# NJ Star-Ledger: Abdur-Rahim is to blame



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

In today's NJ Star-Ledger, Dave D'Alessandro says it was Abdur-Rahim's decision not to join the Nets:



> In the end, the decision was left to Shareef Abdur-Rahim, and he concluded that upholding his professional pride and fair market value was more important than being part of a team he would help make elite again.
> 
> It was no decision at all, in fact, the free agent will tell you. When the Nets came back with a reduced contract offer -- a four-year deal valued at $22.7 million, with two more years at the team's option -- Abdur-Rahim never flinched. No, thanks, he said.


http://www.nj.com/nets/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/112365254036540.xml&coll=1


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't know if those facts shift the blame to SAR... if I am told I am going to be shot either in the stomach or the leg and I choose the leg, it's hard to blame me for being shot.

The Nets gave him two poor alternatives: take reduced money or become a FA again. He made the choice, but I don't think blame follows.

Ed O.


----------



## jwhoops11 (Nov 26, 2003)

Wow, how slimey can Rod Thorn be?

It was obvious he didn't want to part with the first rounder in the Blazer deal, but ultimately made the right choice for his team and got Rahim under a very respectable contract.

Then he voids the trade, and offers him far less in a free agent deal, trying to bypass the Blazers? 

Did he really expect SAR to accept that? 

I wouldn't be suprised if Thorn feels the effects of this for years to come. Rahim is a pretty good guy, and has always been a proffesional. I can't imagine other future free agents (and their agents), won't hesitate at least a little before working with the Nets.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

The guy already has financial security and is already looking at reduced market value, so there's no "gotta get my last big contract" scenario at play. He'll be 32-33 when the 4 year offer expires, and if his knee is as much of a non-issue as he claims, the FA offers will be _at least_ as good then as they are now.

If the article is to be believed, Shareef once again shows why he's always in a losing situation ... screwy priorities.

Dan


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

The thing I find interesting is how many Portland fans are outraged at Thorn's actions, while NJ fans apparently don't care all that much they lost out on Shareef. That tells me we (collectively) are severely overvaluing a player that was a trainwreck for us and constantly harped on by many, expecting his value around the league to be more than it was on our own team. Put aside his 9 year offensive stats and what are you left with? Not much else you can point to that teams are going to bend over backward to acquire.

Dan


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

dkap said:


> The thing I find interesting is how many Portland fans are outraged at Thorn's actions, *while NJ fans apparently don't care all that much they lost out on Shareef. * That tells me we (collectively) are severely overvaluing a player that was a trainwreck for us and constantly harped on by many, expecting his value around the league to be more than it was on our own team. Put aside his 9 year offensive stats and what are you left with? Not much else you can point to that teams are going to bend over backward to acquire.


Have you been to the NJ boards? Many are very upset about it. However, Thorn has a proven track record so some of those are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

dkap said:


> The thing I find interesting is how many Portland fans are outraged at Thorn's actions, while NJ fans apparently don't care all that much they lost out on Shareef. That tells me we (collectively) are severely overvaluing a player that was a trainwreck for us and constantly harped on by many, expecting his value around the league to be more than it was on our own team. Put aside his 9 year offensive stats and what are you left with? Not much else you can point to that teams are going to bend over backward to acquire.
> 
> Dan


Agreed. I usually consider myself fair & balanced when it comes to valueing players - and I don't consider myself the ultimate "homer" (Homer Simpson - maybe, but not "homer") and this situation with Shareef has me confused.

Did we buy the bridge from Nash about Shareef's value? I always thought Theo was the steal we got in the deal, not Shareef. Is he one of these guys that will always average his pts & rbs despite the teams winning pct? Or is he a classic "gets his points and therefore makes the team a loser"??

In hindsight - I was always waiting for him to take over a game -and I don't remember one that he did. Maybe he's just a average complimentary player - who's had high averages in pts & rbs but doesn't help a team win games.

