# The Rasheed Watch



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

It has been kind of crazy around here with all the talks of what will happen to Rasheed Wallace, Portland's most talented and *best natural basketball player.* He isn't the most productive, but he is what many call an oxy moron. Yes people, Zach Randolph is our most productive work horse. 

Rasheed sat out last night game with a sprained ankle and many people are positive that a trade has been worked out in principle since Wallace was no where to be found on the bench last night.

Here is my question, with all the rumors flying around the league about Rasheed, where do you think he will end up?

*Dallas* has entered into the picture again with Antawn Jamison and Eduardo Najera or Tony Delk.

We all have heard of the *New York* deal for Keith Van Horn who has been labeled as soft, yet strangely has Rasheed like numbers in the box score.

*New Jersey* and *Detroit* have also been mentioned as possible suitors for the services of Mr. Wallace.

I want to know where you think he will end up.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

No one really bit on it when I brought it up previously, but I really think S.A. is the place for Rasheed. Pairing him up with Duncan would be nearly impossible to compete with, and teams like bringing in players that have a history of making things tough on their key guys (i.e. Madsen joining Garnett this year).

I believe the rumored deal was Nesterovic, Mercer, and Turkolu. Most people quickly dismissed it, but that looks _much_ better to me than any of the purported NY or Dallas deals (all of which are 10x worse than just letting Rasheed walk). Mercer is an expiring contract. Possibly a nice piece to keep around, but not a big deal either way. Nesterovic, shortcomings and all, is still one of the better centers in the league and would fill a much needed role here. And Turkolu would be an excellent fit at SF, giving us outside shooting, size, ball handling, and good court awareness. All things we are desparately in need of.

I think Malik Rose was mentioned in the deal somewhere, too. He's a no-brainer, providing quality minutes at any front line spot.

If the deal really was offered and if it comes back around, do it!

Dan


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I see that some people are choosing the contract extention, is that something that you think will happen of something you hope will happen?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I voted Detroit. I think they have the most to gain by adding Rasheed and have a nice stable of pieces to make it happen.

Also, it's partful wishful thinking because the potential pieces they could move are rivalled only by Indiana's pieces in terms of attractiveness to me as a Blazers fan.

Ed O.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

So now there is a tie with Dallas and Portland. Do you really think that he is coming back next season?


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

i think its still an option , providing he wants to be here and is willing to be resigned for significantly less than his current contract but at a rough market rate. My opinion flucuates but id generally rather have a resigned sheed at say 7-8 mill a year to start than trading him for something that isnt quite what we hoped.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

I think there is a greater chance that he'll resign with Portland then be traded midseason. Unless a slam dunk no brainer comes along (like McGrady) where an organization decides to scrap their talent and start over, I think Nash can get all the value with a lot less fat coming back in a S&T this offseason. With the lower dollar figure that Wallace will command, more teams will be able to put together legit offers. 

No matter what Nash or Sheed do or say, I'm sure we'll have eminent Wallace trade rumors until the deadline passes. Whatever floats your boat, but to me rehashing dead rumors (Kenyon, Jamison ect...) is getting pretty tired. Seemingly every game a writer from the opposition's local paper cuts and pastes everything bad previously written about the Sheed and the Blazers, and then closes out their article patching together what it would take for the team he covers to acquire him.  If a deal is to happen, history points to us being blindsided by something we aren't considering.


STOMP


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I also voted Detroit because of their many players that have large expiring contracts. They also have 3 valuable young players(Darko, Okur, Prince) and 2 1st rounders. 

Indiana would be my 2nd choice but they may have 2 many long term contracts.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Rasheed has asked for a 10 to 15 million dollar contract. Do you really think that Nash is going to take that kind of chance with Rasheed Wallace stay when he offers him 7 - 8 million? That is why I think that he is going out on a trade, I just can't make up my mind where. I think New York, then Dallas. I think we will all know soon enough, I just don't see him coming back.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> Rasheed has asked for a 10 to 15 million dollar contract. Do you really think that Nash is going to take that kind of chance with Rasheed Wallace stay when he offers him 7 - 8 million?


You wrote that first line like it's a known fact... as far as I'm aware, no one in the know (Nash, Wallace, or Wallace's agent) have quoted any figures. 10-15, 7-8... thats just speculation by Quick and Co. on what a player of his abilities is worth in today's NBA. Wallace will have very limited options above the MLE if he is to leave as a UFA. Supply and demand is very much in Nash's favor. If Wallace wants to get paid and to play for a team of his liking (who doesn't), his best bets by far are a S&T or just resigning. I think thats the best fit for Nash to achieve his stated goals of reducing payroll while remaining competitive as well.

STOMP


----------



## talman (Dec 31, 2002)

I'd do that SA deal mentioned above in a heartbeat.

