# ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!! (merged)



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Done deal?
Anyone else read/hear this?


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Done deal?
> Anyone else read/hear this?



Hmm.. They said it's 3 for 6 and 27, plus a conditional future 1st.. 

My question is, why do the trade this early and not wait to see who is left at the 3?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

I'm cool with it as long as these things happen

Marvin Williams doesn't fall to three

The Blazers don't take Bynum with the 6th pick


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Dan Patrick is now talking about it too.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Damn did Nash screw this up in the final hours..why not wait???


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Are Kirk and Gordon apart of the deal also


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



cimalee said:


> Are Kirk and Gordon apart of the deal also


They werent mentioned.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> They werent mentioned.



Thank God for that anyway.


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



sa1177 said:


> Damn did Nash screw this up in the final hours..why not wait???


Because maybe this isn't the only deal that Portland is making. Maybe we need some pieces from the Utah trade to deal with Charlotte (or some mystery 3rd party?)


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

the deal could be "official" but still be contingent on williams not falling


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

if I am not mistaken..... they said this last night as well


Nash is not that stupid IMHO... he will wait until the pick to make any trade. We still could end up with Marvin if Atlanta takes Paul


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Man, If M. Williams falls to #3, and we've already traded that pick away....I'm NOT going to be a happy camper.


----------



## Bookworm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Are you saying it is only a trade of picks and no players?

Who has to give up the "conditional" pick and what are
the Conditions


----------



## jwhoops11 (Nov 26, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

The FAN is "confirming" the deal is done, no players involved, or atleast mentioned. It was 6 and 27 and a conditional future first rounder for the 3.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Im cool with this as long as we definately take either Webster or Green with that #6 pick and not Bynum. I never cared for Synder or Giricek as part of that deal...

...but what about Ruben? Is he going to Utah as part of the deal? Maybe they just axed the Ruben for Giricek/Snyder part of it and made it a simple exchange of picks (3 for 1, a decent deal for Portland assuming they pick wisely at #6).

But, like other, Im wondering why they didnt hold off until the draft was in progress. Maybe Charlotte told them to take a hike?

PBF


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

ESPN is saying something about Zach Randolph for Carlos Boozer as well...


----------



## Captain Obvious (Jun 15, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

I am betting that the conditional first is a 2006 lottery protected first that the Jazz have from the Pistons.


----------



## Bookworm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

oops... just heard on the fan....we get their pick next yr
as well...they didn't mention the conditions if there are 
any..


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

I am holding to my prediction this is the first of a couple of moves Portland will make.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



jwhoops11 said:


> The FAN is "confirming" the deal is done, no players involved, or atleast mentioned. It was 6 and 27 and a conditional future first rounder for the 3.


A CONDITIONAL first rounder??? Man, if we dont get either Green or Webster with that #6 pick I am going to scream.

PBF


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

There is now way Green or Webster wont be available.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Its official.

Here's the deal:
Portland trades the 3rd... for the 6th and the 27th pick, and rights to a conditional 2006 first round pick obtained from Detroit. 

NO PLAYERS involved.

A friend in the media got a media release from the Trail Blazers.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

yah now NBA TV is also reporting it as an official trade, i hoped that ESPN was wrong but i guess not.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by sa1177
> Damn did Nash screw this up in the final hours..why not wait???
> 
> ...



I hope you are right, #6 and #27 and conditional first rounder just aren't enough for me. Giricek and Snyder are junk so they make no difference anyway.


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Anyone happen to know the conditions of that future pick?


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

i don't like this trade at all........

we are pretty much trading the #3 for the #6. Why would we want #27? We already have enough young guys.

Absolutely rediculous trade, IMO.


----------



## Captain Obvious (Jun 15, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



cpt.napalm said:


> Anyone happen to know the conditions of that future pick?





Captain Obvious said:


> I am betting that the conditional first is a 2006 lottery protected first that the Jazz have from the Pistons.


Confirmed by BEER&BASKETBALL.


----------



## goglik (Mar 14, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

I understand trade for 5 and 13, but stupid 6 and 27. Nash is an idiot, who is getting paid millions.


----------



## jwhoops11 (Nov 26, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Its official.
> 
> Here's the deal:
> Portland trades the 3rd... for the 6th and the 27th pick, and rights to a conditional 2006 first round pick obtained from Detroit.
> ...



Thanks for the info...

With Portland looking at probably one more trip to the lotto next year, that Utah pick could be nice. Who knows what the conditions are, but ususally you see a pick like that protected if it's 1-3, not generally just "lotto protected". If this can bring Portland two more lotto picks next season, then I think Nash did a great job.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



blazerboy30 said:


> i don't like this trade at all........
> 
> we are pretty much trading the #3 for the #6. Why would we want #27? We already have enough young guys.
> 
> Absolutely rediculous trade, IMO.


 
Please explain to me how getting the same player at #6 that we would have got at #3 and getting two additional first round picks is ridiculous.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Its Detroits pick right? I don't think we need to dream about them being in the lottery... it could be right next to Utah's 2nd round pick. =(


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Spoolie Gee said:


> Please explain to me how getting the same player at #6 that we would have got at #3 and getting two additional first round picks is ridiculous.


I'd like to know as well


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

We'll get the player we wanted anyway AND get two more first rounders?

How's this not a good deal for Portland?


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

from the press release


> The Portland Trail Blazers have acquired the sixth pick overall in the 2005 NBA Draft from the Utah Jazz along with two additional first round picks in return for the third selection overall.
> 
> The Trail Blazers will receive the 27th pick overall (via Dallas) in this evening’s draft along with Utah’s rights to a conditional 2006 first round pick obtained from Detroit.
> 
> ...


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

The trade put a (oddly wall-eyed?) smile on John Nash's face:

Blazers Official Press Release 

Stepping Razor


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

It may be a good deal, but certainly not the caliber that we were hoping for. Very disappointing.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Here's the press release:



> The Portland Trail Blazers have acquired the sixth pick overall in the 2005 NBA Draft from the
> Utah Jazz along with two additional first round picks in return for the third selection overall. The
> Trail Blazers will receive the 27th pick overall (via Dallas) in this evening’s draft along with Utah’s
> rights to a conditional 2006 first round pick obtained from Detroit.
> ...


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

I like this deal assuming:

1) Marvin Williams doesn't slip to #3.

2) He feels Green or Webster would be a good fit, because at least one of them will be there.

3) The future pick is Utah's and not Detriot's.

Also, if he chooses Bynum, I'll be ok with that because he's seen him workout in person twice and none of us have near the information that he does.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Spoolie Gee said:


> Please explain to me how getting the same player at #6 that we would have got at #3 and getting two additional first round picks is ridiculous.


because we have no need for #27, IMO. We would have been better off waiting to see who was available at #3, and see if the offers got any better. 

This means that we have two picks this year, and a lotto protected pick next year, plus our pick next year. WE HAVE ENOUGH YOUNG GUYS. at some point we need to stop trying to aquire new young guys and start building a real team. You aren't going to do that with the #27 pick.


----------



## jwhoops11 (Nov 26, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Paxil said:


> Its Detroits pick right? I don't think we need to dream about them being in the lottery... it could be right next to Utah's 2nd round pick. =(


AHHHHH....

Yep you're right, I'll keep my fingers crossed then that the pick is Utahs first rounder next year and not Detroits...


