



papag said:


> What we do know for certain is what did happen, and trading Wallace played a role in it.


barfo already explained how this isn't true. Ratliff's big contract was one *Portland* gave him. Portland could have created a bad contract any time they wished...they didn't need to trade Sheed to do it.


----------



## MrWonderful (May 18, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> And yet the Pistons still could have won last night, tied the series, and gone on to win the whole thing. But Wallace threw his tantrum when Game 6 was still within their grasp, and killed them with his stupidity.
> 
> Well, stranger things have happened (Reggie's 8 points in 9 seconds, for example), and there was 7:44 left to make up 14 points, but at that point most people knew it was over. And Sheed had fouled out anyhow, costing the Pistons the two points that Gibson and James scored out of four attempts...


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*

I've always liked that Rasheed generally played good defense, but I think the real negative on him for me is the effect he has on a team over time. It appears to me, that he doesn't really put value on consistency. He wants to play well in the playoffs, but he doesn't put the work in, in the regular season to be reliable on the offensive end. He is/was most effective with turn arounds, etc within about 10 feet of the basket. However, he apparently personally didn't like the banging. The only coach who seemed to be able to get Sheed to post up regularly was Dunleavy, and of course they had a fight. In the end, I see Sheed's as an interesting character, but too unreliable offensively for a star. I guess, that he just didn't want to put in the work.


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> As long as it takes.


What's wrong with you? Your rants are nothing short of pathetic. You talk about him with such a loathing tone like he raped your mother or something. Chill out. It's not that serious. And to respond to your earlier response, yes, I do sort of wish some of the players on our team had the heart Rasheed had. It's true he'll never be any franchise's savior, but he is a proven, important piece on a championship level team. You act like he's some worthless, whiny little punk that's "ruining" the NBA. If anything, it's the generic, corporate image the league is moving toward that's ruining the game. 

Please. Am I dissapointed 'Sheed didn't lead us to where our 2000-2001 team could have gone? Sure. But that doesn't mean I'm going to hold a grudge against him and attack him on the internet for the rest of his career. I would rather take a player that wants to win so bad that he legitimately gets angry when he loses, unlike many players today who just brush it off and go home.


:chill:


----------



## MrWonderful (May 18, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

Can't blame him for not liking the banging - He never gets a call...

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8431/sheedeg6.jpg


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*



Minstrel said:


> barfo already explained how this isn't true. Ratliff's big contract was one *Portland* gave him. Portland could have created a bad contract any time they wished...they didn't need to trade Sheed to do it.


Nothing was "proven". Ratliff would have never been in Portland and led the league in BPG, Portland never would have given him a contract, and he wouldn't have been a tradeable asset in the deal for Roy.

Let's stop being ridiculous on the Wallace thing. We get it, some people are convinced Rasheed would be leading Portland to the conference finals every year if he was still here in the Rose City. Nevermind that he took a giant dump on the entire city and organization when he left.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

papag said:


> Let's stop being ridiculous on the Wallace thing. We get it, some people are convinced Rasheed would be leading Portland to the conference finals every year if he was still here in the Rose City. Nevermind that he took a giant dump on the entire city and organization when he left.


So your path to stopping the ridiculousness is to completely distort the views of the side you disagree with to ridiculous proportions? Do I got that right? Well sorry to disappoint you papag but another poster has promised to keep at it forever. Oh well... keep up the fresh thinking!

STOMP


----------



## AudieNorris (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*



Freshtown said:


> What's wrong with you? Your rants are nothing short of pathetic. You talk about him with such a loathing tone like he raped your mother or something. Chill out. It's not that serious. And to respond to your earlier response, yes, I do sort of wish some of the players on our team had the heart Rasheed had. It's true he'll never be any franchise's savior, but he is a proven, important piece on a championship level team. You act like he's some worthless, whiny little punk that's "ruining" the NBA. If anything, it's the generic, corporate image the league is moving toward that's ruining the game.
> 
> Please. Am I dissapointed 'Sheed didn't lead us to where our 2000-2001 team could have gone? Sure. But that doesn't mean I'm going to hold a grudge against him and attack him on the internet for the rest of his career. I would rather take a player that wants to win so bad that he legitimately gets angry when he loses, unlike many players today who just brush it off and go home.
> 
> ...


What is wrong with you? You think people should just ignore a professional being unprofessional. You think that since he didn't rape a mother, he should get a pass when he acts like an idiot. There is a reason he's been on three teams (maybe four soon) and it isn't his heart. How much heart does it take for Rasheed to hold his emotions in check and still play with emotions. If I acted while driving the way he does while playing I'd get arrested for road rage. He has sports rage.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



papag said:


> Nothing was "proven". Ratliff would have never been in Portland and led the league in BPG, Portland never would have given him a contract, and he wouldn't have been a tradeable asset in the deal for Roy.


Well, the point is that big, bad contracts can be created at will. If Boston really wanted a bad, Ratliff-like contract, Portland could have created one any time they wanted. You can avoid that fact all you like to justify the Wallace deal, but getting Ratliff just so we could give him a bad contract just so that contract could one day be sent to Boston in the Roy deal is really not a valuable component.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



AudieNorris said:


> There is a reason he's been on three teams (maybe four soon) and it isn't his heart.


Lots and lots of players have been on 3 or more teams. Reef and Theo, to name just two. 



> If I acted while driving the way he does while playing I'd get arrested for road rage. He has sports rage.


That's true. He does seem to have sports rage. But so far as I know, sports rage has not killed anyone, at least in basketball. Shouting at refs and shooting at other drivers are rather different things. 

barfo


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*



> He has sports rage



And? He could control his emotions better, that is true. But that's the reason for the hate? Really?


----------



## AudieNorris (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*



barfo said:


> Lots and lots of players have been on 3 or more teams. Reef and Theo, to name just two.


They suck, Rasheed doesn't. Duncan, Dirk, and Garnett don't seem to get traded very often.





barfo said:


> That's true. He does seem to have sports rage. But so far as I know, sports rage has not killed anyone, at least in basketball. Shouting at refs and shooting at other drivers are rather different things.
> 
> barfo


So, because he hasn't killed anyone, its ok? Lots of people are arrested for road rage without killing anyone.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



papag said:


> Let's stop being ridiculous on the Wallace thing. We get it, some people are convinced Rasheed would be leading Portland to the conference finals every year if he was still here in the Rose City. Nevermind that he took a giant dump on the entire city and organization when he left.


Straw man. Total. Straw. Man.

Ed O.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



AudieNorris said:


> They suck, Rasheed doesn't.


You said it, brother. That's why I and several others here have been saying that that trade was a bad one.



> So, because he hasn't killed anyone, its ok? Lots of people are arrested for road rage without killing anyone.


Well, if people have been arrested for road rage, it is presumably because they've committed some *crime*, right?

Yelling at referees is not a crime. 

barfo


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Freshtown said:


> . . . Chill out. It's not that serious. And to respond to your earlier response, yes, I do sort of wish some of the players on our team had the heart Rasheed had. It's true he'll never be any franchise's savior, but he is a proven, important piece on a championship level team. You act like he's some worthless, whiny little punk that's "ruining" the NBA.


Where have you been? Are you oblivious to the past, or do you just choose to ignore it? Rashweed Wallace is the player who attacked a Blazer coach in the locker room; attacked a referee after a game and was suspended for 7 games by the league; set the NBA record for technical fouls two years in a row; refused to lift weights with the rest of the team; mocked Ron Harper for his stutter; called the NBA a "plantation system" for black players; threw tantrums on the court like an out-of-control child; got ejected from Game 1 of the Western Conference Finals against the Lakers; threw a towel in a teammate's face on national TV; refused to give interviews after games; and famously said "Just cut the check" to indicate how he felt about the game. He's also been arrested for possession of marijuana, has been ticketed for driving with a suspended license and has been fined thousands of dollars by both the Blazers and the league for various violations during his career.

Do I feel he has "ruined" the NBA game? Well, he certainly hasn't helped it any--and he created a selfish, immature, and violent tone on the Blazers that led to the rebuilding of the team. He is an embarrassment and a fool, and I'm glad he's gone. I would let the subject drop, but he's got so many defenders on this site that someone needs to provide a little reality check once in awhile.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



AudieNorris said:


> They suck, Rasheed doesn't. Duncan, Dirk, and Garnett don't seem to get traded very often.


you are probably the only one on either side of this debate who thinks Rasheed Wallace is as good as Duncan, Dirk and Garnett. good luck with that.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> Where have you been? Are you oblivious to the past, or do you just choose to ignore it? Rashweed Wallace is the player who attacked a Blazer coach in the locker room; attacked a referee after a game and was suspended for 7 games by the league; set the NBA record for technical fouls two years in a row; refused to lift weights with the rest of the team; mocked Ron Harper for his stutter; called the NBA a "plantation system" for black players; threw tantrums on the court like an out-of-control child; got ejected from Game 1 of the Western Conference Finals against the Lakers; threw a towel in a teammate's face on national TV; refused to give interviews after games; and famously said "Just cut the check" to indicate how he felt about the game.


You aren't on your game tonight, TH, you forgot "Both teams played hard".



> Do I feel he has "ruined" the NBA game? Well, he certainly hasn't helped it any--and he created a selfish, immature, and violent tone on the Blazers that led to the rebuilding of the team. He is an embarrassment


To who? Does he embarrass you? He seems to me to be comfortable in his own skin. I've never understood how a fan can be embarrassed by a basketball player over whom he has no control whatsoever. It's no credit to us if Brandon Roy cures cancer, and it is no embarrassment if he turns out to be a pedophile. We aren't in charge of him. 



> and a fool, and I'm glad he's gone. I would let the subject drop, but he's got so many defenders on this site that someone needs to provide a little reality check once in awhile.


Ha ha. Reality is obviously in the eye of the beholder. 

barfo


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



barfo said:


> I've never understood how a fan can be embarrassed by a basketball player over whom he has no control whatsoever. It's no credit to us if Brandon Roy cures cancer, and it is no embarrassment if he turns out to be a pedophile. We aren't in charge of him.


Really? It wouldn't bother you at all if Brandon Roy were a convicted pedophile? I guess you're not embarrassed by much, are you? How sophisticated of you.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*

I was out of town over the weekend, but when I watched the game and saw Rasheed have his little meltdown that effectively ended any chance the Pistons had of coming back, I thought, "This will be good for about 5 pages of deja vu on the the board." I underestimated by two pages and counting.


----------



## AudieNorris (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*



barfo said:


> Well, if people have been arrested for road rage, it is presumably because they've committed some *crime*, right?
> 
> Yelling at referees is not a crime.
> 
> barfo


Technicals and throw outs are the NBA equivalence of a crime. I've never heard of any NBA player being charged with a crime for on court actions. I'm really surprised that anyone else chooses to overlook the shortcomings Rasheed has because he is loaded with talent. He gets no respect because he gives no respect. No one would question his integrity if his integrity was not questionable.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> Really? It wouldn't bother you at all if Brandon Roy were a convicted pedophile? I guess you're not embarrassed by much, are you? How sophisticated of you.


I'm embarrassed by things I do. I'm not embarrassed by things people I don't know do. I figure that's their job.

barfo


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



AudieNorris said:


> They suck, Rasheed doesn't. Duncan, Dirk, and Garnett don't seem to get traded very often.


Shaq is better than all those players and has been on three teams.

How many teams was Wilt Chamberlain on?

Clearly, they were traded because they didn't help their teams win.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



barfo said:


> I'm embarrassed by things I do. I'm not embarrassed by things people I don't know do. I figure that's their job.


You're a Blazer fan, but you don't know any of the players on the team? How odd.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> Really? It wouldn't bother you at all if Brandon Roy were a convicted pedophile? I guess you're not embarrassed by much, are you? How sophisticated of you.


The fact that Roy turning out to be a pedophile would affect how you think about _yourself_, and you're incredulous that other people _don't_ base their level of shame on what Roy does, is quite startling, actually.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



AudieNorris said:


> Technicals and throw outs are the NBA equivalence of a crime. I've never heard of any NBA player being charged with a crime for on court actions.


Me neither. That's why your road rage analogy wasn't very good.



> I'm really surprised that anyone else chooses to overlook the shortcomings Rasheed has because he is loaded with talent.


Who overlooks his shortcomings? That isn't the issue here - no one is denying his shortcomings.



> He gets no respect because he gives no respect. No one would question his integrity if his integrity was not questionable.