I voted contract extension because that's what I'm hoping for--in order for Zach to be effective, I believe, we have to have someone like Wallace around.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> You wrote that first line like it's a known fact... as far as I'm aware, no one in the know (Nash, Wallace, or Wallace's agent) have quoted any figures. 10-15, 7-8... thats just speculation by Quick and Co. on what a player of his abilities is worth in today's NBA. Wallace will have very limited options above the MLE if he is to leave as a UFA. Supply and demand is very much in Nash's favor. If Wallace wants to get paid and to play for a team of his liking (who doesn't), his best bets by far are a S&T or just resigning. I think thats the best fit for Nash to achieve his stated goals of reducing payroll while remaining competitive as well.
> ...


His agent has been quoted asking for that much for his client. I'm sure that those are the starting numbers, but those numbers were compared to Kevin Garnett's that pay him 16M next season. 

There is no way in hell that John Nash is going to fork over that kind of money for Wallace. I don't see Rasheed getting that from anyone. If he thinks he is in Portland he is sadly mistaken.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> 
> His agent has been quoted asking for that much for his client.


I haven't seen him quoted as saying this. Can you post a link?

All I've seen is Vecsey writing, "From what I'm told, agent Bill Strickland has made it clear to Portland and the converging crowd his client is looking for a legit, long-term arrangement, in the $10M-to-$15M per range. Anything less isn't worth talking about."

(a) that's not a quote that the agent nor Rasheed want that
(b) wanting (and asking for) an amount does not mean inflexibility once the realities (of a dearth of other offers) set in
(c) a 5 year deal starting at $8m a year with $1m increases IS an average of $10m per, so while that's a lot of money it's not beyond what many on this board would be willing to have Rasheed paid.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> His agent has been quoted asking for that much for his client.


Like Ed, I haven't seen this quote from Sheed's agent, and I don't see the benefit for him going public with one either.



> There is no way in hell that John Nash is going to fork over that kind of money for Wallace. I don't see Rasheed getting that from anyone. If he thinks he is in Portland he is sadly mistaken.


There won't be many other teams in the position to finacially compete for Rasheed's services and drive up his price, and I trust that John Nash knows not to bid too high against himself. It may be the worst year in recent memory for FA players to hope for a max deal. If Portland is to resign Wallace with the intentions of retaining him, I would imagine that they wouldn't try to push their bargaining advantages to the absolute limit and would try to be good to him. If they are to S&T him, the size of his deal may be dictated by the contracts coming back. Wallace and his agent probably have a pretty good idea how the business works, and will deal with negotiating a contract when it comes time to. Given we're not even mid-season, I doubt there are serious contract discussions going on... why would there be? 

What would be a fair deal for Wallace? Just my guess, but 5 years 60 mil. seems about right.

STOMP


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I posted it the other day... in a thread...

His agent was asking $10-15 mil

I will see if I can find it again


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Read the thread with the article from Vescey 

Rasheed is looking for


> _From what I'm told, agent Bill Strickland has made it clear to Portland and the converging crowd his client is looking for a legit, long-term arrangement, in the *$10M-to-$15M* per range._


of course that is from Peter Vescey


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Link doesn't work or it might be my computer having problems. 

Thanks for trying Trader Bob! 

Fact is he isn't going to get that kind of money. I think that every team that he talks to would laugh him out the door for that kind of money. Rasheed is good, but lets not get carried away. I would be interested in seeing what he does sign for next season. If he wants to be a Blazer he is going to have to settle for a lot less than those kind of numbers.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Yet on the flip side I do see where your thoughts STOMP do make sense. Work a sign & trade after the season is over and you still get the cap relief. I guess that it will all play out soon enough. I just think that unless you are putting up huge numbers every night, the days of the fat paycheck in Portland are over.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I haven't seen him quoted as saying this. Can you post a link?
> ...


I stand corrected, thank you for pointing that out to me Ed. :grinning:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I voted Portland. Most of the trades offered are lopsided against Portland and, due to Wallace's perceived problems, any deal for equal value is going to be accused of being lopsided *for* Portland.

This is like trying to move BYC player...you have to get equal value back, but no one can (or, in this case, will) offer equal value.

Therefore, in my opinion, factors weigh fairly heavily against a fair trade and I'm hoping and assuming Nash isn't dumb enough to trade Wallace for inferior talent and a longer contract. And if Wallace goes to free agency, I think Portland will be the team willing to offer him the most, maybe a $9-10 million per annum deal.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I fixed the URL now.. sorry about that

I would hope we could get him for as little as $8 mil... but I think that is asking too much... I sure hope we do not sign him for $10 or more.. IMHO its not worth it... do a S&T then at $10 mil.. then we should get some good pieces to the puzzle

CTC baby


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> You wrote that first line like it's a known fact... as far as I'm aware, no one in the know (Nash, Wallace, or Wallace's agent) have quoted any figures. 10-15, 7-8... thats just speculation by Quick and Co. on what a player of his abilities is worth in today's NBA. Wallace will have very limited options above the MLE if he is to leave as a UFA. Supply and demand is very much in Nash's favor. If Wallace wants to get paid and to play for a team of his liking (who doesn't), his best bets by far are a S&T or just resigning. I think thats the best fit for Nash to achieve his stated goals of reducing payroll while remaining competitive as well.
> ...