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Could Nate Robinson go #27?


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Anyone know what the conditions on this Detroit 2006 pick are?

In all likelihood, they're back in the playoffs and we get a pick somewhere in the 20s, no?

Stepping Razor


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



> The trade put a (oddly wall-eyed?) smile on John Nash's face:
> 
> Blazers Official Press Release
> 
> Stepping Razor


Errr...oops...that's eh Steve Patterson not Nash. Nash is the chubbier of the two remember that.


----------



## Bookworm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

I like this trade...It prevents us from grabing MWilliams, while a 
solid player isn't what we need.

come on webster/may

Next yr you have to figure Detroits pick will be about 25 and 
we should be around 10 not to bad...

changed our 3 into 6/27/25


----------



## jwhoops11 (Nov 26, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

"But we are not necessarily done making deals today."

Pattersons own words from the press release. Very well might be the reason the trade was made early, as some of you had brought up all ready.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

If you read the press release, Patterson says:



> "But we are not necessarily done making deals today."


So this could be just the beginning of a fun day!


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Spoolie Gee said:


> Please explain to me how getting the same player at #6 that we would have got at #3 and getting two additional first round picks is ridiculous.


Exactly. People are assuming the Blazers could have done better? How do we know that Charlotte didn't completely back out? I don't think this is a bad deal at all. We'll still land Webster or Green + another 1st round pick? Sounds good to me.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Couple thoughts...

One is that Utah probably insisted on the trade happening now - why wouldn't they want a small chance of getting Williams?

Two, as others have said, this is a pretty good trade for PDX  We still get the player we want. We pay him less $$$. And we have additional picks to use or trade.


----------



## Blazerscom (Jun 8, 2004)

*Draft Day Trade*

The Portland Trail Blazers have traded the number three pick for the number sixth pick with the Utah Jazz. For draft day information visit <a href="www.blazers.com."> www.blazers.com</a>


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Stepping Razor said:


> Anyone know what the conditions on this Detroit 2006 pick are?
> 
> In all likelihood, they're back in the playoffs and we get a pick somewhere in the 20s, no?
> 
> Stepping Razor


from nbadraft.net

Utah receives a future 2006 (lottery protected) Detroit first-round pick (Arroyo trade 012105)


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



blazerboy30 said:


> because we have no need for #27, IMO. We would have been better off waiting to see who was available at #3, and see if the offers got any better.
> 
> This means that we have two picks this year, and a lotto protected pick next year, plus our pick next year. WE HAVE ENOUGH YOUNG GUYS. at some point we need to stop trying to aquire new young guys and start building a real team. You aren't going to do that with the #27 pick.


 
Why would we NOT want more young talent? You're making no sense at all. The more picks we have, the better chance of landing a good or great player. The draft is a crap shoot and we need as many chances as possbile to land players that can help us down the road. Also, with the expanded rosters and NBDL it's not like we cant still add vet's to our team.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Sounds like a good move to me

get the player we wanted at #6 :gopray:

and 2 more 1st round draft picks


at #27 we take M. Andriuskevicius 7-2 240 PF Lith. 1986


----------



## jwhoops11 (Nov 26, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Stepping Razor said:


> Anyone know what the conditions on this Detroit 2006 pick are?
> 
> In all likelihood, they're back in the playoffs and we get a pick somewhere in the 20s, no?
> 
> Stepping Razor


I'm sure this could be researched, but that Detroit pick could be coming via another team then to Utah and then onto Portland.... or atleast I'll hope...


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Quantity doesn't win over quality in the NBA. We haven't even played some of last years picks. (Monya)


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

When it comes to the draft you want quantity. It gives you the best chance of landing a great player.


----------



## Captain Obvious (Jun 15, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

The conditional first is lottery protected in 2006 and unprotected afterwards as far as I can tell. It was acquired by Utah in the Arroyo deal.

http://nbadraft.net/draftnotes.asp

http://www.realgm.com/src_future_draftpicks.php


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

ESPN.com just reported it is OFFICIAL.

I too am a bit bummed in that I wish they would have waited to see what was there at 3!


----------



## TeDinero (Jun 27, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

This SUCKS


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

its a done deal its on espn news


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Starbury03 said:


> Could Nate Robinson go #27?


That was the first guy I thought of when I heard this. 

I think we could do worse than to pick up a good cover corner like Nate Robinson. 

But does he have the size to cover guys like Randy Moss and Chad Johnson?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

IMO, Utah gave up a lot to move up only 3 spots, especially for a team that could use draft picks to build with.

The more I think about it, the more I like this deal. And the fact that Patterson hinted that they are not done making deals, provides me with hope that it may even get better.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Late first round picks may still be first round picks... but the difference between a lotto pick and a late first rounder is huge. Out of 3 late first round picks you might get one better than average player.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



cimalee said:


> its a done deal its on espn news


What, the fact that the Trail Blazers sent out a press release wasnt proof enough?


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

someone from utah in another forum just commented that reports are there that the jazz forced the blazers to make the trade now - saying before the draft or not all at.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

IF Portland gets the player they want, and IF that was the best offer I can live with it... just will have to wait until a few years from now to tell whether this made sense.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Paxil said:


> Late first round picks may still be first round picks... but the difference between a lotto pick and a late first rounder is huge. Out of 3 late first round picks you might get one better than average player.


In case you havent done much research on THIS YEARS draft, this is the deepest draft in a long time.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Paxil said:


> Late first round picks may still be first round picks... but the difference between a lotto pick and a late first rounder is huge. Out of 3 late first round picks you might get one better than average player.


Usually that's true. But this is, by all account, a VERY deep draft. That makes the #27 very valuable, especially since we have the new super secret drafting computer geek strategy in place this year.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Paxil said:


> Late first round picks may still be first round picks... but the difference between a lotto pick and a late first rounder is huge. Out of 3 late first round picks you might get one better than average player.


what inspires me is the two that we appear to have targeted seem to both be better than average players.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Paxil said:


> Late first round picks may still be first round picks... but the difference between a lotto pick and a late first rounder is huge. Out of 3 late first round picks you might get one better than average player.


 
Am I missing something here... dont we now have the #6 pick which is in the lotto?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



crowTrobot said:


> someone from utah in another forum just commented that reports are there that the jazz forced the blazers to make the trade now - saying before the draft or not all at.


If thats the case, I cant say I blame Utah for making that demand, considering they gave up 3 first round picks to only move up 3 spots.


----------



## visionary432 (Jun 14, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

marvin williams will be available at 3, bad trade


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Spoolie Gee said:


> When it comes to the draft you want quantity. It gives you the best chance of landing a great player.


yep....just ask Chicago. They stockpiled young "talent" for how many years? They just now got back to the playoffs. I wouldn't use this as a good model for building a team.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

I guess the positive thing is we get THREE new rookies to cheer for this year. That will be cool... I like watching the young players. That last game against the Lakers was awesome.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



blazerboy30 said:


> yep....just ask Chicago. They stockpiled young "talent" for how many years? They just now got back to the playoffs. I wouldn't use this as a good model for building a team.