The first statement doesn't make much sense, if you are talking about respect from fans. If you are talking about refs, then you've got a point. If you are talking about other players, then I'd say he does get respect.

The second statement is at best a tautology. If something literally can't be questioned (and I'm not sure what that would be) then indeed, no one would question it. However, in reality people question pretty much everything.

barfo


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> You're a Blazer fan, but you don't know any of the players on the team? How odd.


Is that odd? I read about them in the newspaper, I watch them on TV, but I don't know them personally. Other than the Rose Garden, I don't think I've ever been in the same building as a Blazer. 

barfo


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*

Seriously - if Rasheed is as good as his backers on this board claim, how did he not dominate that joke of a frontline Cleveland was using? If he really is a great player, he would have averaged 30 a night against that bunch of clowns.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Minstrel said:


> The fact that Roy turning out to be a pedophile would affect how you think about _yourself_, and you're incredulous that other people _don't_ base their level of shame on what Roy does, is quite startling, actually.


Quite the puzzle, isn't it?

The people who are predisposed to despise pro jocks are the same people who ascribe almost magical powers to them. A player capable of embarassing an entire community? How is that even possible? What kind of supernatural power would that require? No player has that kind of power over me, that's for damn sure!


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



RipCity9 said:


> Seriously - if Rasheed is as good as his backers on this board claim, how did he not dominate that joke of a frontline Cleveland was using? If he really is a great player, he would have averaged 30 a night against that bunch of clowns.


I don't remember whether anyone in this thread used the word great to describe Sheed, but I don't think that whether he is a great player or not is the major thrust of any of the many arguments here. 

barfo


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> With all the crap Ed O. spews about letting Wallace go, he was the one with an avatar of Shareef and Ratliff with a Blazer logo on them. Can't have it both ways now can we?


Even for you this is a very strange post. What does having a picture of players from the team a guy roots for have to do with agreeing with the wisdom of management's decisions? 

Also, are you aware that Ed and I are different posters? I'd hope that I'm entitled to hold a viewpoint that runs counter to your impressions of Ed's pictures... :uhoh: 

STOMP


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> Where have you been? Are you oblivious to the past, or do you just choose to ignore it? Rashweed Wallace is the player who attacked a Blazer coach in the locker room; attacked a referee after a game and was suspended for 7 games by the league; set the NBA record for technical fouls two years in a row; refused to lift weights with the rest of the team; mocked Ron Harper for his stutter; called the NBA a "plantation system" for black players; threw tantrums on the court like an out-of-control child; got ejected from Game 1 of the Western Conference Finals against the Lakers; threw a towel in a teammate's face on national TV; refused to give interviews after games; and famously said "Just cut the check" to indicate how he felt about the game. He's also been arrested for possession of marijuana, has been ticketed for driving with a suspended license and has been fined thousands of dollars by both the Blazers and the league for various violations during his career.
> 
> Do I feel he has "ruined" the NBA game? Well, he certainly hasn't helped it any--and he created a selfish, immature, and violent tone on the Blazers that led to the rebuilding of the team. He is an embarrassment and a fool, and I'm glad he's gone. I would let the subject drop, but he's got so many defenders on this site that someone needs to provide a little reality check once in awhile.



Hmm.. you sound senile and bitter. How sad.

Maybe this will help you lighten your grudge against 'Sheed.


The Top 100 Reasons Why We Love Rasheed Wallace.



1. Got thrown out of the McDonald's All-American Game.

2. Allegedly made prophecy after the Cameron game in 1994 to Meek that "As long as Me, Touche, and Jerry are here, we ain't ever losing here."

3. In his first return to the Smith Center following his departure to the NBA (the Duke game), he hovered over the scorers' table, yelling to Blue Devil and friend Stan Brunson, "Stanleeee, Stanleee."

4. Tried to psych up his teammates by yelling, "Let's go out and play like we're Chicago on NBA Jam."

5. Self explanatory.

6. Reporter had to go to the student union arcade to try to find him to do an interview because that's where he always was, playing NBA Jam or Mortal Kombat II.

7. After he got schooled by Tim Duncan in the next-to-last home game of the '95 season, he was despondent, and an athletic department official told him not to worry about it but to "just go out and kick Cherokee's butt on Saturday" in the final home game vs. Duke. He replied, "Oh, I will. Believe me."

8. 10/11 FG, 25 points, 5 fouls in win at Duke, 2/2/95

9. Caught an alley-oop dunk from behind the backboard at Dook his freshman year.

10. Got his picture taken with Anthony Alfano.

11. "Interviewed" Jerry with Rick Sullivan's microphone at 1994 media day.

12. When he was introduced at Dick Vitale-hosted midnight madness during his freshman year, he threw his head back, arched his back, and roared into the rafters.

13. Overheard saying "I ain't making no #$!*ing rap record" during his freshman year, shortly after the release of "Shaq Diesel."

14. 13/19 FG, 7/8 FT, 33 points, 6 Rebounds, 5 blocked shots, 4 fouls in win vs. Joe Smith and Maryland, semifinals, ACC tournament, 3/11/95.

15. Fought with Andre Riddick in the 1995 NCAA Tournament Southeast Regional Final against Kentucky. "What an elbow, Jim!"-Bill Raftery.

16. He flirted with a really pretty cheerleader throughout 1997 Virginia game at the Dean Dome as he sat next to Jerry.

17. Half court alley-oop, 1995 ACC tournament semifinal vs. Maryland.

18. Embraced Serge Zwikker after Serge scored 19 against Murray State in 1995 NCAA Tournament second round.

19. Made pull up-3 pointer in losing effort at Maryland, 1995.

20. 2-page, 4-color Nike ad that appeared in Sports Illustrated in 1995.

21. Attempted to brawl with former teammate Chris Webber…in a pre-season game.

22. 8/8 FG, 1/1 FT, 17 points, 16 rebounds vs. Marshall, 1/2/94.

23. Pearce Landry has gone on the record saying that "Rasheed Wallace is my favorite North Carolina player ever."

24. He avoided interviews following games because he was in the training room calling his moms.

25. Turnaround jump shot to ice 1997 game against L.A. to knock Shaq and the Lakers out of the 2 seed in the West for the playoffs.

26. Under his personal directory in the 1994 Granville Towers phone book he wrote, "Peace to my peoples in Philly."

27. "Who is Bruce Martin? What number is he? He's the dirty player, not me. He's the ring-leader in my book."-- following a fight-marred victory vs. Clemson.

28. Threw his shoes in celebration over the telephone wires outside the Dean E. Smith Center.

29. 6/6 FG, 12 points, 13 rebounds in second collegiate game ever, vs. Cincinnati, 11/19/93

30. Self explanatory.

31. Wore a Carolina Basketball sweatshirt as he announced his intention to go pro after his sophomore season.

32. In his first few weeks as a freshman at UNC, he walked up to a student in the Granville cafeteria and asking that student if he would please fill up his glass of Coke. It should be noted that Ra was within a few steps of the Coca-Cola machine when he asked the question.

33. Ripped off a Wojo pass in the open court, dribbled the length of the court like a gazelle and dunked on said Wojo, while being permitted to yell and hang on the rim sans technical foul vs. Duke '95.

34. When asked about rating one of his fully extended rim shakers in one of his final games, he responded "Ask Ryan (Sullivan)...he's the grader."

35. Used and abused top-pick in the NBA Joe Smith each and every time they played against one another in college, a trend that has continued in the professional ranks.

36. Quoted from Cameron locker room as saying "There's going to be a murder in Chapel Hill" following a question about upcoming State rematch in 1995. The ill-timed quote came in the aftermath of the Wendell Williamson shooting on Henderson Street.

37. 10/13 FG, 22 points, 12 rebounds, 6 blocks, 4 fouls in win vs. the Answer and Georgetown, NCAA regional semifinals, 3/23/95.

38. Allegedly told a professor several weeks following Arkansas Final Four loss that the reason he had not been attending class was that he was embarrassed to be seen on campus.

39. As a freshman, made Jerry late for an interview in his Granville room because he wanted to go to KFC.

40. Missed the flight to Maui in '95 because he overslept, then missed the next flight too.

41. Turnaround jump shot to win 1996 NBA All-Rookie game.

42. Self explanatory.

43. Yelled "Pat ain't nobody!" in the locker room as media-types huddled around Pat Sullivan following the aforementioned Clemson game in which Sullivan had returned after an extensive layoff due to injury.

44. 12/14 FG, 27 points, 8 rebounds, 3 blocks in win vs. Georgia Tech, 2/12/95.

45. In his first weekend in heaven at a notably sizable fraternal function, he was reportedly seen dancing in such a way as to allow his denim shorts to dip well below his knees, revealing his underpants, also dangling lower than is socially acceptable.

46. Picture of him shirtless, tossing a bucket of water on some poor unsuspecting fool after an especially huge Simon Gratz victory.

47. Got caught by CBS cameras dancing to whatever was playing on his walkman as he stood in the tunnel before the 1995 final 4.

48. Didn't list Mrs. Lee's carrot cake as his favorite food.

49. Refusal to shave head in unity with his teammates Jeff, Jerry, Donald, Clyde, and Ed during 1995 NCAA Tournament.

50. Computerized simulation in 1995 DTH letter to the editor of Rasheed without hair.

51. 21 points, 9 rebounds in win vs. Maryland, 1/7/95.

52. Said that it was good to leave Philly for the tranquillity of Chapel Hill because, "I was constantly having to watch my back, hoping I wouldn't get hit by a stray bullet or something." Yet, "I'm a city boy at heart, so I do miss it sometimes. Especially my boys. They're all at Villanova."

53. Had his face on the back of a t-shirt that simply says RA!

54. Took the ball at midcourt and racing in for a dunk just before the halftime buzzer in 1995 NCAA Tourney vs. Iowa State ... on a bad ankle.

55. Got in a fight where he threw the ball off Luc Longley's head as soon as he entered "the league."

56. Let his hair grow out very long toward the end of his playing days at Carolina.

57. Said, "I don't know of any law that says you can't have fun on the court if you play for Carolina."

58. Wild celebration (jumping up and down, pointing and laughing) from the bench following Jerry's "donkey kong" dunk at dook in 1994-95. Can only be seen through careful examination of the video tape.

59. Admitted that weasely media-type John Feinstein was the reason he often forced himself to get up and actually go to class.

60. His brave attempt to tie the Boston College game as the buzzer sounded with a 3-pointer from the corner.

61. 2/23/94, Notre Dame, Ind., North Carolina 80, Notre Dame 71, received first technical foul as a Tar Heel.

62. Boyhood bedroom was a basketball court, complete with foul lines drawn on the floor.

63. Nasty tip-jam over Price, Meek and Parks, at Duke 1995.

64. Manning the cash register, along with Jeff, for a time at Sutton's.

65. Former UNC assistant coach Dave Hanners has called Rasheed "the best practice player, along with George Lynch, to ever come to Carolina. He came ready to play and was always looking to get better."

66. Always wore that black jacket he got from Magic Johnson's roundball classic with a big Magic Johnson logo on the back...it is assumed he dominated that game from start to finish (also assuming he was not ejected from it).

67. 7/11 FG, 5 rebounds, 3 fouls in first start ever vs. Duke, 3/5/95.

68. Used to make a point of entering the Smith Center down by the memorabilia room in order to flirt with Smith Center receptionist Angela King.

69. He had a solid 2.9 GPA at Carolina.

70. The birthmark.

71. In 1994 pre-tournament interview with Tom Suter drew the profound metaphor between team chemistry and jello..."See, we are like the dust...we just need to be mixed in right so we can gel."

72. Consistently eluded ESPN hottie Pam Oliver, despite the fact Pam and her crew were literally camped out in the Smith Center for an entire day and how flown from Connecticut to Chapel Hill just to talk to him.

73. Never chose a major.

74. "Rasheed-me!" -- Craig Kilborn

75. Never had a car in college.

76. "The Need For 'Sheed." -- Rip City Magazine Feb. 1997

77. His high school coach would only play him in the first half and he still averaged 19 ppg.

78. "Same old refs, some things never change." -- upon his return to view ACC basketball in person, in support of Antawn Jamison against Duke in the Dome

79. That alley oop on Shaq in 1997 NBA Playoffs.

80. "HEY! YOU'RE HUBERT DAVIS! YOU'RE HUBERT DAVIS! EVERYBODY KNOWS YOU!" --Upon realizing that his seat at the 1996 Duke game in Chapel Hill was next to Mr. Davis'.