It WAS in the papers.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Like Ed, I haven't seen this quote from Sheed's agent, and I don't see the benefit for him going public with one either.
> ...


And you are the expert on this how? Seems to me like you just bully others on this board around. Shame on you. Everyone has a right to their own opinion!


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

How is that bullying? He's just pointing out something that a number of people seem to have missed ... it is hardly a verifiable fact that Rasheed or his agent have demanded 'x' dollars in contract negotiations. That's simply conjecture on the part of Vescey, a guy known for talking out of his arse more than anything.

Dan


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> How is that bullying? He's just pointing out something that a number of people seem to have missed ... it is hardly a verifiable fact that Rasheed or his agent have demanded 'x' dollars in contract negotiations. That's simply conjecture on the part of Vescey, a guy known for talking out of his arse more than anything.
> 
> Dan


So a demostrative tone os OK with you? OK fine. For you, I guess. I don't get it. When someone talks down to someone else, don't you find that offensive in the least?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GoBlaze</b>!
> It WAS in the papers.





> And you are the expert on this how? Seems to me like you just bully others on this board around. Shame on you. Everyone has a right to their own opinion!


Welcome to the ongoing discussion *GoBlaze*. 

I'm not sure exactly why we're on different pages here though... Where again did I dispute that there were printed speculations on Rasheed's upcoming next deal, or say that others aren't entitled to an opinion different then mine? I asked for a quote from one of those involved in these supposive negotiations, and there was none. The source on this (Pete Vescey) is someone with a well established record for playing fast and loose with the truth IMO. If you or anyone else wants to put stock into his writings, good luck/have it your way... but I've seen him be completely wrong way too many times to accept anything he says at face value. It's OK that I don't believe everything I read isn't it?

I don't pretend to be an expert on this matter or anything related to the league, and I try to qualify my opinions as those of a mere fan. If you gathered otherwise, what can I say... I'll try to write better. Maybe you could reread what I wrote and PM me on where exactly I gave you that impression? I'd appreciate it.

STOMP


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> So a demostrative tone os OK with you?


No, I'm not big on demonstrative tones. But, I fail to see anything demonstrative there. Perhaps you're being a bit too sensitive? Debunking incorrect statements should not, in and of itself, be offensive.

Dan


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

_Wallace doubtful: The Blazers said Rasheed Wallace is doubtful for today's game because of a sprained left ankle suffered late in Thursday night's game against Minnesota.

Wallace did not play in Friday night's win over Chicago and received treatment Saturday while the team practiced in Chicago. 

In the past four seasons, Wallace has missed 15 games because of suspensions or injuries. The Blazers are 8-7 in those games, including 6-2 in the past eight. 

_ 

Does this add to the fire for a trade looming or is it possible that Rasheed is still suffering from a sprained left ankle? Wallace for the most part has been very healthy as a player, so this is either more serious a sprain or something is up. However, if there was another player that was going to be involved in a trade of Rasheed wouldn't they also be sitting out games?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Personally I think he is just hurt


----------



## O2K (Nov 19, 2002)

i like that san antonio trade mentioned earlier in the thread.... wallace for mercer, turkoglu(sp?), and nestervoic(sp?), and if we get rose the better.

i think that is the best we could do, but i dont know why we werent in the starbury trade  i wold love to get stephon


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GoBlaze</b>!
> 
> And you are the expert on this how? Seems to me like you just bully others on this board around. Shame on you. Everyone has a right to their own opinion!


I've got an idea. How's about you add something substantive to a discussion before you start to wag your fingers at people who've contributed MUCH more to the community here than you have?

Of COURSE everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one is beyond having that opinion challenged.

When someone makes an incorrect assertion, it's not an insult to be corrected. As one who gets corrected a lot, I should know first hand 

As far as Rasheed's injury: I think he's hurt and I think he also has partly thrown in the towel. Part of him HAS to be thinking, "So, Zach's the future, huh? Let's see how he does without anyone good at the present around him."

I would be interested to know more of what happened in Seattle with Nash and Rasheed. I would be shocked if it was anything good.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I would be interested to know more of what happened in Seattle with Nash and Rasheed. I would be shocked if it was anything good.
> 
> Ed O.



Me too Ed.. I hope it comes out in the next few days. I doubt a Blazer sponsored CSMN will air the dirty laundry either.


----------