 
Oh, was there an expanded roster and NBDL before this season? I didnt know that.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

I think we might use our early 2nd and our late 1st round pick to move up into the late teens, also look out blazers might buy another pick this year.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



BlazerFanFoLife said:


> I think we might use our early 2nd and our late 1st round pick to move up into the late teens


Thats what I'm hoping for.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Just heard it on 1080 The Fan:

Portland sends #3 to Utah for #6, #27, and Utah's conditional 1st rounder next year from Detroit. No players involved (other than those taken with the picks).

My initial reaction: I dont like it. Sure, the 1st rounder were getting from Utah next season is as good as unconditional becase Detroit will likely make it back into the playoffs. But that will likely make it a mid to late 1st rounder - definately not a position to get overly excited about. And since it doesn't move Ruben, it doesnt do anything to get his contract off the books, alleviate our SF log-jam, or even bring us any known quantities (Snyder, Giricek) in return.

Maybe the Blazers arent done wheeling and dealing. They still potentially have some semi-attractive pieces in Damon and SAR available for a sign-and-trade deal. And they could exercise their option on Nicks contract and trade him. And they could still throw Darius, Ruben, DA or (less likely) any of the younger guys into a deal.

I really over-reacted (negatively) to the Blazers' picks of Telfair, Khryapa, Monya, and Ha last season, so Im going to do my best not to freak out about this until the dust settles - which may take a while. But on the surface I'm not thrilled with this deal at all.

Unless the Blazers make another move, about the only thing that can save it, IMO, is if Atlanta takes Williams @ #2, the Blazers take either Green or Webster @ #6, AND Bynum slips all the way to #27 (not bloody likely). If the Blazers dont make any more moves before/during the draft and Williams slips to #3, both Green and Webster are gone @ #6, or Bynum is gone when #27 rolls around then I likely won't be a very happy camper.

PBF


----------



## TeDinero (Jun 27, 2005)

*84' Repeat......?*

If Marvin slides, and we have already traded 3rd pick I will never watch a blazers game again, and just the fact we are passing up Paul and D Williams for a high school player makes me mad. This is garbage. Just like passing on Jordan......


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

No way that webster or green wont be there for 6. Bogut, williams, williams, paul, green/WEbster also i could see felton going at 5 and possibly giving us a choice of green webster.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Hmmm... BlazerFanFoLife might be on to something... maybe we will package our 2nd rounder, the Utah 27th and the Detriot 1st for something in this years lotto... hmmm... maybe we CAN still get the two we were after.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: 84' Repeat......?*



TeDinero said:


> If Marvin slides, and we have already traded 3rd pick I will never watch a blazers game again, and just the fact we are passing up Paul and D Williams for a high school player makes me mad. This is garbage. Just like passing on Jordan......


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

If they don't make a deal to move up, I have a feeling that someone pretty good is going to slip down to #27...

I don't know who, but this draft is deep and confusing and I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a steal type pick available in the late first round.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

*Why are some down on the trade?*

For one, we are getting 3 extra picks just for having good luck in the lottery. The guy we want is obviously Martell or Green, no need to take them at 3 when one will be there at 6. We also pick up 2 1st rounders,which is nice trade bait. We don't have to obtain crappy Snyder and Giricek either. I know many are high on Marvin like I once was, but his lackluster workouts have me wondering if he will be the biggest bust in the draft. I'm perfectly fine with Martell(Glen Rice) or G Green(T-Mac)...lol.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

#3 for
#6, #27 & Detroit's 2006 1st (protected - not that that matters) 

I have to say I am disappointed at losing the slim chance of getting Marvin Williams, at the shot at a better deal coming up during the draft, at getting a pick so late in the first round this year, and getting a (likely) late pick next year in what could be a very shallow draft. Bleh.


What a let down.

I sure hope there is a part two to this deal that gets us Bynum somehow. And if we don't get who they wanted at #6 (will we ever really know the truth?), this will be a disaster.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: 84' Repeat......?*

Hey mixum, is that you? 

:stupid:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Paxil said:


> Late first round picks may still be first round picks... but the difference between a lotto pick and a late first rounder is huge. Out of 3 late first round picks you might get one better than average player.


n

I can't say this deal really makes me giddy...I'm reminded of the bird in _hand_ saying... the Jazz are choosing the proven stud (Paul/DWilliams) over the three that need to be flushed from the bush. I'll be surprised if they don't go for CPaul as I think he'll be an excellent all around pro from day 1. 

Well, I guess we'll get a chance to see the scout's hard work and PA's super computer in action. 

STOMP


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*

I admit for me it's mostly that i ****IN HATE UTAH! Only worse partner in a trade for me would be the Lakers...I just hate to help out either of those teams at all.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

*Re: 84' Repeat......?*



Fork said:


>


what he said.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*



sa1177 said:


> I admit for me it's mostly that i ****IN HATE UTAH! Only worse partner in a trade for me would be the Lakers...I just hate to help out either of those teams at all.


Help them? I'd say they help us much more than we helped them... they gave us 3 picks, for 1 pick that only moved them up 3 spots.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*



sa1177 said:


> I admit for me it's mostly that i ****IN HATE UTAH! Only worse partner in a trade for me would be the Lakers...I just hate to help out either of those teams at all.


Yeah, but we didn't help them out THAT much. We still get our guy AND we get two bonus 1st rounders for nothing. That's a sweet deal.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*

We just have to cross our fingers and hope The bobcats dont pick Green at # 5 , I really dont want Webster


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: 84' Repeat......?*

I'm hoping that Nash was sure Marvin wouldn't be available before making this deal... if not, he's not going to look good.

I think that if Atlanta is actually cold on Williams, they would be stupid not to trade down with the teams 3-5. Otherwise, it would be like Portland picking Green at #3...

My guess is that Williams is picked at #2, whether or not it's done by Atlanta... we'll see.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: 84' Repeat......?*

Patience, Grasshopper. There is still a lot of time left for wheeling and dealing. Maybe the Blazers will put a package of players and/or picks together to move back up into the late lotto to take Bynum. They've got a whole smorgasbord of players they can throw into a package, and (assuming they use #6 on Green or Webster), they've still got the #27 and #35 picks in THIS draft, their own 1st & 2nd rounders NEXT year, PLUS Detroit's conditional 1st rounder next year - likely mid to late) to use in putting a package together.

I hope I'm not grasping at straws here. I *really* hope the Blazers will be doing something along these lines sometime today. Because as things stand right now, Williams slipping to #3, Green and Webster both being gone at #6, Bynum not being available at #27, Patterson's contract still on the books, and the SF log-jam still in place are all very unappealing prospects to me.

PBF


----------



## Bookworm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*

I think they are down for the opposite reason I'm glad..

Marvin doesn't bring anything that Miles and outlaw don't
already do..This trade makes it impossible for us to get him.
which is a good thing...We can fill a need at the 2 and still
have a chance at drafting a b/u pf/c... Nash has done
pretty good in the late picks Khryapa/Ha I'm sure Monya
will be worth his pick...


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

*Re: 84' Repeat......?*

If Marvin slips to #3, this will indeed be a dark day. If he doesn't, I like the deal with Utah.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*

The reason some are down on the trade is that some are down on everything the Blazers do. Or at least everything the current management does.
I can guarantee that Crapanzo will talk about how awful it is...