This continues to interest me - even though I want to move on. It will be interesting to see where he lands and what he gets (and if the Blazers get anything).


----------



## jwhoops11 (Nov 26, 2003)

dkap said:


> If the article is to be believed, Shareef once again shows why he's always in a losing situation ... screwy priorities.
> 
> Dan


I guess I just don't see that. If I'm offered a job at $60,000 a year, and then a week later the same company tells me they've had second thoughts but would be more then willing to pay me $45,000 a year, to do the same job...

Screw that!

If a week ago Shareef was good enough to make 39 million from them, either give him the money, or void the trade and send him on his way. Don't turn around and tell the guy we percieve you to be a risk at 39 Million, but we'd be more then happy to have you at 22 million. It might be good business for the Nets, but don't blame Rahim for telling them where to stick it.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I think Thorn's behavior is outrageous because if someone offered me a job and we agreed on the salary, then they said well, we really want you to take 25% less I'd be PO'd too. 
It's not a matter of overvaluing our players. I do think Thorn is trying to get out of a bargain and keep his pick. Sure, Reef could get by on the lesser amount but it seems reasonable for him to try and see if someone will pay closer to the original offer. And it's not like the Nets are a shoo-in for the Finals. I could see taking a pay cut for a veteran player to go to the Spurs, for example, or maybe Miami. NJ was the #8 seed and while they may improve, Kidd and Carter are old by NBA standards, both have had injuries and there is no guarantee of team success.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

dkap said:


> The guy already has financial security and is already looking at reduced market value, so there's no "gotta get my last big contract" scenario at play. He'll be 32-33 when the 4 year offer expires, and if his knee is as much of a non-issue as he claims, the FA offers will be _at least_ as good then as they are now.
> 
> If the article is to be believed, Shareef once again shows why he's always in a losing situation ... screwy priorities.
> 
> Dan


So you think SAR having respect for himself and his ablilities, and trying to get closer to what he's worth is having "screwy priorities"? :rofl:

:krazy:


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Thorn is an inept fool who has no idea how to run a franchise.

Reminds me of another hit-man for Stern, Stu Inman.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I guess I just don't see that. If I'm offered a job at $60,000 a year, and then a week later the same company tells me they've had second thoughts but would be more then willing to pay me $45,000 a year, to do the same job...
> 
> Screw that!
> 
> If a week ago Shareef was good enough to make 39 million from them, either give him the money, or void the trade and send him on his way. Don't turn around and tell the guy we percieve you to be a risk at 39 Million, but we'd be more then happy to have you at 22 million. It might be good business for the Nets, but don't blame Rahim for telling them where to stick it.


Very well-said. As Rahim put it, "If they thought I was an injury risk, why would they even give me a 4-year contract?" I think this is a classic case of a GM having buyer's remorse and wanting to back out of a deal.


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

The thing that irks me the most about NJ, Thorn and their obnoxious fans is they seem to think that they have some sort of entitlement, that players should somehow feel privileged to play for that franchise, just because Toronto was stupid enough to basically give them Vince Carter they somehow think that every player should take less or feel lucky to play with the great Jason Kidd, like you guys say there was a deal in place, after the deal is struck they tried to strong-arm him into taking less once the deal has already been done and to make it worse they have Kidd calling him trying to get him to take the lower offer, that is dirty and trust me agents will remember that bs in the future. Rahim did what he should have done tell them to kiss his ***.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

*Maybe you should all read the article 1 more time? Thorn offered SAR a new deal, 4 years, with a 5th AND 6th year option. Everyone see that now?

Now 22.7 Million is NOT over 6 years, but over 4 years, as much as he would had gotten under the sign and trade. So it's NOT less money.

It's less secuirty. If SAR thinks he will be health... why would the Nets not use the 5th or 6th year options? 

Anyone else notice the SAR never refutes what the Nets found in his knee, but just claims that it has never caused him to miss games?

Hence the point of the article.*

-Petey


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Have you been to the NJ boards? Many are very upset about it.