81. Snatched the ball when the horn sounded at the end of the 1995 Southeast Regional victory over Kentucky and tossed it well beyond the rafters in Birmingham.

82. Ran down the court rubbing Serge's head after Serge miraculously dunked in a game.

83. Vitale on Wallace: "Look out. He's the elevator man...oh my!!!"

84. Agonized over his hurt ankle in the 1995 ACC tournament final.

85. Walked onto the Cameron floor in '95 to the chant "Hooked on Phonics," and upon seeing a confused Serge, he leaned over and explained what the Cameron Crazies meant.

86. Banked in countless three-pointers in his first-ever midnight madness appearance.

87. 9/9 FG, 1/1 FT, 19 points vs. Colorado State, 12/9/93.

88. Listed Andre Agassi among the "athletes he most admires" in the 1994-95 UNC media guide.

89. 14 points, 4 fouls in first game ever vs. Duke, 2/3/94.

90. After the Larry Davis transfer announcement was made, the two were in the cafeteria talking about how much fun the Diet Pepsi rematch (that would never take place) was going to be...in a show of bravado Rasheed uttered "Larry best not bring that *!? inside."

91. His minor skirmish in 1997 NBA Playoffs with Jerome Kersey, after which there was so much love for Rasheed in the crowd that the fans began to cheer "Beat L.A.!" while Rasheed pumped his fist to urge them on.

92. 3-25-95, Birmingham, Ala., North Carolina 74, Kentucky 61, received his last technical as a Tar Heel.

93. Said on the very first and very last days of his sophomore season that he would be returning to Carolina for another year.

94. Not afraid of reacting to any call against him, no matter how solid.

95. In college, if he would hack someone, he would keep his hand up in the air as if to say, "Look, my arms were straight up in the air," but more often than not, his arms were indeed at an angle that indicated that he had in fact fouled whoever was shooting.

96. He loves his mother.

97. All-time leader in field goal percentage at Carolina.

98. At Duke game in Chapel Hill during his first NBA season, as freshman Vince Carter, struggling to get playing time, was just trying to concentrate on the game as he walked to the scorer's table, Rasheed yelled to him, "VINCE! VINCE! I know you hear me! You better look over here or I'm gonna slap you upside the head!"

99. Stood with Jerry and Jeff sans costume in the center of Franklin Street during their first Halloween celebration and looked down on all his other "colleagues" as if they were morons. (A student proceeded to run up to him drunk saying, "Man you look like Rasheed Wallace...good costume.")

100. "We had some phantom technical fouls called when we had Rasheed. I know that. He'd just scream, he was so happy with a dunk and the next thing you know it's a technical foul. If I ever dunked, I would have screamed. If I'd go up and sky and dunk one, I'd scream too." --college basketball's all-time winningest coach Dean E. Smith

Ha.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



STOMP said:


> Even for you this is a very strange post. What does having a picture of players from the team a guy roots for have to do with agreeing with the wisdom of management's decisions?


He supported the trade obviously, or he wouldn't have had a photoshopped avatar of the two newly acquired players. The spin you're putting on it saying that he did it for the sole reason that he supports the team is garbage. If Brandon Roy was traded today for Drew Gooden, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be having a Drew Gooden avatar. At the time of the trade, it was perceived by most that the value we received for Wallace was excellent, it just didn't fit well. 



> Also, are you aware that Ed and I are different posters? I'd hope that I'm entitled to hold a viewpoint that runs counter to your impressions of Ed's pictures... :uhoh:
> 
> STOMP


Two different posters with identical views on the subject. I never said you two were the same but with such homogenous views I thought I could direct some of my own opinion towards you since Ed O. is hard of hearing and has blocked me.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> He supported the trade obviously, or he wouldn't have had a photoshopped avatar of the two newly acquired players. The spin you're putting on it saying that he did it for the sole reason that he supports the team is garbage. If Brandon Roy was traded today for Drew Gooden, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be having a Drew Gooden avatar. At the time of the trade, it was perceived by most that the value we received for Wallace was excellent, it just didn't fit well.
> 
> Two different posters with identical views on the subject. I never said you two were the same but with such homogenous views I thought I could direct some of my own opinion towards you since Ed O. is hard of hearing and has blocked me.


I'd guess this is a prime example of why you've been blocked as you're making zero sense. Whats the point of engaging someone who can't make sense? If Ed supported the trade, then obiously he and I are do not share identical views on the trade as I hated it day 1. That you're still trying to contact him after he's made it clear that he doesn't respect your thoughts is obsessive behaviour. It's utterly ridiculous that you're attempting to do this through me. 

STOMP


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*

My first thought after seeing Rasheed get tossed on Saturday night was "oh great, now there will be another 10 page thread about Rasheed on bbboards." :smile:

Hopefully when he retires in a few years, we'll finally forget about him!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IICN2dQHrM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_Q5bQdLhUA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwCvy8vSSl0


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

Freshtown, that's about the dumbest list I've ever read. If your defense of the petulant Sheed is nothing but some silly list written by a college newspaper of his "exploits" in school, you've got nothin'. And you don't, because all anyone here can do to defend that ignoramus is say he plays good ball. 

Big deal. That's not our point. The point is his poisonous attitude overshadows his skill. Just ask Detroit fans today. Good riddance.

Round 5 to Talkhard.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



B_&_B said:


> My first thought after seeing Rasheed get tossed on Saturday night was "oh great, now there will be another 10 page thread about Rasheed on bbboards." :smile:
> 
> Hopefully when he retires in a few years, we'll finally forget about him!
> 
> ...


It's pretty disingenuous for the detractors to complain about the presence of the Wallace threads as they are always the ones that start them. Every single time. And since we now have TH's promise to continue to throw chum in the water forever, you can forget about forgetting about him.

Speaking of haters, that 2nd link you posted is a beaut.

STOMP


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



> It's pretty disingenuous for the detractors to complain about the presence of the Wallace threads as they are always the ones that start them. Every single time.


It's interesting how the Rashweed defenders claim to hate these kinds of threads, yet they flock to them like buzzards over road kill.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> It's interesting how the Rashweed defenders claim to hate these kinds of threads, yet they flock to them like buzzards over road kill.


Start a thread about how evil homosexuality is, and a lot of posters would flock to that one too. Mostly to point out how ignorant the thread is. There are a lot of us who just don't like stupidity. 

If you fart in a crowded elevator, you shouldn't complain about all the groaning.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



mook said:


> There are a lot of us who just don't like stupidity.


Exactly. That's why so many of us are glad Rashweed Wallace is pulling his stupidity in Detroit these days.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

Any player who admits he despises the press and the refs can't be all bad. I will never understand people who get upset when players refuse to lie to them about such things.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> It's interesting how the Rashweed defenders claim to hate these kinds of threads, yet they flock to them like buzzards over road kill.


Still with the gradeschool baiting... but thats what a troll does. 

If you're actually paying attention to the thread comments and not only here to bait posters you'd notice that at least half the complaints about this thread is from those on your side of the argument... are they circling buzzards hovering over your bait too?

STOMP


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

Mitch Albom has some strong words about Wallace in today's _Detroit Free Press_:



> *"You love his power, but you always wonder when he'll turn on you . . .
> 
> Depending on an undependable player wears you out . . .
> 
> ...













http://freepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070604/COL01/706040344/1051/SPORTS03


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*

I'm so far past the point of caring about Rasheed either way... I don't understand why people continue to hate or love him with such a passion.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*

I used to be a huge fan of Rasheed's game in his early years with the Blazers. He was easily the most talented player on those late 90's teams. I used to make excuses about his T's, saying he was just an emotional player who needed the fire to play his best. I remember making a post going through an entire season's games and making the case that his T's hadn't cost us any games. Of course, the very next game he got two T's in a row and cost us a one-point loss and I got called on my post. 

A player's value is based on the total package of his talent, his work ethic, his basketball intelligence, and his ability to focus and perform under pressure. Unfortunately, Rasheed never learned to master that last essential ingredient and has kept himself from achieving his maximum potential.

The Blazers didn't get much value for Rasheed in trade and that, plus a few other poor moves, put us into the tailspin that led to four straight seasons out of the playoffs. The silver lining, of course, is that this turn of events put the team in a position to draft Roy, Aldridge, and now either Oden or Durant. Once that team develops to its full potential, maybe we can finally put the Rasheed debate to rest.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Detroit News calls Rashweed "Master of the Meltdown"*



> "Trading Wallace, Master of the Meltdown, is one possibility. Hey, in Detroit, we've always appreciated the guy's raw emotions. But more and more, he's flailing at ghosts, as well as refs, and *his Game 6 ejection was ugly."*












http://detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070604/SPORTS08/706040360/1004/SPORTS


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

Chris McCosky of the _Detroit News_ says the Pistons should trade Wallace, but he's not sure how they would get rid of him:


> "You want to pick up the $61 million owed to Portland's Zach Randolph and roll the dice on his off-court issues? And who do you think the Trail Blazers would want in return? *You know they aren't taking Wallace back."*


Heh, heh. You got that right. 










http://detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070604/SPORTS0102/706040359/1004


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

Is Sheed partially to blame for the defeat? YES.

Are other Detroit players (EG Billups) at least equally at fault? YES.

Do the above quoted articles recognize that? NO.

Does that mean the above quoted articles have no credibility? YES.


What is it about critical thinking that eludes some people?:whofarted


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Oldmangrouch said:


> What is it about critical thinking that eludes some people?


I don't know, but it sure seems to elude the Rashweed defenders. When you've got most of the NBA reporters in Detroit saying that he is a problem and he needs to go, then those who insist on denying the facts start to look awfully foolish.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> I don't know, but it sure seems to elude the Rashweed defenders. When you've got most of the NBA reporters in Detroit saying that he is a problem and he needs to go, then those who insist on denying the facts start to look awfully foolish.


Where are "most of the NBA reporters in Detroit" saying that? You certainly didn't quote more than one from your little flurry. 

Saying that the Pistons could look to trade him and saying that he's a problem are different things.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Wallace's behavior "inexcusable"*



> Where are "most of the NBA reporters in Detroit" saying that?


I already quoted two of them, but here's another one from _Michigan Live_ just for good measure:



> "What Wallace did in the 4th quarter of Game 6 Saturday to get ejected, was inexcusable . . .
> 
> . . . He crossed the line between being emotional and being an emotional wreck. He picked up his sixth personal foul, which meant he was done for the night. On his way off the court, Wallace had some choice words for the officials and the Cavalier fans near him, and was given back-to-back technicals fouls, which is an automatic ejection. Then, his temper almost completely out of control, he still tried going after the referees.
> 
> ...


http://www.mlive.com/pistons/stories/index.ssf?/base/sports-2/118092660316810.xml&coll=1


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*

I just don't see "thinking about trading Rasheed" being the same as "he's a problem and an overall detriment".

Nor do I see "Rasheed made a mistake" on par with "the team would be better off without him".

Maybe that's what they mean, but it seems that since they write for a living they would be a bit more efficient in saying it.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



STOMP said:


> I'd guess this is a prime example of why you've been blocked as you're making zero sense. Whats the point of engaging someone who can't make sense? If Ed supported the trade, then obiously he and I are do not share identical views on the trade as I hated it day 1. That you're still trying to contact him after he's made it clear that he doesn't respect your thoughts is obsessive behaviour. It's utterly ridiculous that you're attempting to do this through me.
> 
> STOMP


I think someone has been watching too much of the Lifetime Channel. A person comes to a public message board and ends up blocking posters because he doesn't appreciate their opinions? Wow, that just shows how lame someone can be. There is no obsessive behavior, only trying to show other posters how double talk on a message board is done. The guy keeps complaining about the Blazers ridding themselves of Sheed, but he was in support of the trade when it happened? Okay, that's consistency right there...

I know you like to stray from the issue but you're saying you didn't think we got adequate value for Rasheed Wallace when we traded him? I'd say you would be in the minority in that. Shareef was a 20 and 9 guy, and Theo was known as a excellent defensive player. I think complaining for the sake of complaining is the John Edwards thing to do.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

Add Sam Smith to the list of people who think Rashweed is gone:


> "With his final meltdown and ejection, Rasheed Wallace has probably received his last technical in a Pistons uniform."


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...,4344066.column?page=1&coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Ed O said:


> I just don't see "thinking about trading Rasheed" being the same as "he's a problem and an overall detriment".