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*

Cim, Webster is no slouch. He has been closing the gap quickly between he and Green. Martell reminds me a lot lof Finley. He's NBA ready now body wide which a couple guys like Amare and LebRon had. He can flat out shoot too. I'd take either.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*



cimalee said:


> We just have to cross our fingers and hope The bobcats dont pick Green at # 5 , I really dont want Webster


 Green is good as gone by the Bobcats


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*



MAS RipCity said:


> For one, we are getting 3 extra picks just for having good luck in the lottery. The guy we want is obviously Martell or Green, no need to take them at 3 when one will be there at 6. We also pick up 2 1st rounders,which is nice trade bait. We don't have to obtain crappy Snyder and Giricek either. I know many are high on Marvin like I once was, but his lackluster workouts have me wondering if he will be the biggest bust in the draft. I'm perfectly fine with Martell(Glen Rice) or G Green(T-Mac)...lol.


We don't get THREE extra picks, only TWO: One at the very end of the 1st round, which is ok in this deep draft, but we won't get our pick of the litter, we only get our pick from the leftovers, and next year's pick will likely be at the end of the round during a very shallow draft - not very exciting. That is the kind of pick good team's dump just so they don't have to carry a guaranteed contract for a weak prospect that might not pan out.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

I guess I'll chirp in here with my reactions before this thread gets to page 20.

My first reaction: Slightly dissapointed.

My second: Why not wait until the last minute?

Third: I just praised Nash for his tough poker face, then this?

Fourth: Maybe we all had unrealistic expectations. Maybe it's not such a bad trade.

Fifth: Maybe the Blazers did the trade now so they can package some picks in a followup trade to dump players or get another lotto pick to still try to go after Bynum.

Then: With the new NBDL system, it looks like the Blazers are going to be a major player in developing their own talent. It's good to be a Blazers fan. We'll probably commit more resources to the NBDL than a lot of other cheaper teams. Keep the projects (draft picks) coming!


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

If Williams falls to #3, and turns out to be the star of the draft, we'll being hearing the Jordan/Bowie story, part 2, for ANOTHER 20 years.

Go Blazers


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*

I'm not necessarily down on it, I just think the timing was bad. I don't see any reason to make this trade until we are sure who is available at 3 and 6. I'm afraid we're going to miss out on Green who I want more then Webster + late first round picks. If it was Utah's first next year I'd be much happier. However, I still think it could end up being a positive trade, we'll see.


----------



## RoseCity (Sep 27, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



cpt.napalm said:


> I am holding to my prediction this is the first of a couple of moves Portland will make.


How about #27 and NVE contract for #2. 

Also, I would love to get the Sabas Protege Martynas at #27 or Chris Taft.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: 84' Repeat......?*



ProudBFan said:


> Green and Webster both being gone at #6
> 
> PBF


Both gone? NOT going to happen.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*

Hopefully they can package the #27 + Detroit pick or #35 to move up into the teens...

I think most people who are down on the trade were just hoping for something better and for the chance of Marvin Williams slipping.

Once we see Williams picked at #2, and any other potential moves, I think it'll calm down...


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*



MAS RipCity said:


> Cim, Webster is no slouch. He has been closing the gap quickly between he and Green. Martell reminds me a lot lof Finley. He's NBA ready now body wide which a couple guys like Amare and LebRon had. He can flat out shoot too. I'd take either.


Webster has completely proven he's as good a pick, if not better, than Green. He's much more heady and is already built. Reminds me of Amare in a lot of ways. Not his position, but his dimeanor and maturity. Green has a lot to prove. If Portland lands Webster at #6, I'll be very happy.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*



MAS RipCity said:


> For one, we are getting 3 extra picks just for having good luck in the lottery.


No. We are getting 2 extra picks. We already had #3 and #35. We traded #3 for #6, #27, and a mid-late 1st rounder next season. 2 - 1 + 3 = 4, which is only 2 more than we already had - and we won't see one of those until next season. So for the purposes of THIS draft, we moved back a couple positions to gain 1 extra pick that will likely be used on a "best player available" selection.

Granted, we will still likely get Green or Webster (most likely Webster, since Charlotte has their eyes on Green). And maybe the Blazers aren't done wheeling and dealing. They've got picks and players to put a package together with and still move back into position to take Bynum in the late teens or early 20's.

But the fact that they've already issued the press release doesn't leave me very hopeful for that potential outcome.

We'll see. But I'm feeling a little deflated right now. Maybe my hopes were higher than they should have been.

PBF


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*



BEEZ said:


> Green is good as gone by the Bobcats


Dont be so sure... they may take Felton, because he may not be available at #13.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: 84' Repeat......?*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Both gone? NOT going to happen.


And if it did, that would mean that we would get either Bogut, Marvin, Paul or Deron...


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*



ProudBFan said:


> And maybe the Blazers aren't done wheeling and dealing. They've got picks and players to put a package together with and still move back into position to take Bynum in the late teens or early 20's.
> 
> But the fact that they've already issued the press release doesn't leave me very hopeful for that potential outcome.
> 
> ...


Did you read the press release? Patterson says they arent dont making deals, or trying to make deals.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: 84' Repeat......?*



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> And if it did, that would mean that we would get either Bogut, Marvin, Paul or Deron...


I realize that, but none of those guys addresses a need for us the way Green and or Webster would. We've got Joel, Theo, and Seung-Jin, so we don't really need Bogut (as if he would slip to #6 anyway). We've got a surplus of decent to good SFs, so getting Marvin would mean more unbalance roster and showcasing early next season. And we've already got our zippy PG of the future in Telfair. We need Green or Webster MUCH more than we need any of those guys.

PBF


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

I really think Portland's after Bynum. That's why they're not concerned about what the Bobcats pick at #5. They're not after Green. However, they probably didn't deal with Toronto, out of fear that Utah would select Bynum.

Now, they need to move up to grab Webster, Wright, or Garcia!


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

At some point your team chemistry is messed up by having to many players competing at one possition. I think that drafting Marvin with the number 3, while it wouldn't neccessarily be a bad thing by any means, could have had the potential to really drive the Blazers into a fire sale of SFs, and getting very little value for them. I think this trade gives us the chance to make a more balanced roster. I like this trade.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Dan Patrick is interviewing C.Ford, and Ford says that the Bobcats have cooled off their trade talks, and are now content with the #5 and #13. THAT may be a HUGE factor as to why Nash/Patterson made the Utah deal.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Blazer Bert said:


> My second: Why not wait until the last minute?


sounds like the jazz gave them an ultimatum


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*

I would imagine it will fall something like this

Bo-Bust
M.Williams
D.Williams
Paul
Green

That leaves Webster, or God forbid Bynum for Portland at #6

I also think that Portland will somehow package players and picks to move up into the teens.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

I can't really give an opinion on this deal until I see who we pick at #6 and #27. I'd like to see us take Martell Webster at #6 since I think he can help us the most. The key is going to be the #27 pick. We have to get someone that can make the roster.


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

I had to go to a meeting for a few minutes. Then the trade gets confirmed and Patterson said that they weren't neccesarily done making moves. 

Remember where you heard it first folks :biggrin: 

Hey how much does Ford charge for being an ESPN insider? I may just have myself a new gig.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Crimson the Cat said:


> I really think Portland's after Bynum. That's why they're not concerned about what the Bobcats pick at #5. They're not after Green. However, they probably didn't deal with Toronto, out of fear that Utah would select Bynum.
> 
> Now, they need to move up to grab Webster, Wright, or Garcia!