I haven't checked them out myself, but I just read on here yesterday that most are ambivalent.



> I guess I just don't see that. If I'm offered a job at $60,000 a year, and then a week later the same company tells me they've had second thoughts but would be more then willing to pay me $45,000 a year, to do the same job...
> 
> Screw that!


$39M / 6 yrs = $6.5M/yr
$22M / 4 yrs = $5.7M/yr 

The only real difference is the rising 5th and 6th years bringing the average up. The contracts are basically the same, other than length, and as I said, if Shareef's health is as good as he claims, he should have no problem getting a $5-6M two year deal at age 32. Also, the 4 year deal has an extra 2 year team option at the end, so it may be a moot point.



> If a week ago Shareef was good enough to make 39 million from them, either give him the money, or void the trade and send him on his way. Don't turn around and tell the guy we percieve you to be a risk at 39 Million, but we'd be more then happy to have you at 22 million.


They're hedging their bets on his health, what's wrong with that? They feel his health is a question mark, so they don't want a 6 year commitment. He says his health isn't an issue, so prove them wrong. (That's been my objection to Shareef all along -- it's up to him to prove the detractors wrong, but he continually finds ways not to.)

edit: Petey, thanks, that was my point.

Dan


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Petey said:


> *Maybe you should all read the article 1 more time? Thorn offered SAR a new deal, 4 years, with a 5th AND 6th year option. Everyone see that now?
> 
> Now 22.7 Million is NOT over 6 years, but over 4 years, as much as he would had gotten under the sign and trade. So it's NOT less money.
> 
> ...


The Nets were getting a bottom dollar deal for Shareef and Thorn knew it. Even if he only got 4 years of service out of Shareef (instead of 6) under the contract that they'd agreed to, that's only around $9 mil per year. Not bad for a PF with his skills in today's market, especially when you factor in that he'd be getting to spread it over six years instead of four. Thorn wanted to make his deal even sweeter.

Your GM is a cheapskate. 

Hence you have Marc Jackson instead of Shareef. 

Enjoy.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Petey said:


> *Maybe you should all read the article 1 more time? Thorn offered SAR a new deal, 4 years, with a 5th AND 6th year option. Everyone see that now?
> 
> Now 22.7 Million is NOT over 6 years, but over 4 years, as much as he would had gotten under the sign and trade. So it's NOT less money.
> 
> ...


Why should SAR trust NJ now? If I was SAR, I would look at the contract as a 4 yr contract, and those option years would probably never happen. Security in the NBA is everything. I don't agree with it, but NBA players love that security and gauranteed money.

From what I remember, hasn't SAR had some scare tissue or something in his knee since HS? Damn, I wish I had that same problem and performed as good as he has. If he's has some "kneee issue" for so long, but he's played healthy his whole career, shouldn't that say something? I don't fault SAR for this at all.

The whole thing seems fishy, especially how fast they switched gears to get Jackson.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

Scout226 said:


> *Why should SAR trust NJ now? If I was SAR, I would look at the contract as a 4 yr contract, and those option years would probably never happen.* Security in the NBA is everything. I don't agree with it, but NBA players love that security and gauranteed money.


So... If he were healthy and productive you don't think the Nets would had gladdly paid him? That is where the issue comes in...



Scout226 said:


> From what I remember, hasn't SAR had some scare tissue or something in his knee since HS? Damn, I wish I had that same problem and performed as good as he has. If he's has some "kneee issue" for so long, but he's played healthy his whole career, shouldn't that say something? I don't fault SAR for this at all.


Right, but do you agree that it should be of some concern?



Scout226 said:


> The whole thing seems fishy, especially how fast they switched gears to get Jackson.


Thorn already has other plans last week. He said if this didn't work, they were looking into trading McInnis in for their TE.