Nah, he's not a problem. In fact, he's a key element in their championship plans. That's why they're thinking about trading him. Heh, heh.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*

Rasheed is a very good player who sometimes hurts his teams with his temper tantrums. He's obviously not a "loser" literally, because he has clearly helped the teams he has been on win a lot of games, leading Portland to 2 WCFs and Detroit to a bunch of ECFs and a championship. Remove him from either team, and they don't make it as far. Simple.

As much as the moral avengers like Talkhard want to believe that Rasheed somehow is an overall detriment because they don't like his behavior and attitude, it just isn't true. It's like some people can't make sense of the universe unless the bad people are also somehow bad players, but that's just not the way things work.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

Terry Foster of the _Detroit News_ says Wallace is definitely expendable:


> It was officially over with 7:44 remaining, when Rasheed Wallace could not keep his cool and was kicked out of the game. When the emotional leader imploded, it signaled the end of the Pistons and the coronation of the James era.
> 
> *A new era*
> 
> It is time to usher in a new era of Pistons basketball, but it is not time to blow up the entire franchise. The Pistons should try to sign Chauncey Billups. They need to keep him with Richard Hamilton and Tayshaun Prince. This is the nucleus. *But everybody else, and everything else, is up for grabs.*


http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/SPORTS08/706030343/1127/SPORTS0102


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



dudleysghost said:


> As much as the moral avengers like Talkhard want to believe that Rasheed somehow is an overall detriment because they don't like his behavior and attitude, it just isn't true. It's like some people can't make sense of the universe unless the bad people are also somehow bad players, but that's just not the way things work.


I've always said that Wallace is an excellent player. In fact, I think he has the talent to be an all-time great--but unfortunately he doesn't have the brains. As for him being an "overall detriment," you don't have to take it from me. Just read some of the quotes from basketball writers that I've been quoting. THEY are the ones saying he's a detriment. I know you'd rather it was just me, but it's clearly not. In fact, your analysis of me is the only analysis here that is simple-minded.


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*



dudleysghost said:


> Rasheed is a very good player who sometimes hurts his teams with his temper tantrums. He's obviously not a "loser" literally, because he has clearly helped the teams he has been on win a lot of games, leading Portland to 2 WCFs and Detroit to a bunch of ECFs and a championship. Remove him from either team, and they don't make it as far. Simple.
> 
> As much as the moral avengers like Talkhard want to believe that Rasheed somehow is an overall detriment because they don't like his behavior and attitude, it just isn't true. It's like some people can't make sense of the universe unless the bad people are also somehow bad players, but that's just not the way things work.


Well put. Although the majority of the board (myself included) probably stopped taking him seriously after trying to call Rasheed Rashweed. Really Talkhard? The hate is slightly pathetic.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> I've always said that Wallace is an excellent player. In fact, I think he has the talent to be an all-time great--but unfortunately he doesn't have the brains. _As for him being an "overall detriment," you don't have to take it from me. Just read some of the quotes from basketball writers that I've been quoting_. THEY are the ones saying he's a detriment. I know you'd rather it was just me, but it's clearly not. In fact, your analysis of me is the only analysis here that is simple-minded.


As if using sports columnists to make an argument from authority wasn't bad enough, you're also attributing something to them that they didn't even say. Nice work there.

You'd like to believe that Wallace doesn't help teams win despite the fact that he's helped some very good teams win a lot of games for like 10 years now. LOL do you even understand how ridiculous that is? Ground Control to Major Talkhard, you're circuit's dead and something's wrong...


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



dudleysghost said:


> As if using sports columnists to make an argument from authority wasn't bad enough, you're also attributing something to them that they didn't even say. Nice work there.


Yeah, you're right. Sports columnists don't know anything. All they do all season long is talk to coaches, players, scouts, general managers, trainers, and front office personal (not to mention attending all of the games), so they're obviously in the dark--whereas guys like us who read only second-hand reports are the real experts. Yeah, that's the ticket!

It also doesn't take a genius to see what they're saying about Wallace's overall impact on the team. Clearly, if they thought he was helping Detroit win titles, they would want him to be kept. But the fact that they all seem to think he needs to go is a very clear statement about his overall value to the team. Well, "very clear" to everyone except you, perhaps.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> But the fact that they all seem to think he needs to go is a very clear statement about his overall value to the team. Well, "very clear" to everyone except you, perhaps.


Actually, I think you might be the only one who's bending over backwards far enough to see that. A plain reading of the columns doesn't support your position, that's for sure.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Ed O said:


> Actually, I think you might be the only one who's bending over backwards far enough to see that. A plain reading of the columns doesn't support your position, that's for sure.


So when Mitch Albom says, "Keeping [Wallace] is like waiting for that engine to explode . . . " he's really arguing that Wallace has tremendous overall value to the team? I see. That's very good, Ed. I guess I just missed the obvious.

When Bob Wojnowski says that :"Trading Wallace, Master of the Meltdown, is one possibility," and "more and more, he's flailing at ghosts, as well as refs," he is really saying that Wallace is a key member of the team and not a detriment? 

And when A. Sherrod Blakely writes that, "If Dumars wasn't thinking about trading Wallace before, he certainly should now," he's really arguing that Wallace is an irreplacable member of the team? Gee. I guess I just have no clue what these guys are talking about. My fault.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> So when Mitch Albom says, "Keeping [Wallace] is like waiting for that engine to explode . . . " he's really arguing that Wallace has tremendous overall value to the team? I see. That's very good, Ed. I guess I just missed the obvious.
> 
> When Bob Wojnowski says that :"Trading Wallace, Master of the Meltdown, is one possibility," and "more and more, he's flailing at ghosts, as well as refs," he is really saying that Wallace is a key member of the team and not a detriment?
> 
> And when A. Sherrod Blakely writes that, "If Dumars wasn't thinking about trading Wallace before, he certainly should now," he's really arguing that Wallace is an irreplacable member of the team? Gee. *I guess I just have no clue what these guys are talking about.* My fault.


You don't seem to have a clue. Saying they should think about trading a guy isn't the same as saying that he isn't helping them win, and only Albom even argues they definitely should trade him. What you are saying and what they say are two totally different things. I'm not sure what's wrong with you that makes you unable to see that. You think a sports columnist is an expert, and you can't even understand the words of theirs that you're quoting. Sad.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



dudleysghost said:


> Saying they should think about trading a guy isn't the same as saying that he isn't helping them win


What's so hard for you to understand? If a guy is so valuable that you can't win without him, then you don't trade him. And if lots of NBA reporters in Detroit are suggesting that Wallace should be traded (and they are), they obviously think his days of usefulness have come to an end.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*

Talkhard, has it occurred to you to wonder why Flip Saunders plays Sheed? I mean, if he's such a detriment to the team and all. Detroit has a lot of big men, he could sit Sheed if he thought the team would be better without him. You know, addition by subtraction. Yet he played him all year long, and all through the playoffs. 

Why do you suppose that is? Maybe Flip doesn't know as much about Sheed's value to the Pistons as you?

barfo


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



barfo said:


> Talkhard, has it occurred to you to wonder why Flip Saunders plays Sheed? I mean, if he's such a detriment to the team and all. Detroit has a lot of big men, he could sit Sheed if he thought the team would be better without him. You know, addition by subtraction. Yet he played him all year long, and all through the playoffs.


Wallace is a very talented big man, so it's not hard to understand why Saunders plays him, just as every other coach has played him. But you're always crossing your fingers that he doesn't do something stupid and ruin your chances of winning. 

Isiah Rider was another very talented player that fit the same mold. You loved his skills, but his boneheaded behavior drove you crazy. Eventually, everybody realized he just wasn't worth the trouble.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> Wallace is a very talented big man, so it's not hard to understand why Saunders plays him, just as every other coach has played him. But you're always crossing your fingers that he doesn't do something stupid and ruin your chances of winning.


That's correct. And Mike Dunleavy, Larry Brown, Flip Saunders all thought the reward was worth the risk. If I understand you correctly, you disagree with those gentlemen, you think he's not worth the risk.



> Isiah Rider was another very talented player that fit the same mold. You loved his skills, but his boneheaded behavior drove you crazy. Eventually, everybody realized he just wasn't worth the trouble.


Well, it didn't drive me crazy. 

Eventually, Rider got old and the trouble outweighed his remaining talent. That'll probably happen to Sheed someday too - but I'd say it clearly hasn't happened yet (he's still a starter on a eastern conf. finals team), whereas it seems you've been arguing that it happened seven or eight years ago. 

barfo


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> Wallace is a very talented big man, so it's not hard to understand why Saunders plays him, just as every other coach has played him. But you're always crossing your fingers that he doesn't do something stupid and ruin your chances of winning.
> 
> Isiah Rider was another very talented player that fit the same mold. You loved his skills, but his boneheaded behavior drove you crazy. Eventually, everybody realized he just wasn't worth the trouble.


You can't expect people to take you seriously and then compare Rider to Wallace.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Freshtown said:


> You can't expect people to take you seriously and then compare Rider to Wallace.


You can't expect people to take you seriously if you don't see any similarities between them.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



barfo said:


> Mike Dunleavy, Larry Brown, Flip Saunders all thought the reward was worth the risk. If I understand you correctly, you disagree with those gentlemen, you think he's not worth the risk.


I wouldn't want Wallace on my team for several reasons. For starters, he would never lift weights with the rest of the team when he was in Portland. That's not a team player, that's a selfish jerk. He told the team to go ahead and fine him, but he was never going to work out in the weight room with the rest of the players.

In addition, he's a walking time bomb with the referees, as we saw the other night against the Cavs. As a coach, I wouldn't want my players to be always challenging the referees and getting bogged down with technical fouls, so I wouldn't want Wallace around to set a bad example. 

Wallace also has a knack for getting kicked out of big games, as he did in Game 1 of the WCF finals against the Lakers when he was with Portland. As Mitch Albom put it, "Depending on an undependable player wears you out . . . "


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> You can't expect people to take you seriously if you don't see any similarities between them.


Yes. Great point. They both act like fools occaisonally. They also are of the same worth, right? They've also both won championships, been to 5 conference finals, and been on the all-star team, right? Well, at least they play similarly, right? No? You're probably trying to compare how stupid they are (as well as how much you hate them). Well, they were both charged with domestic violence, right? Oh wait, that was only J.R. They were both convicted of cocaine posession, right? Wait, no. That was only J.R. too. Abuse, spitting on fans... exclusive to J.R. While Smith only had a few noteworthy years in the NBA, Wallace is 12 years deep and 1 ring, as well as many conference finals with multiple teams.

Seems to me the only similarity they share is the fact that they both like to smoke herb. If that's the case, then Clifford Robinson must also be one of your most despised players.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> I wouldn't want Wallace on my team for several reasons. For starters, he would never lift weights with the rest of the team when he was in Portland. That's not a team player, that's a selfish jerk. He told the team to go ahead and fine him, but he was never going to work out in the weight room with the rest of the players.
> 
> In addition, he's a walking time bomb with the referees, as we saw the other night against the Cavs. As a coach, I wouldn't want my players to be always challenging the referees and getting bogged down with technical fouls, so I wouldn't want Wallace around to set a bad example.
> 
> Wallace also has a knack for getting kicked out of big games, as he did in Game 1 of the WCF finals against the Lakers when he was with Portland. As Mitch Albom put it, "it's exhausting trying to depend on an undependable player."


Do they lift weights as a team? I always thought that was sort of an individual thing. But if they all grab hold of a big old weight and heave, then I agree, he's a selfish jerk for not helping his teammates lift the thing.

Or is it that they needed him to sing baritone on "YMCA" as they work out? I see Dale Davis as the policeman, Scottie Pippen as the cowboy, and Sheed as the fireman. What was the other one? Construction worker? Maybe Damon could be the construction worker. 

Anyway, if you ever get a job coaching in the NBA, you should definitely put your theories to the test. As it currently stands, you seem to be at odds with some of the better coaches in the league about how to coach.

barfo


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> What's so hard for you to understand? If a guy is so valuable that you can't win without him, then you don't trade him.


Standard Talkhardian strawman, to avoid a painful truth.

No one said Wallace is "so valuable that a team cannot win without him." Teams can win without any player...hell, Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan don't even play basketball anymore, and there are teams that are winning. Does that mean that Chamberlain and Jordan, when they played, didn't help teams win?

The standard is not "is a player so valuable that a team cannot win without him?" No player meets that standard. The standard is whether a player helps the team he is on win. Wallace has always met that standard, and being willing to trade him doesn't mean those columnists agree with you that he doesn't.