I wouldn't be that disappointed to see Bynum and Garcia at the end of the day.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: 84' Repeat......?*



ProudBFan said:


> I realize that, but none of those guys addresses a need for us the way Green and or Webster would. We've got Joel, Theo, and Seung-Jin, so we don't really need Bogut (as if he would slip to #6 anyway). We've got a surplus of decent to good SFs, so getting Marvin would mean more unbalance roster and showcasing early next season. And we've already got our zippy PG of the future in Telfair. We need Green or Webster MUCH more than we need any of those guys.
> PBF


You're missing the point. The point is that it won't happen, but if it did, we'd get a top prospect to hold onto and make a deal with. It's not all about need... the season doesn't start the day after the draft.

Anyway...

Milwaukee is not going to pass on Bogut for Green or Webster. 

Atlanta is not going to pass on Marvin Williams for Green or Webster.

Utah is not going to pass on Chris Paul or Deron Williams for Green or Webster.

New Orleans may pick Green here but just as likely would pick up Deron Williams or Chris Paul.

Charlotte is not going to pass on Paul or Williams if New Orleans picks Green (or Webster).

That is of course assuming that nobody at the top of the draft reaches for size, which always seems to happen. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone in the top 5 reach for Bynum, Frye (or someone else) - size is very seductive. I don't necessarily buy all of these guards all going so high.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

i understand the trade from Utahs perspective.They love D Williams as he is a jerry sloan player...

I havent a clue to why you guys pulled the trigger....the 27 pick is ok...

obviousy you guys are NOT interested in Green as he could go at 5..

So its either Webster or Bynum,but why trade away the possibility of getting Marvin Williams at 3?

Unless you guys are strongly against him....

You should have held out longer

Not a smart move unless you are in love with the #27 pick..


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

On the Charlotte topic...If I were Charlotte I wouldn't trade my 2 picks for 1. That team only has 4 players under contract for next season and as an expansion team has some serious holes to fill....

Felton and Wright for Charlotte is much better than Paul alone.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*

I don't think the Blazers would have made this trade unless they feel that Webster and Green are basicaly equal, different strengths with one having more longterm potential, but basically equal in value. Because they believe this they aren't afraid to drop to the 6th pick because one of them will almost assuredly be available.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



truth said:


> i understand the trade from Utahs perspective.They love D Williams as he is a jerry sloan player...
> 
> I havent a clue to why you guys pulled the trigger....the 27 pick is ok...
> 
> ...


You should read the other posts in the thread... you'll gain some insight.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

I really hope it is Bynum they choose. That would mean that Paul Patternash and the computer think that Bynum is better than Green/Webster. We all know that Green/Webster are going to be good, Bynum must then be something special.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



truth said:


> i understand the trade from Utahs perspective.They love D Williams as he is a jerry sloan player...
> 
> I havent a clue to why you guys pulled the trigger....the 27 pick is ok...
> 
> ...



I agree with you 100% Portland will look like idiots....again....if Atlanta passes on Marvin Williams. I understand why Portland is making the trade, but like most everyone else I would have waited until the draft to do it.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

it's harder than ever to evaluate talent right now. how do you compare a high schooler who averages 30 pts/7 rebs to a guy in Spain averaging 18/9 to a college junior averaging 15/10? when the NBDL picks up steam and we'll be able to compare apples to apples, properly ranking players will be much easier. a top 5 pick will have more value because he will most likely be ranked according to his real skills. 

until then, having more draft picks is a good thing. sure, your odds of picking up a great player is better at #3 than #6, but the two additional picks more than square the odds. 

I was hoping for a mind-numbingly good trade and this clearly isn't it. but I'm pretty comfortable with how it panned out. we'll have a talent pool of Outlaw, Ha, Khryapa, Monia, Telfair, two first round picks and a second rounder. and Miles and Randolph are still very young and full of upside too. 

we just HAVE to get some veteran leadership from trading SAR/NVE/Damon, though.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*



mediocre man said:


> I would imagine it will fall something like this
> 
> Bo-Bust
> M.Williams
> ...


Thats what I think too... but as I said, I wouldnt be surprised to see Charlotte take Felton with the 5th pick. They dont really need another young SG, they REALLY need a PG, and Felton might not be there at 13.

WEBSTER and a trade for another higher pick will make the majority of us happy.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Did you read the press release? Patterson says they arent dont making deals, or trying to make deals.


I know. I read it. And maybe the reason they pulled the trigger on this one early like they did was to set the stage for something else later in the day.

At least, I'm really hoping that's the case. I can be content with Webster + Bynum/Diogu. But there aren't a lot of other names from the late teens on that I'm all that excited about.

Still trying hard not to over-react to this one like I did last year's draft. Last year's draft, in hindsight, was pretty damn good for us.

PBF


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Schilly said:


> On the Charlotte topic...If I were Charlotte I wouldn't trade my 2 picks for 1. That team only has 4 players under contract for next season and as an expansion team has some serious holes to fill....
> 
> Felton and Wright for Charlotte is much better than Paul alone.


That is what I see happening especialy if we can find another 1st round pick for sale. Then take that and package it with the #6 and #27 to Charlotte for the #5 and #13.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

The lakersground board has been talking about the Blazers trading the #6 to the Lakers in exchange for ?? and the #10, and the Blazers then taking Bynum. (It was never clear to me for what). I had dismissed the idea, but now with the deal done early and Patterson talking about more deals possible.....

I was not totally surprised that Utah asked it be done early or else. The leverage on Utah was Charlotte, but BB has pretty much made it known that the Bobcats weren't going to give up Both the 5 and 13. Toronto dropped out the picture sometime I guess in the last couple of days.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Bwatcher said:


> The lakersground board has been talking about the Blazers trading the #6 to the Lakers in exchange for ?? and the #10, and the Blazers then taking Bynum. (It was never clear to me for what). I had dismissed the idea, but now with the deal done early and Patterson talking about more deals possible.....


I don't think the Blazers will be trading the #6 unless it's to move back up. They want and need either Webster or Green. And neither of those guys are projected to still be on the board at #10.

PBF


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

I think good trade we were gonna pick Webster anyway 

*UNLESS MARVIN FALLS TO 3 *

Then if that happens i kill john nash


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: 84' Repeat......?*



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> That is of course assuming that nobody at the top of the draft reaches for size, which always seems to happen. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone in the top 5 reach for Bynum, Frye (or someone else) - size is very seductive. I don't necessarily buy all of these guards all going so high.


I hope you're right. And yes, picking for need has been my primary thought in this whole thing so far. Maybe I *should* be looking at it as a picking for trade scenario.

PBF


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Blazerben4 said:


> I think good trade we were gonna pick Webster anyway
> 
> *UNLESS MARVIN FALLS TO 3 *
> 
> Then if that happens i kill john nash


I'm never going to understand why so many of you are in love with Williams. What does he bring that Outlaw doesnt? How much of Williams have you seen? He didnt play all that much in college, so you couldnt have seen much. From what I saw of Outlaw vs NBA TALENT, I'd say Outlaw is better, or at least just as good. I also think Outlaw has a better head on his shoulders and works harder.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Dont be so sure... they may take Felton, because he may not be available at #13.