-Petey


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> The Nets were getting a bottom dollar deal for Shareef and Thorn knew it. Even if he only got 4 years of service out of Shareef (instead of 6) under the contract that they'd agreed to, that's only around $9 mil per year. Not bad for a PF with his skills in today's market, especially when you factor in that he'd be getting to spread it over six years instead of four. Thorn wanted to make his deal even sweeter.
> 
> Your GM is a cheapskate.


Being a cheapskate is not a bad thing. Having bloated contracts where a player is on the IR... is NOT a good thing for a franchise. Happened to the Nets last year with Deke and Zo (at the time), so Thorn was order to make cuts.



e_blazer1 said:


> Hence you have Marc Jackson instead of Shareef.
> 
> Enjoy.





ghoti said:


> 2004-05 Season - Per 48 minutes
> SAR - 23.4 PPG / 10.1 RPG / 2.9 APG
> "Big Jack" - 23.5 PPG / 9.9 RPG / 2 APG


I think Thorn can live with that considering Marc Jackson's contract only runs 2 years, 2nd year is a player option, makes about 4 Million a year, the Sixers gave the Nets 3 Million dollars and all the Nets gave up was the rights for the Sixers to demand swapping 2nd round picks next year... LOL

-Petey


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Petey said:


> So... If he were healthy and productive you don't think the Nets would had gladdly paid him? That is where the issue comes in...


When has he had a knee injury and sat out? Last year he had some shoulder problems, and that's why he sat out. From what I know, his knee has never been an issue, even though what they found was their years ago.




> Right, but do you agree that it should be of some concern?


Not really. I've seen other trades go through because teams waive the physical. Like stated before, if SAR only lasted 4 years, it was still a good deal for NJ. SAR would have put NJ another level on the NBA ladder. Instead, they stayed about the same with signing Jackson. If the time is now, I would have signed SAR if I was NJ.




> Thorn already has other plans last week. He said if this didn't work, they were looking into trading McInnis in for their TE.


I know, but his backup plan for the SAR deal was Jackson. It just seemed to happen pretty quick after they declined the SAR deal. I'm guessing because there is hardly a market for Jackson out there, so it's easy to pick that 2nd option up.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

e_blazer1 said:


> The Nets were getting a bottom dollar deal for Shareef and Thorn knew it. Even if he only got 4 years of service out of Shareef (instead of 6) under the contract that they'd agreed to, that's only around $9 mil per year. Not bad for a PF with his skills in today's market, especially when you factor in that he'd be getting to spread it over six years instead of four. Thorn wanted to make his deal even sweeter.
> 
> Your GM is a cheapskate.
> 
> ...


It is called fiscal responsibility. Having cap wastes of 7 million dollars per for 2 seasons is a problem when you are a team that will always be close to the Tax threshold is enough of a problem. However, Thorn wasn't able to get insurance on SAR's knees so that meant the Nets would have been on the hook for the contract when it becomes a problem.

It takes a lot for an NBA team not be able to get insurance on a player


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

Petey, I know you have some valid points (although I don't really agree), but your whole argument just loses all credibility when you say certain things.......
Can you honestly tell me that you would rather have Jeff freaking Mcinnis than Shareef Abdul Rahim at the same price? I have to laugh to even think about that......pure insanity. I mean, we have seen both in action and don't even get us started on that.

Prunetang


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Scout226 said:


> When has he had a knee injury and sat out? Last year he had some shoulder problems, and that's why he sat out. From what I know, his knee has never been an issue, even though what they found was their years ago.


This has nothing to do with the past and everything to do with the future. SAR has a degenerative condition, and his past doesn't determine his future.



> Not really. I've seen other trades go through because teams waive the physical. Like stated before, if SAR only lasted 4 years, it was still a good deal for NJ. SAR would have put NJ another level on the NBA ladder. Instead, they stayed about the same with signing Jackson. If the time is now, I would have signed SAR if I was NJ.


SAR isn't that valuable. SAR's potential impact on the Nets has been greatly overstated. Especially on this forum where people wanted a first round pick for him.