Everyone thinks Portland should trade Randolph. By your warped logic, that means everyone is saying Randolph doesn't help a team on the court.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Minstrel said:


> Everyone thinks Portland should trade Randolph. By your warped logic, that means everyone is saying Randolph doesn't help a team on the court.


Perfect example. Randolph is a very talented player whose weaknesses and off-the-court problems have helped him wear out his welcome in Portland, just as Rashweed appears to have worn out his welcome in Detroit.


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> Rashweed



C'mon man. How old are you? :no: 

One more tidbit from 'Sheed himself:

“…In college it was win, win, win. I don’t like losing. I’ve never had to deal with losing. When I’m out there on the floor, I might yell or do this or that. I’m trying to get the win. My whole bottom line is getting that ‘W.’ I might be more vocal or more fierce than the next player, and I get labeled a knucklehead. That comes from people who don’t know me, who just see me one night out of 365 days. “


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*

A few more... I had to throw them in here.

The following is my favorite Sheed story as told by a man who witnessed all happen… First team scrimmage Ra’s freshman year. Montross and Salvadori had been pushing Ra up and down the court, double teaming him down low, and talkin’ **** the whole time. Evidently Ra went up for a turn around “J” in the lane only to have Montross and Salvadori club him and block his shot… each telling him to never bring that **** inside again. Next time down the court Ra caught a ball coming off of the rim at which time he did one of his backboard shaking monster dunks (a 9.5 on Pat Sullivan’s grading scale) on Montross and Salvadori. Upon landing on his feet Ra pushed Montross into Salvadori and yelled, “You better recognize.. Motherf***er! Your job is mine!” This outburst infuriated Montross as he chased Ra down the court as the entire team tried to break it up. Ra ran laps for the rest of the practice.


On the zebras: “A lot of them cats are felonious, man.” 

On Portland GM John Nash stating that Rasheed Wallace is more talented than Kenyon Martin, but Kenyon Martin is more tenacious: “I don’t give a **** what John Nash thinks…You see where his thinking got him…You all got anything else?”

“Some people say I’m mean and this and that. On one hand that’s cool. That keeps away all the riffraff and all the bugaboos.” — R. Wallace


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*

Detroit needs to ship him to a mediocre team. Then the fireworks will truly begin. That would be worth watching.

Maybe Memphis will take him? How about Boston?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> Perfect example.


Quite. Both are flawed players who still provide a ton of on-court value. And Wallace can't even be labeled a "loser" by people who try to conflate individual and team success: he's been a key member of a number of very successful teams.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Minstrel said:


> Quite. Both are flawed players who still provide a ton of on-court value.


Maybe Detroit should keep Rashweed and build their new team around him. That would ensure that the Pistons keep flaming out in the playoffs for at least the next 5 years. 


> Wallace can't even be labeled a "loser" by people who try to conflate individual and team success: he's been a key member of a number of very successful teams.


And yet he couldn't be a leader at Portland, refused to play on the blocks, and is essentially "uncoachable," according to many who know him.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



dudleysghost said:


> As much as the moral avengers like Talkhard...


Seems like the last time you commented on this subject you called those of us that wanted Wallace outta here 'puritanical avengers'. I guess if you're going to keep calling us out as if we're a bunch of whackos, I guess I'll re-hash my perspective, too.



Freshtown said:


> Well, they (RW and JR) were both charged with domestic violence, right? Oh wait, that was only J.R.


Actually, no. 



WIZZNUTZZ Rap Sheet said:


> After his rookie season with Washington, Wallace made an arrangement to have his sentencing on a domestic violence charge involving Chiquita Bryant deferred for a year. In return for this deferment, he had to apologize in court, serve 50 hours of community service, 12 months of probation, and attend anger management counseling.


http://www.geocities.com/wizznutzz/rapsheet.html

The non-moral avenger types say they didn’t/don’t care about the off-court stuff with Wallace. Does that mean the fan base should embrace a team of ex-murderers, rapists, child molesters and meth cooks? I realize that’s on the extreme end of the ‘I don’t care’ spectrum. But, is there some level of criminal behavior where we should draw the line? Is it just the non-moral avenger types that get to decide where that line is? I don't think so.

Fact is, Wallace’s considerable talents were offset, to some significant degree, by his ON COURT behavior:
How can anyone doubt that the team was affected his behavior toward the refs?

- Threating a ref (after a win where he had a great game) on the loading dock.
- Throwing a towel in face of a ref.
- Setting the all time record for T’s
- Sets that record nearly every year.
- Getting suspended for up to seven games at a time, multiple times.

During Wallace’s time here, the Blazers couldn’t buy a call when it mattered. Someone above noted that he doesn't like to play in the post because he never gets a call. I wonder why that might be?

There were other ways that Wallace partially offset his skills by putting his need to be himself ahead of the team. He gave opposing teams 41 extra free throws over the course of ONE season. He gave away dozens, (by far more than any other player EVER), in seasons other than his all time record season. 

He has now been tossed from two playoff games, and would have been tossed for G7, if the series had continued. Throwing a towel in his teammate’s face also doesn't seem to be a positive on court behavior.

This moral avenger is damned happy that Wallace got to take both his on court and off court behavior to Detroit. If it made the team stumble a little during the re-building, it was worth the wait to me.

I'll leave you with maybe the funniest quote I've seen at WIZZNUTZZ:


Rasheed Wallace said:


> Come playoff time, that's when it all counts," he said. "I've never been thrown out of a playoff game and I never will get thrown out of a playoff game. A lot of things go on in the regular season that don't go on in the playoffs. I could get a million techs during the regular season."


DOH!

Go Blazers


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

*Re: Rasheed*











SHEED 4 LIFE


The realest player in the league. 'Nuff said.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



BealzeeBob said:


> But, is there some level of criminal behavior where we should draw the line? Is it just the non-moral avenger types that get to decide where that line is? I don't think so.


Everyone gets to decide for themselves. You don't get to decide for me, and I don't get to decide for you.



> This moral avenger is damned happy that Wallace got to take both his on court and off court behavior to Detroit. If it made the team stumble a little during the re-building, it was worth the wait to me.


Well, luckily the team only stumbled a little. We were only the very worst team in the league for one year. If you think that's a reasonable price to pay for your morals to be avenged, then so be it. I just hope your morals don't need any more avenging in the next few years.

barfo


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*



BealzeeBob said:


> Seems like the last time you commented on this subject you called those of us that wanted Wallace outta here 'puritanical avengers'. I guess if you're going to keep calling us out as if we're a bunch of whackos, I guess I'll re-hash my perspective, too.


Actually, when I said that was in reference to those people who spend hours in here trashing Zach Randolph. All of these people, presumably including you beelzebub, seem to have the need for professional basketball players to live according to your moral code. I think that's wrong, and it bugs me because I want the team to be good.

But if you want to choose the players you root for based on extracurricular activities rather than basketball ability, that's your choice. What's really whacko is when someone claims that players like Zach and especially Sheed are "losers". Those guys help teams win. People have clearly lost sight of reality when they allow their personal feelings about the players somehow make them believe that they aren't good players. Rasheed can get tossed out of one out of 20 games, but he's so good in the other 19 he's still a huge net benefit. Believe what you want about Rasheed and what he does for a team, but he's lead so many winning teams in his career that it makes you look ridiculous if you can't recognize it.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*



Freshtown said:


> SHEED 4 LIFE
> 
> 
> The realest player in the league. 'Nuff said.


He's clearly a loser. Uhh durr...


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

*Re: Rasheed*

Talkhard, let's make this simple:

i tried avoiding this thread because i'm still too happy of our situation right now to be arguing with fellow blazer fans over nothing, but...

let me ask you this:

if the stake was your money, all of it. you have a game to play. you win, you get all your money back. you lose, you lose all of it.

your choice of pf are the following:

bad, bad rasheed
nice clean boy, matt bonner
mark blount
mark madsen
p.j. brown
brian cardinal

actually, go ahead and add your nice clean boy power fowards on this list. which one would you pick?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> Maybe Detroit should keep Rashweed and build their new team around him. That would ensure that the Pistons keep flaming out in the playoffs


Like they did in 2004, when Rasheed Wallace's addition won them a championship.

Again, you make intellectual dishonesty an artform. If it were a player you liked who had been on Detroit teams that went two NBA Finals, 3 Eastern Conference Finals and won a championship, you'd be calling him a fantastic winner. Because Rasheed Wallace is everything you hate, you imply that he and the Pistons have "flamed out" constantly.



> is essentially "uncoachable," according to many who know him.


People who know him = voices in Talkhard's head.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

*Re: Rasheed*



BealzeeBob said:


> The non-moral avenger types say they didn’t/don’t care about the off-court stuff with Wallace. Does that mean the fan base should embrace a team of ex-murderers, rapists, child molesters and meth cooks?


i'm probably in the extreme that thinks those who commits such crimes deserve no redemption (meaning they should all die). so you're right, too extreme for me.

but hey if they commits a lesser crime, serves their sentence and can ball? bring 'em in! i'm not a christian, but you see i can learn forgiveness too, see?



> Fact is, Wallace’s considerable talents were offset, to some significant degree, by his ON COURT behavior:


i don't deny this. bottom line is though, his positives easily outweighs his negatives. that's all it matters.



> Go Blazers


go blazers


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



dudleysghost said:


> All of these people, presumably including you beelzebub, seem to have the need for professional basketball players to live according to your moral code.


Tell it to Kevin Pritchard and the rest of the Blazer management. They all seem to agree that a certain "moral code" is pretty important, too. That's why they've been focusing on drafting high character guys lately, or haven't you noticed?



> I think that's wrong, and it bugs me because I want the team to be good.


 That's a false dilemna. There's no reason why you can't build a good team based around good guys. Pritchard & Co. are proving that it can be done.



> But if you want to choose the players you root for based on extracurricular activities rather than basketball ability, that's your choice.


Another false dilemna. It doesn't have to be either/or. 



> What's really whacko is when someone claims that players like Zach and especially Sheed are "losers". Those guys help teams win.


Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. Zach has won a few games for us, and he's also clogged up the offense and helped us lose a few. Don't you recall the winning streak we had when he was out of the lineup this year?



> People have clearly lost sight of reality when they allow their personal feelings about the players somehow make them believe that they aren't good players.


I've never said that Rashweed wasn't a good player. What I've said (in essence) is that his immature behavior also hurts a team, and his ridiculously childish referee baiting and chip-on-the-shoulder attitude get him into lots of trouble. He's a lousy person, in my opinion, and I wouldn't want him on my team for a whole host of reasons, some of which I have already explained in this thread.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



BuckW4GM said:


> Talkhard, let's make this simple:
> 
> If the stake was your money, all of it. you have a game to play. you win, you get all your money back. you lose, you lose all of it.


That's where we differ. I don't see winning as the only thing that counts. I want a team I can be proud of first--and then by all means I hope they can win some basketball games! You, on the other hand, wouldn't mind having Jeffrey Dahmer on your team if he could make a hook shot.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



barfo said:


> Everyone gets to decide for themselves. You don't get to decide for me, and I don't get to decide for you.


I don't want to decide for you. I'm just tired of taking cheep shots for my own decision.

You don't mention what level of criminal behavior on the team is ok with you. Clearly, roughing up a girlfriend is ok worth it to you, but how far would you let that go to have a good team? Is a team of felons that can really ball ok?



> Well, luckily the team only stumbled a little. We were only the very worst team in the league for one year. If you think that's a reasonable price to pay for your morals to be avenged, then so be it. I just hope your morals don't need any more avenging in the next few years.


barfo[/QUOTE]

That doesn't look to be the case, as the current squad doesn't seem to have many idiots on it.

Go Blazers


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> > Originally Posted by Talkhard
> > Rashweed
> 
> 
> C'mon man. How old are you?


Every time I see that term used, it's like somebody saying, "George W. Bush is a poopy pants, but I have an interesting perspective on...."

Nothing is more counterproductive in a debate than childish name calling. I guess if it makes you happy, carry on. But nobody is going to take whatever you write after that seriously.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

mook said:


> Nothing is more counterproductive in a debate than childish name calling. I guess if it makes you happy, carry on. But nobody is going to take whatever you write after that seriously.