 You make a good point, I just really dont see them going Felton when they could go Green and I think just as good points are going to be in next years draft. Truth be told they arent making the playoffs this year so they could keep building they're team up with Good smart picks.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



mediocre man said:


> I agree with you 100% Portland will look like idiots....again....if Atlanta passes on Marvin Williams. I understand why Portland is making the trade, but like most everyone else I would have waited until the draft to do it.


It is a terrible move,and nash played his hand so well and caved in when he had all the cards...The 27th pick was not worth folding early for....

hes definetly going after Bynum,but why didnt he wait until the last moment..You never know what offer could ahve come in,and all you were risking is the 27th pick

bad move


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

Because i want a lineup like this
C joel
PF zach
SF marvin
SG outlaw
PG telfair

Wouldent that be fun to watch


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> I'm never going to understand why so many of you are in love with Williams. What does he bring that Outlaw doesnt? How much of Williams have you seen? He didnt play all that much in college, so you couldnt have seen much. From what I saw of Outlaw vs NBA TALENT, I'd say Outlaw is better, or at least just as good. I also think Outlaw has a better head on his shoulders and works harder.


I agree I don't see why Marvin Willaims is rated so high. I hate hearing the word potential. I vote he will be a bust. A lot of his hype is because of the school he played for not what he did or can do on the court. Plus Bogut being able to complete a whole workout when Williams need a "stretch break" if the kid already needs stretch breaks that scares me in and of itself.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



ProudBFan said:


> I don't think the Blazers will be trading the #6 unless it's to move back up. They want and need either Webster or Green. And neither of those guys are projected to still be on the board at #10.
> 
> PBF


I guarantee you are not going after Green..this trade tipped yoir hand..if you wanted green,you would not take the risk of having him picked ahead of you..Its either Webster or Bynum,and there is no way you risk swapping to 10 if you want bynum..The Knicks may grab him at 8..


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



truth said:


> It is a terrible move,and nash played his hand so well and caved in when he had all the cards...The 27th pick was not worth folding early for....
> 
> hes definetly going after Bynum,but why didnt he wait until the last moment..You never know what offer could ahve come in,and all you were risking is the 27th pick
> 
> bad move


Once again, you should read the posts in the thread, and get more info before you post. 

No, he's not going after Bynum... Webster/Green.

We got a first rounder next year also, which might be traded tonight along with more picks or a player for a higher pick.

As I posted, Charlotte isnt looking to deal anymore... so who else was there to trade with? and Utah demanded that we make the deal now.


----------



## PortlandBucfan (Jun 28, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

I like this trade, We all know, Bernie was not gonig to trade his 2 picks for our 3rd pick.

I think we should package our 27th and a player (derek, ruben, Van Exel, etc) for a top 15 and hope we get Bynum

I think it would be horrible if we took Nate Robinson at 27. He will be there for our 2nd round pick, and proably up tell the mid 2nd round. Even if we miss out, we could sign Aaron Miles as a undrafted FA (most Likely).


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



truth said:


> I guarantee you are not going after Green..this trade tipped yoir hand..if you wanted green,you would not take the risk of having him picked ahead of you..Its either Webster or Bynum,and there is no way you risk swapping to 10 if you want bynum..The Knicks may grab him at 8..


Not necessarily, it could be that Portland has Green and Webster rated equally, and in which case 1 will be there, and adding the 2nd 1st made up any difference in their book.

BTW I will point out that many "experts" have actually moved Webster ahead of Green in their Rankings.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: Why are some down on the trade?*

It's hard to say what Charlotte will do. Green is the better prospect but drafting a HS kid thats going to need a couple years to develop isnt a good idea for an expansion team that has a player like Okafor ready to be a dominate post player. Will they go for upside (Green) or need (Felton)? My guess is Green will be too tempting to pass over but I wouldnt be shocked if they took Felton.

As far as this trade goes, I'd only be upset if Marvin falls to #3 and we could have got a better offer. If ATL takes M Williams, as expected, then this is probably the best move we could make.


----------



## faygo34 (Mar 22, 2003)

charlotte strikes me as a team that would rather choose a seasoned college player over a high schooler.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> No, he's not going after Bynum... Webster/Green.


I think Nash has information that indicates that the deal we got was the best there was going to be. I'm sure he gave Bernie one more shot before he took it. But I wouldn't be so sure about not going after Bynum. Even though Webster is the favorite at 6, I would guess that that there is an equal chance of selecting Bynum or Green if they don't take Webster. Bynum is in the running at 6. 

NY fans are really hoping for Bynum at 8, what does that tell you?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Schilly said:


> Not necessarily, it could be that Portland has Green and Webster rated equally, and in which case 1 will be there, and adding the 2nd 1st made up any difference in their book.
> 
> BTW I will point out that many "experts" have actually moved Webster ahead of Green in their Rankings.


Exactly... and as many of us have said, Bernie was probably just pumping up Green because he wanted us to think they'd take him, and force us to trade with them... sorry Bernie, didnt work... Nash isnt gonna fall for that 3rd grade trick.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Once again, you should read the posts in the thread, and get more info before you post.
> 
> No, he's not going after Bynum... Webster/Green.
> 
> ...


I guarantee you he is not after Green..He would never take the risk that Charlotte grabs him at 5..No way in the world...

Its Bynum or webster


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

faygo34 said:


> charlotte strikes me as a team that would rather choose a seasoned college player over a high schooler.


Granger's a real possibility.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



truth said:


> I guarantee you he is not after Green..He would never take the risk that Charlotte grabs him at 5..No way in the world...


Your logic doesn't add up, man.

Ed O.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

If Paul Patternash and computer thought that one of Green or Webster were better than the other, and that is who they were targeting, I don't think they would have traded the 3rd pick. They'd keep it to guarentee that they get their man.
So logically, Patternash must feel that Green and Webster are close in talent, OR... they are not targeting Green and Webster at all. Maybe they feel that Bynum (or somebody else is the sleeper in the draft).


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

its going to go like this im my guess:
1: bogut
2: M. Williams
3: D. Williams
4: C. Paul
5: R. Felton
6: Paul allens computer pick


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*

I could see them taking Granger.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Schilly said:


> Not necessarily, it could be that Portland has Green and Webster rated equally, and in which case 1 will be there, and adding the 2nd 1st made up any difference in their book.
> 
> BTW I will point out that many "experts" have actually moved Webster ahead of Green in their Rankings.


Agreed..Either Webster is rated = or> green by the Blazers.if you guys draft Green,Webster will drop toat least 11...If you draft Webster,green will not get past NY


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Ed O said:


> Your logic doesn't add up, man.
> 
> Ed O.


Thanks Ed, glad I'm not the only one who doesnt understand this guy.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Reep said:


> I think Nash has information that indicates that the deal we got was the best there was going to be. I'm sure he gave Bernie one more shot before he took it. But I wouldn't be so sure about not going after Bynum. Even though Webster is the favorite at 6, I would guess that that there is an equal chance of selecting Bynum or Green if they don't take Webster. Bynum is in the running at 6.
> 
> NY fans are really hoping for Bynum at 8, what does that tell you?


NY fans only are hoping for Bynum as opposed to Frye because Green NEVER entered the equation till now..

Zeke will draft Green so fast your head will spin...I guarantee you guys take bynum..Webster will drop like a rock if you dont pick him


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Ed O said:


> Your logic doesn't add up, man.
> 
> Ed O.