If that's all it takes for you to ignore my point, you were going to ignore it anyway. Carry on.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> That's where we differ. I don't see winning as the only thing that counts. I want a team I can be proud of first--and then by all means I hope they can win some basketball games! You, on the other hand, wouldn't mind having Jeffrey Dahmer on your team if he could make a hook shot.



And yet you like Bush. :biggrin:


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

MOD - please close this thread and all future threads about Rasheed! 

:wink:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



BealzeeBob said:


> I don't want to decide for you. I'm just tired of taking cheep shots for my own decision.
> 
> You don't mention what level of criminal behavior on the team is ok with you. Clearly, roughing up a girlfriend is ok worth it to you, but how far would you let that go to have a good team? Is a team of felons that can really ball ok?
> 
> Go Blazers



Personally, I advocate the "burger flipper" rule. If an "incident" involved some guy who worked at Burger King - would I care? Would I boycott Burger King over it? 

Now, let me ask you a question: before you go to/rent a movie, do you do a background check on all the actors? Do you refuse to listen to music because the guy playing drums once did something you disapprove of?

Where do *you* draw the line?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> MOD - please close this thread and all future threads about Rasheed!
> 
> :wink:


I did consider closing it at a couple of points over the last couple of days, but the fact that there are 175+ posts and 1900+ page views suggests that people are interested in this topic... or at least, interested in something about this thread. Maybe just the same thing that draws people to a circus freak show, I don't know. And people have _mostly_ been civil about their disagreements. 

barfo


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

barfo said:


> Maybe just the same thing that draws people to a circus freak show, I don't know.




Everyone loves a circus freak show.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



dudleysghost said:


> Actually, when I said that was in reference to those people who spend hours in here trashing Zach Randolph.


Actually, you did include the Wallace reference in the thread trashing ZR, that's why I responded to your second shot (via name calling) at my opinion:


dudleysghost said:


> That's why I get very irritated with the puritanical avengers around here who seem to want us to dump Zach for whatever we can get. They ran Wallace out of town, and the team suffered as a result. Sheed had his major flaws too, but it's very rare for a team to get better simply by removing a talented player, no matter how much some people hate what he does in his free time. That example should be a lesson.





> All of these people, presumably including you beelzebub, seem to have the need for professional basketball players to live according to your moral code.


I wouldn't presume too much, duds. I'm a fan of Zach, and wouldn't want him traded unless we get reasonably equal value for him. My moral code has zip to do with this. I don't like the guy cause he's a jerk, both on and off the court. I detailed a number of reasons that his on court actions affected the team, and mitigated what a good player he is.

What does it say about your moral code, if you support a player that beats up is girlfriend?



> I think that's wrong, and it bugs me because I want the team to be good.


Well, hold onto your hat....they ARE going to be good, dispite the fact we dumped Wallace.



> But if you want to choose the players you root for based on extracurricular activities rather than basketball ability, that's your choice.


Yeah, guess I'm funny that way. Your saying that you consider roughing up your girlfriend just extracurricular activities? I wonder if that's how Ms. Bryant views it. 



> What's really whacko is when someone claims that players like Zach and especially Sheed are "losers".


Seems to me that the term loser has more than one meaning. IMO, someone that roughs up his girlfriend is a loser, whether or not that means that he wins basketball games.



> Those guys help teams win.


And, as in the case in G6, this year, Wallace helped his team loose.



> People have clearly lost sight of reality when they allow their personal feelings about the players somehow make them believe that they aren't good players.


I never said that Wallace isn't a good player, just that he's a *******, and, to me, not worth the downside of his on/off courts issues.



> Rasheed can get tossed out of one out of 20 games, but he's so good in the other 19 he's still a huge net benefit. Believe what you want about Rasheed and what he does for a team, but he's lead so many winning teams in his career that it makes you look ridiculous if you can't recognize it.


Again, I never said that he's not a good player, or that he doesn't allow his teams to win more with him than without him. What makes you look ridiculous is putting words in my mouth that I never said.

Go Blazers


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Oldmangrouch said:


> Personally, I advocate the "burger flipper" rule. If an "incident" involved some guy who worked at Burger King - would I care? Would I boycott Burger King over it?


Well, if I knew that a key member of my local burger establishment was beating up his wife/girlfriend, hell yes I'd boycott that BK. There are lots of other options to BK, just like there are lots of entertainment options.



> Now, let me ask you a question: before you go to/rent a movie, do you do a background check on all the actors? Do you refuse to listen to music because the guy playing drums once did something you disapprove of?
> 
> Where do *you* draw the line?


Don't do any background checks....but I didn't need to do that to find that I can't root for a guy like Wallace. It was right in my face. 

More to the point, I'd never rent or go to a movie directed or produced by Roman Polanski, for instance. There are lots of options to supporting that POS. If I don't like how a particular actor behaves, why would I support him by renting a movie they were in?

I don't listen to music performed by people I don't like, for whatever the reason. Again, lots of options to doing that.

I draw the line at not supporting people that I think are *******s.

Go Blazers


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



Sambonius said:


> I think someone has been watching too much of the Lifetime Channel.


Is the lifetime channel line your go-to childish insult? This is the 2nd time in the last few months you've used that zinger on me. Pretty feeble bleep 



> A person comes to a public message board and ends up blocking posters because he doesn't appreciate their opinions? Wow, that just shows how lame someone can be. There is no obsessive behavior, only trying to show other posters how double talk on a message board is done. The guy keeps complaining about the Blazers ridding themselves of Sheed, but he was in support of the trade when it happened? Okay, that's consistency right there...


Usually when I see someone screaming nonsense, I'll avert my eyes/walk to the other side of the street because I feel bad for them and don't want them to feel worse. I'm trying to help you out here Sam... Ed has nothing to do with me. Keep acting crazy and I'll probably end up blocking you as well.



> I know you like to stray from the issue but you're saying you didn't think we got adequate value for Rasheed Wallace when we traded him? I'd say you would be in the minority in that. Shareef was a 20 and 9 guy, and Theo was known as a excellent defensive player. I think complaining for the sake of complaining is the John Edwards thing to do.


ummmm yeah... good luck with your theories.

STOMP


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> Tell it to Kevin Pritchard and the rest of the Blazer management. They all seem to agree that a certain "moral code" is pretty important, too. That's why they've been focusing on drafting high character guys lately, or haven't you noticed?
> 
> That's a false dilemna. There's no reason why you can't build a good team based around good guys. Pritchard & Co. are proving that it can be done.
> 
> ...


Of course KP says that, every GM says that they want high character guys. So far it looks like he might mean it, but we have yet to see. What other guys did we pass on for character reasons? What happens if one of our sparkling youngsters does something wrong in the future?

It's not _necessarily_ an either or choice, except when it is. In Rasheed's case, in Portland, it was. People like you ran him out of town, and it absolutely made the team worse. We were able to rebuild the team eventually because we sucked so bad we got 3 consecutive top 5 lotto picks and because KP is a great talent evaluator.

One thing we do know is that KP hasn't traded Zach. Before we knew we had Oden to make Zach unnecessary, KP refused to take whatever bogus offers he got at the deadline, even with the outcry over his bad press. I'm glad that KP understands that talent is of primary importance for winning basketball. If we didn't have Oden, I'd be very worried about you guys running Zach out of town like Sheed, making us a worse team. It's fortunate that at the moment we don't seem to have to choose between pleasing the character police and winning basketball games, but in the NBA we will likely be forced to face that choice again eventually...

And it's good you recognize how good Rasheed is. Knowing that though, I have no idea how you think Detroit can get better by trading him. Yeah, a bunch of sports writers think it, but they are paid to be populists and talk trash. I notice none of them actually has a trade proposal in mind. Do you? Good luck to Dumars on finding a Rasheed trade that actually improves his team, because that guy will be very hard to replace, as the Blazers found out.


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

Also, two words to eliminate the credibility of so-called sports writers: John Canzano.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Rasheed*



BealzeeBob said:


> Actually, you did include the Wallace reference in the thread trashing ZR, that's why I responded to your second shot (via name calling) at my opinion:


Ok, then the point _still_ still stands.



BealzeeBob said:


> I wouldn't presume too much, duds. I'm a fan of Zach, and wouldn't want him traded unless we get reasonably equal value for him. My moral code has zip to do with this. I don't like the guy cause he's a jerk, both on and off the court. I detailed a number of reasons that his on court actions affected the team, and mitigated what a good player he is.


His on court actions do affect the team, as does his tremendous playing ability. Did anyone say otherwise? With any player, you get strengths and weaknesses. What's your point?



BealzeeBob said:


> What does it say about your moral code, if you support a player that beats up is girlfriend?


It says I don't conflate supporting winning basketball with supporting anything else the players do. Jason Kidd hit his wife. Rashard Lewis got a DUII. LeBron James refuses to sign a petition encouraging China to stop supporting the Sudanese regime that is committing genocide in Darfur. That last one is the worst one of all! Would you not welcome any of those players to the Blazers as a result? Did you not "support" the very good 2000 Blazers team that took the peaking dynasty Lakers to 7 games? If the answer is yes to those questions, then you should be able to answer your own question.

And like Oldmangrouch said, do we apply character standards when we go to Burger King? Do you require the guy making your Whopper to be a likeable person? Ok, maybe it's not practical to try to find out, but would you even bother if you could?

How about when you watch movies or TV shows, do you apply any kind of morality or behavioral standards to the actors and actresses? In this case, detailed information on their personal lives and histories IS available. Do you bother to find out, or are you willing to "support" people without even bothering to check on their moral qualifications? If you don't bother, why is a basketball team different?



BealzeeBob said:


> Well, hold onto your hat....they ARE going to be good, dispite the fact we dumped Wallace.


Yeah, we sucked so bad that we got consecutive lotto picks, and we're fortunately enough to have a great GM and to have won the Oden sweepstakes. That's great for us. Again, what's your point?



BealzeeBob said:


> Yeah, guess I'm funny that way. Your saying that you consider roughing up your girlfriend just extracurricular activities? I wonder if that's how Ms. Bryant views it.


It's extracurricular to us because it's not basketball related. If you are trying to insinuate that I approve of beating up girlfriends, don't bother. I think the law should punish people who commit crimes to whatever extent is appropriate. If that takes the player out of the NBA, I'm fine with that too. But I don't support a team shooting itself in the foot just out of protest.



BealzeeBob said:


> Seems to me that the term loser has more than one meaning. IMO, someone that roughs up his girlfriend is a loser, whether or not that means that he wins basketball games.
> 
> ...
> 
> Again, I never said that he's not a good player, or that he doesn't allow his teams to win more with him than without him. What makes you look ridiculous is putting words in my mouth that I never said.


I'm not putting words in your mouth. I don't know what you think, which is why I use so many qualified statements. Notice the qualifiers and don't put words in my mouth.

_If_ you aren't one of those who doesn't conflate being a jerk or bad person with being a bad basketball player, good for you. It seems obvious to me that there are many people on this board who do do that, so if it's alright with you, I'm going to state my opinion and declare that observation out loud.




BealzeeBob said:


> And, as in the case in G6, this year, Wallace helped his team loose.


They also wouldn't even have made it to game six without him. He hurts his team in some ways, he helps them in others, and overall he leads to winning more games. But if you are saying that he isn't perfect, then I totally agree.



BealzeeBob said:


> I never said that Wallace isn't a good player, just that he's a *******, and, to me, not worth the downside of his on/off courts issues.


Good for you. I respect your right to have that opinion, but I don't agree. I also don't think calling a group "moral avengers" is an impermissible "shot" by message boards standards. It was the best succinct decription I could think of, it's mild in connotation, and I think it was apt. If you think it implies something incorrect, feel free to explain why and I'll be happy to discuss it. If you think it was some kind of inappropriate personal attack, then I just don't agree, and I wonder how one could possibly think that after reading most of the threads on this board.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Freshtown said:


> Also, two words to eliminate the credibility of so-called sports writers: John Canzano.


Yeah, we should draft Adam Morrison and Pooh Jeter, after we trade Zach for Tim Thomas's expiring contract. But we should regard his opinion aa authority since he follows the team and reports on them....

Sportswriters are paid to write well and have an opinion that gets people talking. They aren't paid to be right. Sometimes they do have good insight, and sometimes they don't. Claiming something is true because a sportswriter says it is laughable.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



STOMP said:


> Is the lifetime channel line your go-to childish insult? This is the 2nd time in the last few months you've used that zinger on me. Pretty feeble bleep
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jesus Christ on a stick Stomp. LMAO @ you threatening me by blocking me. Alright buddy, stick to the subject unless you don't care to discuss it anymore. It is my firm belief that Shareef & Theo was more than adequate value for Rasheed.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> Alright buddy, stick to the subject unless you don't care to discuss it anymore. It is my firm belief that Shareef & Theo was more than adequate value for Rasheed.


stick to the subject? You're off on confusing tangents in the middle of someone elses thread... are you under the impression you're sticking to the subject? 

Is there any question to where I stand on what Wallace was traded for? How about when he was traded? That you think even with the benefit of hindsight that most still think that Portland got good value for Wallace is off the charts. Portland got bleep for a productive player. What they got didn't lead them anywhere but down the toilet. I'm sure that Nash could have put together a worse trade for Sheed, but all the other known options he had would have benefitted the club more. 

If you don't agree with any of that... thats fine... to me thats probably a sign that I'm on to something as I'm sure you are well aware what I think of your judgements on most things. 

STOMP


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> That's where we differ. I don't see winning as the only thing that counts. I want a team I can be proud of first--and then by all means I hope they can win some basketball games!


yes, we differ. i don't have the need to feel proud or ashamed of something that's not my own action.



> You, on the other hand, wouldn't mind having Jeffrey Dahmer on your team if he could make a hook shot.


nah, he's too short to be useful in the post. he'd be much more useful with a 3-point shot. then he would still have to play good d.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Yeah, we should draft Adam Morrison and Pooh Jeter, after we trade Zach for Tim Thomas's expiring contract. But we should regard his opinion aa authority since he follows the team and reports on them....
> 
> Sportswriters are paid to write well and have an opinion that gets people talking. They aren't paid to be right. Sometimes they do have good insight, and sometimes they don't. Claiming something is true because a sportswriter says it is laughable.



:lol: 

I wonder how Crapzano would respond if someone asked him to go back and defend some of his blathering? Do you think there is any possibility he would ever admit to being wrong?

Pooh Jeter?!? :rofl2:


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



BuckW4GM said:


> yes, we differ. i don't have the need to feel proud or ashamed of something that's not my own action.


Then I guess you never feel proud when a member of your family gets a promotion or accomplishes anything good in life. Nor do you feel proud when your country wins an event at the Olympics, or when your child gets good grades in school, or when your best friend publishes a book or gets a juicy role in a movie. None of these things make you proud because they're "not your own action." 

Uh, huh.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Rasheed*

Deleted.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

*Re: Rasheed*



Talkhard said:


> Then I guess you never feel proud when a member of your family gets a promotion or accomplishes anything good in life. Nor do you feel proud when your country wins an event at the Olympics, or when your child gets good grades in school, or when your best friend publishes a book or gets a juicy role in a movie. None of these things make you proud because they're "not your own action."


they aren't all the same, of course you know that. if a member of my family accomplish something, in some roles my actions directly or indirectly contributed to that, i'd feel. same if they did something for me to feel ashamed of.

as for friends and my countrymen, i'd feel happy for them. i woulde have no need to feel proud.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

STOMP said:


> stick to the subject? You're off on confusing tangents in the middle of someone elses thread... are you under the impression you're sticking to the subject?
> 
> Is there any question to where I stand on what Wallace was traded for? How about when he was traded? That you think even with the benefit of hindsight that most still think that Portland got good value for Wallace is off the charts. Portland got bleep for a productive player. What they got didn't lead them anywhere but down the toilet. I'm sure that Nash could have put together a worse trade for Sheed, but all the other known options he had would have benefitted the club more.
> 
> ...


I've stayed on the subject, it isn't my fault you're feeling sensitive about certain comments I make about what posters felt about the trade when it happened. The trade from a talent standpoint was good, but it didn't fit at all and that's what screwed us. I for one don't care though, all that was necessary to get to where we are now. So if you and others want to keep *****ing about having a roster that includes Oden, Aldridge, and Roy then be my guest, just don't expect anyone to think you have credibility. Take care.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> So if you and others want to keep *****ing about having a roster that includes Oden, Aldridge, and Roy then be my guest, just don't expect anyone to think you have credibility.


Please point out where any poster on this board *****ed about having a roster that includes Oden, Aldridge, and Roy. I don't believe there is a single post like that in this thread, or indeed in any thread here. 

Credibility, huh? 

barfo


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: Rasheed*



e_blazer1 said:


> I was out of town over the weekend, but when I watched the game and saw Rasheed have his little meltdown that effectively ended any chance the Pistons had of coming back, I thought, "This will be good for about 5 pages of deja vu on the the board." I underestimated by two pages and counting.



Eight and counting . . .


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



dudleysghost said:


> Ok, then the point _still_ still stands.


It seemed as though you were saying that you _didn't_ call out the posters that wanted Wallace out of here on two separate occasions. I was merely documenting that that is what you did. 

Never said your point didn't stand. For that matter, I'm not real sure what _your_ your point is. Do you mean that you _still_ believe that all the posters that wanted Wallace gone are moral and/or puritanical avengers? If so, I am clear on that.



> His on court actions do affect the team, as does his tremendous playing ability. Did anyone say otherwise? With any player, you get strengths and weaknesses. What's your point?


My point is that, for me, his weaknesses outweigh his strengths, when you consider that he can be replaced. Replacing him with Zach was not that great a drop in talent, Zach doesn't give away dozens of FTs in a season and he doesn't get himself thrown out of games. Put differently: Zach plus Zach's faults is better than Wallace and his faults, IMO. Bummer we didn't get more for Wallace, but he was bucking the coach, so he needed to go asap, IMO.

Go Blazers


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

I'm going to close this for a little bit. I want to talk something over with my fellow mods.

This thread *WILL* be reopened.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

*Alright folks, I've reopened this thread.

I will be PMing a couple of folks that have been posting in this thread... I just want to touch basis.

If you guys could do me a favor and CHECK YOUR PMs to see if I sent you one, I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks!*


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



dudleysghost said:


> It says I don't conflate supporting winning basketball with supporting anything else the players do.


So, you would be ok with a team of felons, as long as they are good? I'd honestly like an answer to that question.



> Jason Kidd hit his wife. Rashard Lewis got a DUII. LeBron James refuses to sign a petition encouraging China to stop supporting the Sudanese regime that is committing genocide in Darfur. That last one is the worst one of all! Would you not welcome any of those players to the Blazers as a result? Did you not "support" the very good 2000 Blazers team that took the peaking dynasty Lakers to 7 games? If the answer is yes to those questions, then you should be able to answer your own question.


Of course I supported the team in the playoffs. But I did quit going to the games.

Don't want Kidd. Lukewarm on Lewis. Bring on LJ! Are you saying refusing to sign a petition is a crime, or an example of bad character?

How many records for T's do those guys have? How many times have they met a ref on the loading dock and threatened him? How many times have they thrown towels in the faces of refs or teammates? How many times have they been tossed from a playoff game, because they felt like it?



> And like Oldmangrouch said, do we apply character standards when we go to Burger King? Do you require the guy making your Whopper to be a likeable person? Ok, maybe it's not practical to try to find out, but would you even bother if you could?


First, this was a poor comparison the first time. The burger flipper is not one of the faces of the franchise. That's more like asking if I'd be outraged if the intern in the Blazers' mail room was a criminal.

Second, if the criminal was one of the faces of the franchise, then yep, I would buy my gutbombs elsewhere. Why wouldn't I? If you knew that Dave, the owner and face of Wendy's, was a child molester and registered predatory sex offender, would you continue to by burgers from him? Would you want to live in Portland? Play ball for the Blazies?

Wallace's warts were in my face. I didn't go looking for them. They were in the paper, on the TV and at the games. It didn't take any research whatsoever to be quite sure that he's an *******. The only reason I researched and posted a link to the Chiquita Bryant story was because someone would have asked for it if I didn't.



> How about when you watch movies or TV shows, do you apply any kind of morality or behavioral standards to the actors and actresses? In this case, detailed information on their personal lives and histories IS available. Do you bother to find out, or are you willing to "support" people without even bothering to check on their moral qualifications? If you don't bother, why is a basketball team different?


Do I research everyone that appears on my TV, or in a movie I watch, to see if they're *******s? Of course not. But if I know someone is an *******, I don't rent/don't watch them. But if they're aren't in my face, I don't get too worked up. With Wallace, it was in my face, about every other game. I do get worked up about that.

I don't support Roman Polanski's works. There are a number of people in the entertainment industry that I don't support. By that I mean I don't spend a dime on anything they produce. Jane Fonda, for example.

Do you go to Polanski's movies? Do you buy the Frugal Gourmet's books? Do you think it's good to financially support those types?



> Yeah, we sucked so bad that we got consecutive lotto picks, and we're fortunately enough to have a great GM and to have won the Oden sweepstakes. That's great for us. Again, what's your point?


My point is that the sky did not fall. The team dumped Wallace. The team will be good again within a reasonable time frame for rebuilding. Don't worry, be happy.

Pretty surprising to me that you seem shocked that a team that went through a complete rebuild sucked for a while. I always thought that was a given....when you rebuild, you suck. Often for much longer than the Blazers have.

Go Blazers


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

barfo said:


> Please point out where any poster on this board *****ed about having a roster that includes Oden, Aldridge, and Roy. I don't believe there is a single post like that in this thread, or indeed in any thread here.
> 
> Credibility, huh?
> 
> barfo


*****ing how we got here. Put it together. That so called "horrible trade" is one of many reasons our roster looks the way it is.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



dudleysghost said:


> > It's extracurricular to us because it's not basketball related. If you are trying to insinuate that I approve of beating up girlfriends, don't bother. I think the law should punish people who commit crimes to whatever extent is appropriate. If that takes the player out of the NBA, I'm fine with that too. But I don't support a team shooting itself in the foot just out of protest.
> 
> 
> Didn't say you approve of that, don't think that. But, is it good to financially support that?
> ...


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> *****ing how we got here. Put it together. That so called "horrible trade" is one of many reasons our roster looks the way it is.


No, that's really faulty logic. Thinking the Wallace trade was bad is not the same as thinking the current roster is bad. It is not rational to "put it together" that way.

As I already pointed out in this thread, drafting Bowie is also "one of the many reasons our roster looks the way it is". Thinking it was a mistake to draft Bowie is not the same as thinking the current roster is bad. Indeed, every move we've made in the past is "one of the many reasons our roster looks the way it is". Does getting lucky in the draft this year now justify each and every past roster move? 

The answer is no, it doesn't. 

Your statement, that people "keep *****ing about having a roster that includes Oden, Aldridge, and Roy", is a falsehood. People are not *****ing about that.

barfo


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



BealzeeBob said:


> You don't mention what level of criminal behavior on the team is ok with you. Clearly, roughing up a girlfriend is ok worth it to you, but how far would you let that go to have a good team? Is a team of felons that can really ball ok?


Well, let's suppose there was a prison basketball league that was comprised of the worst criminals in the pen. Let's suppose the level of play was really high and that the games were televised. Would I watch? 

Hard to say because I'd be unlikely to get hooked on the NBA or any other sport at this point in my life, but supposing that we travel back in time to when I started watching the Blazers, and suppose the Prison Ball league was on instead...

Yes, I think I'd watch, and if it was entertaining, I might develop a fan interest in one of the teams. 

So, yeah, a team of felons, even violent felons, that can really ball is ok with me. I'd be watching them play basketball, after all, not commit crimes.

I can certainly understand your "don't ask, don't tell" policy about supporting those you consider *******s, but it isn't my policy. I figure most of the money I spend eventually goes to *******s of one variety or another anyway, so why worry about which ones get it? The *******s you financially support but aren't aware of are probably a lot worse than the ones who yell at referees. Unless you think yelling at refs is the most henious crime imaginable.

barfo


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

barfo said:


> No, that's really faulty logic. Thinking the Wallace trade was bad is not the same as thinking the current roster is bad. It is not rational to "put it together" that way.


Okay, I think the Wallace trade was a good one as far as value goes, but yes it did make our team worse. He was our best player, so anytime you trade your best player your team will fall. Go fish. 



> As I already pointed out in this thread, drafting Bowie is also "one of the many reasons our roster looks the way it is". Thinking it was a mistake to draft Bowie is not the same as thinking the current roster is bad. Indeed, every move we've made in the past is "one of the many reasons our roster looks the way it is". Does getting lucky in the draft this year now justify each and every past roster move?
> 
> The answer is no, it doesn't.