You have to be kidding me...ill spell it out..If you wanted green at 3 you would not swap and get the 6th pick..There is a very good chance green is picked by Charlotte at 5..What GN in their right mind would take that risk for the 27th pick in the draft???CMON Ed,you know better...

Charlotte is your biggest fear,unless you really believe NO is not after a PG..

Webster is not on anyones radr below 9 except for you guys..It is 100% logical..You dont swap for the 3 for the 6 and 27 if you really want green


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



truth said:


> I guarantee you guys take bynum..Webster will drop like a rock if you dont pick him


I just love these "guarantees" we see on this board. Kind of like having a guarantee on an old Studebaker or something....nothing to back it up.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> I'm never going to understand why so many of you are in love with Williams. What does he bring that Outlaw doesnt? How much of Williams have you seen? He didnt play all that much in college, so you couldnt have seen much. From what I saw of Outlaw vs NBA TALENT, I'd say Outlaw is better, or at least just as good. I also think Outlaw has a better head on his shoulders and works harder.


I haven't seen as much of Outlaw as you have, but I've seen a lot of Marvin Williams. To say he didn't play all that much in college is complete bogus; he played almost the same amount of time as the starting PF, Jawad Williams did. A lot people ignorantly claim that Jawad started because he was better, but that's bogus. Jawad was a senior while Marvin was a freshman and Jawad starting due to seniority. I don't know how hard Outlaw works, but Marvin is known as a super hard work. Why do people like Marvin? It's more than just that dreaded p word. First, let's note his physical advantage: his height and incredible athletic ability. Secondly, he was only a college freshman, but he already has a nice inside-outside game. He played a lot in the post at UNC because of need, so you should know about that. He has a beautiful jump shot that might not have NBA 3 range yet, but is solid from pretty much 18' and in. He's very quick for his size and an excellent leaper. Check out his rebounding stats too. He can do pretty much everything you want out there on the floor and has good size/athletic ability. Oh and of course, he's still developing.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



e_blazer1 said:


> I just love these "guarantees" we see on this board. Kind of like having a guarantee on an old Studebaker or something....nothing to back it up.


I have an old studebaker, I gurantee you it's green....No kidding it's true.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Thanks Ed, glad I'm not the only one who doesnt understand this guy.


How can you not understand the logic??

its very simple...

The Blazers are not targeting green..At best they are indifferent to green vs webster/bynum..

webster/Bynum are not going below 6..that for ****ing sure....

Green could very well go at 5..which comes before 6..You dont take that chance for the #27 pick...

I do agree,if you couldnt care less about marvin,then it isnt the dumbest move swapping picks..But you trade away the option feo the #27 pick


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



e_blazer1 said:


> I just love these "guarantees" we see on this board. Kind of like having a guarantee on an old Studebaker or something....nothing to back it up.


Come up with a scenario that dictates otherwise...


----------



## i-dio proof (Apr 28, 2005)

good deal imo, however we should have to wait for 3 more seasons to watch a championship team on the screen cos most of the bad contracts will be out that time which will give us a salarycap room for superstars


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



truth said:


> Come up with a scenario that dictates otherwise...


Here's one:

Portland prefers Green to Webster or Bynum.

They know that there is a chance that Green will be selected at #5 if they trade back, but are willing to risk that.

They trade back to #6.​
So where's the inconsistency between that situation and what's happened to this point? There's NOTHING that indicates that Portland doesn't prefer Green, or that they're not still targeting him.

The only thing that's been proven is that the Blazers don't have a sambonius-like fascination with Green and can't think of living without him. That's not my definition of "targeting" a player, although if it is what you meant when you said they're not targeting him then we don't really disagree. We're just discussing different things.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



Ed O said:


> Here's one:
> 
> Portland prefers Green to Webster or Bynum.
> 
> ...


Exactly. Portland may feel that Green will be 105% the player that Webster will be. All things being equal, they'd prefer Green. 

But all things aren't equal. Dealing back to #6, Portland picks up 2 additional first round picks. If they feel that those picks are greater than the difference between Green and Webster, they make the deal. And they did make the deal. 

I think that's a pretty clear cut scenario.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I've got it from a very good source that the Blazers ARE trying to move that #27 pick up to the late teens or early 20s. No info on who they're targeting though, but Im assuming its Bynum at this point.

More info as I get it.

PBF


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



truth said:


> Come up with a scenario that dictates otherwise...


Nothing personal against your idea. It's the most probable outcome. I'm just a little turned off by your use of the term "guarantee". I've seen probably 5-10 different posts so far for different deals where the poster has used that same term. Nothing's "guaranteed" until it happens in this league. There are multiple scenarios where the Blazers could end up trading away the 6th pick. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

> I've got it from a very good source that the Blazers ARE trying to move that #27 pick up to the late teens or early 20s. No info on who they're targeting though, but Im assuming its Bynum at this point.


 Hmmmmm, Kiki does like D. Miles. I wonder if they could swing that deal?


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

ProudBFan said:


> I've got it from a very good source that the Blazers ARE trying to move that #27 pick up to the late teens or early 20s. No info on who they're targeting though, but Im assuming its Bynum at this point.


They're not likely to be getting Bynum at that range. Maybe May or another candidate for the backup PF spot.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> They're not likely to be getting Bynum at that range. Maybe May or another candidate for the backup PF spot.


I think Bynum in the 14-18 range is realistic.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Schilly said:


> I think Bynum in the 14-18 range is realistic.



I hope you're right. Straight up, I will be dissapointed if we don't get Green or Webster at #6. As long as that's the case, I'm OKAY (not happy) with the trade. If they take Bynum or Granger at #6, I'm pissed. I'm surprised they made this deal so early?? What if Williams does slip to #3? What a tradable commodity that would've been. Anyways, what's done is done. Now get us a freekin' SG!!


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

I wouldnt be too upset if we got Diogu either. Lots of options for a back up PF in the middle/end of the draft.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Schilly said:


> I think Bynum in the 14-18 range is realistic.




I don't think that's realistic at all because sadly the Blazers will probably take him at #6.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

kaydow said:


> I hope you're right. Straight up, I will be dissapointed if we don't get Green or Webster at #6. As long as that's the case, I'm OKAY (not happy) with the trade. If they take Bynum or Granger at #6, I'm pissed. I'm surprised they made this deal so early?? What if Williams does slip to #3? What a tradable commodity that would've been. Anyways, what's done is done. Now get us a freekin' SG!!


You have to figure that Nash has done his homework on this and that he knows Williams is not going to be available at #3. There are only two plausible reasons that I can come up with as to why the Blazers would make the deal before the draft:

1. They think the Utah deal is as good as it gets and Utah said the deal was only on the table if it was completed before the draft.

2. The Blazers are looking for another trade and needed to have step 1 done before proceeding to step 2.

My bet is Option 2.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> I don't think that's realistic at all because sadly the Blazers will probably take him at #6.


Talk about mixum moments.

Have a little faith in Nash until proven otherwise, mm.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

> I don't think that's realistic at all because sadly the Blazers will probably take him at #6.