I think your exaggerating my position. Nobody said EVERY past move is okay because of now. Bowie and Wallace are completely different playing fields. Wallace has relevance to our recent transactions. Sure, you can go back and say if we selected someone other than Bowie our situation would be this or that but we didn't. 



> Your statement, that people "keep *****ing about having a roster that includes Oden, Aldridge, and Roy", is a falsehood. People are not *****ing about that.
> 
> barfo


Indirectly they are. Without that Wallace trade, we wouldn't have the roster we do today. Sure, the trade itself made us less competitive but that's a given when you're trading your best player. Now *edited* enjoy us having the #1 pick.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> I think your exaggerating my position. Nobody said EVERY past move is okay because of now. Bowie and Wallace are completely different playing fields. Wallace has relevance to our recent transactions. Sure, you can go back and say if we selected someone other than Bowie our situation would be this or that but we didn't.


Bowie in a trade landed the Blazers a much higher return the Wallace did. (Bowie was traded for Buck Williams.)


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> I think your exaggerating my position. Nobody said EVERY past move is okay because of now. Bowie and Wallace are completely different playing fields. Wallace has relevance to our recent transactions.


No, I wasn't exaggerating your position. I was pointing out the logical fallacy of your statement, by using Bowie as an example. 



> Sure, you can go back and say if we selected someone other than Bowie our situation would be this or that but we didn't.


Precisely my point. And you can go back and say if we didn't trade Wallace our situation would be this or that but we did. It's exactly the same argument. It's invalid in both cases. 

Nobody knows what might have happened this year if we'd done things differently in the past. There are too many variables, too many human, subjective decisions that get made along the way that would be changed by different circumstances. We might have a much worse team today, or we might have a much better team today. Or it might be the same. No way to know.



> Without that Wallace trade, we wouldn't have the roster we do today.


Without that Bowie draft, we wouldn't have the roster we do today. 

barfo


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Nightfly said:


> Bowie in a trade landed the Blazers a much higher return the Wallace did. (Bowie was traded for Buck Williams.)


Nobody said Bowie didn't land us more in a trade than Wallace.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

barfo said:


> No, I wasn't exaggerating your position. I was pointing out the logical fallacy of your statement, by using Bowie as an example.
> 
> 
> Precisely my point. And you can go back and say if we didn't trade Wallace our situation would be this or that but we did. It's exactly the same argument. It's invalid in both cases.
> ...


Exactly, there are too many variables to think our outcome would be the exact same if we didn't trade Wallace or didn't trade Wallace for what we did. There's an infinite amount of outcomes, anything different would have more than likely changed that. I didn't say our team would be better or worse, all I said was that our team roster would be different if anything else was different. You're reading too much into things and making assumptions that I never stated.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



barfo said:


> Well, let's suppose there was a prison basketball league that was comprised of the worst criminals in the pen...
> 
> ...Yes, I think I'd watch, and if it was entertaining, I might develop a fan interest in one of the teams.
> 
> So, yeah, a team of felons, even violent felons, that can really ball is ok with me. I'd be watching them play basketball, after all, not commit crimes.


That's interesting, but somewhat misses the point. Would you want the Blazers to sign these murderers and child molesters when they were released? Would you want them living in your community, your neighborhood, next door? That's more to the point.

If one of these guys beat up his wife in the tunnel before the game, then went out and shut down the guy he was checking, while scoring 30 points and sealed the win for the team....would you still want him on the team?



> I can certainly understand your "don't ask, don't tell" policy about supporting those you consider *******s, but it isn't my policy. I figure most of the money I spend eventually goes to *******s of one variety or another anyway, so why worry about which ones get it? The *******s you financially support but aren't aware of are probably a lot worse than the ones who yell at referees. Unless you think yelling at refs is the most henious crime imaginable.
> 
> barfo


It may be boneheaded of me to worry about which *******s get my support, but I won't/don't support the ones I know about. I think it's ok if you have a different policy.

I know there are some Wallace supporters on this site that are of the female persuasion. I'd be interested in their perspective of why they support a guy that roughs up his girlfriend. Is being a good player enough to make that ok, or at least good enough to get him a pass?

Go Blazers


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: OT: Rasheed*



BealzeeBob said:


> I know there are some Wallace supporters on this site that are of the female persuasion. I'd be interested in their perspective of why they support a guy that roughs up his girlfriend. Is being a good player enough to make that ok, or at least good enough to get him a pass?


I don't remember Wallace ever ruffing up his girlfriend.

I also thought he was married.

You might be thinking of Ruben Patterson.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: OT: Rasheed*



Nightfly said:


> I don't remember Wallace ever ruffing up his girlfriend.
> 
> I also thought he was married.
> 
> You might be thinking of Ruben Patterson.


Check post #161 of this thread.

Go Blazers


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: OT: Rasheed*



BealzeeBob said:


> Check post #161 of this thread.
> 
> Go Blazers


Okay, I looked at it. What does that post have to do with anything?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: OT: Rasheed*



Nightfly said:


> Okay, I looked at it. What does that post have to do with anything?


I was wondering the same thing.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: OT: Rasheed*



Nightfly said:


> Okay, I looked at it. What does that post have to do with anything?


Sorry Nightfly. I must have screwed up when I tried to insert the link to Wizznutzz, which is where I got the information I summarized. I'll look for the link when I get a chance and post it.

Edit: http://www.geocities.com/wizznutzz/rapsheet.html


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



BealzeeBob said:


> That's interesting, but somewhat misses the point. Would you want the Blazers to sign these murderers and child molesters when they were released? Would you want them living in your community, your neighborhood, next door? That's more to the point.


Y'know, if the blazers signed 15 violent felons, which frankly isn't really likely even if Trader Bob gets rehired, it probably wouldn't significantly increase the number of violent felons in the greater Portland metro area. Furthermore, no Blazers live in my neighborhood currently, and I don't know of any that ever did. 

So, I think it wouldn't matter much to my personal safety, if that's what you were asking. Would I prefer fewer violent felons in the metro area? Sure. But that's an issue that the whole society needs to deal with, not just, or even especially, the blazers. The blazer players are a tiny fraction of the population.



> If one of these guys beat up his wife in the tunnel before the game, then went out and shut down the guy he was checking, while scoring 30 points and sealed the win for the team....would you still want him on the team?


Well, I guess we'd have to make sure his wife was in the tunnel before every game, then. Yes, I am kidding.

I'd want him prosecuted for his crime, and punished accordingly. I would not demand that he be barred from holding a job in his chosen profession, however, if/when he wasn't in prison. Poverty and unemployment are not cures for anger management problems.

barfo


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OT: Rasheed*



BealzeeBob said:


> Check post #161 of this thread.


He allegedly blocked her car from leaving the day care center.

Where's even an ALLEGATION that he roughed her up?

I think you're grasping at straws, going back to allegations (real or imagined) over a decade old.

Ed O.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: OT: Rasheed*



Ed O said:


> He allegedly blocked her car from leaving the day care center.
> 
> Where's even an ALLEGATION that he roughed her up?
> 
> ...


You have a pretty good memory Ed O. But the incident where Wallace blocked Ms. Bryant's car with his car was a couple of months after the first charge of assault. Apparently, the second issue was of little consequence, since they did not go back and revisit the 'arrangement' made for sentencing on the first charge....and that's why I didn't try to make an issue of the second charge.

Looking at it from a 10 year old perspective, I guess the term grasping at straws would apply. However, when you get labeled as one kind of avenger or another for a position you took, 6-7 years ago, not so much. The assault charge was part of my reason for wanting Wallace gone back when these discussions were first taking place.

Go Blazers


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OT: Rasheed*



BealzeeBob said:


> Looking at it from a 10 year old perspective, I guess the term grasping at straws would apply. However, when you get labeled as one kind of avenger or another for a position you took, 6-7 years ago, not so much. The assault charge was part of my reason for wanting Wallace gone back when these discussions were first taking place.


I didn't recall the specifics of the first incident... I think (for whatever my opinion is ever worth) that you're right in calling up that he did (or allegedly did, or whatever) have a domestic violence issue after someone had said he didn't.

And I can see how that would impact how you felt about him (and therefore how you continue to feel). As far as if it's new news for someone, of course, I don't know how much impact it would have...

*shrug*

Ed O.


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

Can we just all agree that Sheed is the coolest, most real player in the NBA?


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Freshtown said:


> Can we just all agree that Sheed is the coolest, most real player in the NBA?


i can agree that he's a good player. that's all i need and want to know.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



barfo said:


> Y'know, if the blazers signed 15 violent felons, which frankly isn't really likely even if Trader Bob gets rehired, it probably wouldn't significantly increase the number of violent felons in the greater Portland metro area. Furthermore, no Blazers live in my neighborhood currently, and I don't know of any that ever did.


That paroled child molester has to live somewhere. I'm think'n most folks wouldn't be too happy about him moving in next door. Probably not happy about the Blazers putting them in that situation, either.



> Well, I guess we'd have to make sure his wife was in the tunnel before every game, then. Yes, I am kidding.


:clap2: Thanks a lot, barfo...now I've got Coke and snot on my keyboard.



> I'd want him prosecuted for his crime, and punished accordingly. I would not demand that he be barred from holding a job in his chosen profession, however, if/when he wasn't in prison. Poverty and unemployment are not cures for anger management problems.
> 
> barfo


Learn something new everyday. You have a point of view I didn't really believe existed.(Pure, unadulterated Just Win Baby.) I must be getting old. I appreciate your honesty, barfo, but I think I'm a little scared of you now.

I'm not saying I want Wallace barred from holding a job in his chosen profession, by the way. I just don't want him doing that job for the Blazers.

That said, IMO, if the Blazers purposely brought as much as one recently released predatory sex offender or murderer into the community, the team would have to move the next year.

Go Blazers

PS: What about a doctor on parole for selling off body parts doing abdominal surgery? A reformed child molester day care center manager?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



BealzeeBob said:


> That paroled child molester has to live somewhere. I'm think'n most folks wouldn't be too happy about him moving in next door. Probably not happy about the Blazers putting them in that situation, either.


As do all the other paroled child molesters. Rather than worrying about just the one who plays basketball, maybe we should worry about the (hundreds? thousands?) of others. 



> Learn something new everyday. You have a point of view I didn't really believe existed.(Pure, unadulterated Just Win Baby.) I must be getting old. I appreciate your honesty, barfo, but I think I'm a little scared of you now.


as you should be... as you should be. :devil:



> I'm not saying I want Wallace barred from holding a job in his chosen profession, by the way. I just don't want him doing that job for the Blazers.


Ok, but what if everyone thought the same way as you? Because if everyone did, then that would in fact bar him from his chosen profession. It's a NIMBY problem. Everyone thinks there should be a toxic waste dump, but no one wants it in their town. 



> PS: What about a doctor on parole for selling off body parts doing abdominal surgery? A reformed child molester day care center manager?


Clearly there are some crimes that should bar a person from a particular profession, such as the examples you gave here. But in the hypothetical cases we are discussing, the crimes have nothing to do with basketball.

barfo


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Rasheed*



barfo said:


> As do all the other paroled child molesters. Rather than worrying about just the one who plays basketball, maybe we should worry about the (hundreds? thousands?) of others.


That's a good point. But I'm still thinking that the public perception would be that this particular perv is the *Blazers'* perv. Right or wrong.



> Ok, but what if everyone thought the same way as you? Because if everyone did, then that would in fact bar him from his chosen profession. It's a NIMBY problem. Everyone thinks there should be a toxic waste dump, but no one wants it in their town.


I don't want to bar him from his profession. I don't want to bar him from his chosen profession with the Blazers (well, ok, I kinda do...but not in a legal sense.) I couldn't even if I did want to. All I can do is not spend my money on their product if I don't like it. That, and ***** about it on the internet. That's not really denying Wallace any more than me choosing not to hire a fishing guide that I know to be a jerk.

The price they pay when they cause me to quit attending games is small. I can only vote with my wallet. But if there are lots of fans that don't like what the team is doing, and they vote the same way, the price to the team gets steeper.



> Clearly there are some crimes that should bar a person from a particular profession, such as the examples you gave here. But in the hypothetical cases we are discussing, the crimes have nothing to do with basketball.
> 
> barfo


Sorry, I (mistakenly) thought you were talking in a more general sense about how convicts should not be barred working in their profession when they got out. In reading back, you were talking specifically about the hypothetical Blazer wife beater. My bad. Sorry if I hacked you off. 

You're not mad are you? :uhoh:

Go Blazers


----------