 Don't be sad, think of all the whining we heard last year cause we chose Telfair. I turned out to be a good pick. Give Paul Patternash & Computer a chance.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

graybeard said:


> Don't be sad, think of all the whining we heard last year cause we chose Telfair. I turned out to be a good pick. Give Paul Patternash & Computer a chance.




LOL I was one of those that complained about Telfair. Now he's one of my favorites.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: ESPN RADIO is saying that the UTAH deal is official!!*



e_blazer1 said:


> Nothing personal against your idea. It's the most probable outcome. I'm just a little turned off by your use of the term "guarantee". I've seen probably 5-10 different posts so far for different deals where the poster has used that same term. Nothing's "guaranteed" until it happens in this league. There are multiple scenarios where the Blazers could end up trading away the 6th pick. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.


Agrred,there are no guarantees in life.But i am fairly confident that had you guys favored Green,you wouldnt take the risk of dropping below charlotte.Not for the #27 pick..And it does semm as if you will be dealing a bit more....


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Interesting Non-Biased response to trade....

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=178405


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

I'm surprised so many Blazers fan are down on this. Just look at your roster: 

Shareef (Good player, great trade bait)

Randolph (potential all-star, great trade bait)

Ratliff (didn't have a great year last year, but is still a top three defensive force in the paint)

Pryzbilla (maybe the end of last season was an abberation, but maybe not...)

Ha Seung-Jin (I think he's gonna be nice, given he develops. He's only 19, right?)

Khryapa (He's gonna be real nice. You all saw that at the end of last season)

Monia (supposed to be better than Khryapa. Might be a better Ruben Patterson type player)

Darius Miles (Somewhat inconsistent but has a total impact on the game and has shown he can carry the scoring load at times)

Telfair (He's gonna be real nice, especially with the athletic makeup of your roster)

Outlaw (You saw what he could do last year. He'll be nice.)


That's a loaded roster, in my opinion. Obviously, I left out the Anderson's, Stoudamire's, etc. but your roster is really loaded. Now let's say you get Gerald Green with the sixth pick. That's simply insane. And with the 27th? Why not pickup a point guard who can fill in NOW, and either get rid of Stoudamire or give him less minutes? Everyone knows Stoudamire won't be here much longer and you'll need a backup to Telfair anyway, so that's a need you could fill. Robinson, Jack (though not likely), Hodge? Or maybe you could end up grabbing a talented guy like Gomes, Taft, or Simien? Or maybe you could grab someone like a Monta Ellis (who I think is going to be extremely good, despite the doubters). This draft is incredibly deep and the more draft picks you can use, the better. And with the versatility you have in all the extra draft picks, you can move up if you so choose. 

I'm a Nuggets fan and in a way, I'd rather have your roster. You really have a ton of talent and you're already a deep team. More importantly, the roster is incredibly versatile. You've got a great low post defender, a top notch low post scorer, and athleticism. You could use some perimeter shooting, but I'm sure you'll be able to find some. 

I think it's a great day to be a Blazers fan.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Schilly, thanks for the link. I liked the list of #27 picks:
Vujacic
Kendrick Perkins
Chris Jefferies
TInsley
Brezec
Jumaine Jones
Stepania
Jacque Vaughn
Brian Evans
Mario Bennett
Brooks Thompson
Malcolm Mackey
Byron Houston
Pete Chilcutt
Elden Campbell

None are killers but several were/are at least decent. Hopefully the Blazers will get Tinsley or Campbell and not Stepania!


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

I won't be shocked if Bynum is the pick.

First off, how many players did the Blazers work out twice? I doubt they invited him back just to enjoy his sunny disposition.

Second, IF Nash believes that Green=Webster=Bynum, it makes a certain amount of sense to go for the big guy. The traditional NBA mindset is that true centers are hard to come by.

Lastly, Bynum's stock has been on the rise. I don't take mock drafts real seriously, but most do show Bynum going 8-10.....so picking him at 6 doesn't seem that much of a reach. Remember: 13 was supposed to be too early to take Telfair!

In the next 3-4 hours, we will find out if Nash is smarter than I have given him credit for - or a whole lot dumber!


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I'm still holding out hope for a perfect draft night of Webster/Bynum, which still has a remote possibility if Portland can parlay picks and players into a low teens pick.

At this point it seems that Green, Webster and Bynum should all be available to Portland at #6. I don't think Portland will take Green, so Toronto probably would, thereby causing a chain reaction that possibly drops Bynum (probably behind players like Frye and Diogu) or Webster lower in the draft.

As others have pointed out, championships are won on the backs of dominant big men, so Portland may indeed go with Bynum and try to get Webster later. But we really need a SG, and Webster sounds perfect for our team. It would be such a shame to miss out on both stud shooting guards for a long-shot high school center.

So, who is more likely to be available in the low to mid teens: Bynum or Webster, when Portland picks one over the other?


----------



## Kopay (Jun 28, 2005)

So did we get Utah's pick next year, or the one they got from Detroit? Watching ESPN right now, they didn't really point this out for sure.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Kopay said:


> So did we get Utah's pick next year, or the one they got from Detroit? Watching ESPN right now, they didn't really point this out for sure.


We got the pick that they received from Detroit. It's lottery protected and would slip to the following year if the Pistons don't make the playoffs (yeah, right).


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Blazer Bert said:


> I'm still holding out hope for a perfect draft night of Webster/Bynum, which still has a remote possibility if Portland can parlay picks and players into a low teens pick.
> 
> At this point it seems that Green, Webster and Bynum should all be available to Portland at #6. I don't think Portland will take Green, so Toronto probably would, thereby causing a chain reaction that possibly drops Bynum (probably behind players like Frye and Diogu) or Webster lower in the draft.
> 
> ...


Webster will be there..pick Bynum


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Mike Rice is saying on KXL

Blazers called Ray Felton's agent and they said Charlotte is going to draft him

so Blazers made an educated calculated move to get the bonus's


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

So much for the "possibility" that Portland could have gotten Marvin Williams at #3....


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

So far so good for the Blazers trade. The only regret I have is not picking Deron Williams. I said before that he will be the best point guard out of this group and it seems somebody agreed with me.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Green and Webster are both still available with our pick. Nice move by Nash.


----------



## Kopay (Jun 28, 2005)

> Blazers called Ray Felton's agent and they said Charlotte is going to draft him


Why didn't we call him a week ago. :smilewink


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

As guaranteed..Webster is your man.Now do you get my logic??...You dont swap picks if you wanted Green.....Interesting...Things worked out well for you guys...Congrats


----------



## CrGiants (Dec 4, 2003)

Truth, as guaranteed? Earlier you said that you guaranteed we'd take Bynum, and you also said Zeke would take Green so fast our heads would spin.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

CrGiants said:


> Truth, as guaranteed? Earlier you said that you guaranteed we'd take Bynum, and you also said Zeke would take Green so fast our heads would spin.


actually,i batted .500..

i guaranteed webster or bynum...

lol..i also boasted that zeke would grab green at 8... :angel: 

you guys had a good draft


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

If we cut DA and trade Ruben, what will the average age of our team be?

Almost everyone on our team except Theo will be under 23 years old!!!


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

CelticPagan said:


> If we cut DA and trade Ruben, what will the average age of our team be?
> 
> Almost everyone on our team except Theo will be under 23 years old!!!


 Well except for the Pryz who is an over the hill 25!


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i like our picks now we need a back up pf!


----------