> I know, but his backup plan for the SAR deal was Jackson. It just seemed to happen pretty quick after they declined the SAR deal. I'm guessing because there is hardly a market for Jackson out there, so it's easy to pick that 2nd option up.


Jackson wasn't his backup plan, it was what he ended up with after exploring other options.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> 2004-05 Season - Per 48 minutes
> SAR - 23.4 PPG / 10.1 RPG / 2.9 APG
> "Big Jack" - 23.5 PPG / 9.9 RPG / 2 APG


I guess if I were calculating this stuff, while last year stats are real nice, I'd consider some career stats. It's plain to see SAR's numbers decreased in Portland because he was kind of the 5th wheel. I understand NJ fans wanting to hold onto these stats and thinking the best decision was made, but come on, Marc Jackson can't be compared to SAR.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

Scout226 said:


> When has he had a knee injury and sat out? Last year he had some shoulder problems, and that's why he sat out. From what I know, his knee has never been an issue, even though what they found was their years ago.


He hasn't, but that doesn't mean he can't have one in the future. That is what the concern over, it wasn't would SAR play this year?



Scout226 said:


> Not really. I've seen other trades go through because teams waive the physical. Like stated before, if SAR only lasted 4 years, it was still a good deal for NJ. SAR would have put NJ another level on the NBA ladder. Instead, they stayed about the same with signing Jackson. If the time is now, I would have signed SAR if I was NJ.


You mean waive physicals like how the 6ers did to get Rodney Rogers up to the game the day he was traded? Or how the Raptors waived Zos to insure they ship off Carter? Desperate circumstances. 



Scout226 said:


> I know, but his backup plan for the SAR deal was Jackson. It just seemed to happen pretty quick after they declined the SAR deal. I'm guessing because there is hardly a market for Jackson out there, so it's easy to pick that 2nd option up.


I agree, sure Thorn looked into it for more than a day...

-Petey


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

Prunetang said:


> Petey, I know you have some valid points (although I don't really agree), but your whole argument just loses all credibility when you say certain things.......
> Can you honestly tell me that you would rather have Jeff freaking Mcinnis than Shareef Abdul Rahim at the same price? I have to laugh to even think about that......pure insanity. I mean, we have seen both in action and don't even get us started on that.
> 
> Prunetang


As of yesterday the Nets had 2 deals on the table. 

TE, 1st round pick for SAR.
MLE for Jeff McInnis.

Over the weekend some assumed if the SAR deal did not happen, Thorn would use the TE to acquire McInnis and sign a big man with the MLE.

McInnis apparently will be a Net anyway.

-Petey


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Fact is we will know in about 3-4 years wether Thorn made a good decision or not, could end up being one of those haunting decisions, or could be one of those best made decisions. If Reef goes on and plays at Normal reef level of 19 and 9 or so and shows no issues with his knee at all then NJ blew it, by not paying the dude an average of about 6.5 a year. If after 4 years he begins having knee issues and can no longer play at that level then Thorn dodged a bullet. 

COnsidering the Knee has never caused issues to Reefs play I think one can assume that Thorn simply changed his mind or was trying one last time to get over on Portland by giving up nothing.

Hope Marc Jackson and a late 1st rounder are worth it to NJ.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

cpawfan said:


> This has nothing to do with the past and everything to do with the future. SAR has a degenerative condition, and his past doesn't determine his future.


What if that "degenerative condition" has been there for 10 years? Doesn't that prove something? Maybe someday it will bother him, who knows. It sounds like a big, "what if?".



> SAR isn't that valuable. SAR's potential impact on the Nets has been greatly overstated. Especially on this forum where people wanted a first round pick for him.



You have to admit a low 1st rounder for SAR is pretty cheap. I guess if I were a GM, I'd give a 1st rounder up in a weak draft for SAR. 



> Jackson wasn't his backup plan, it was what he ended up with after exploring other options.


Well, I call that a backup plan. If Thorn took a week to look for other options and then signed Jackson, I'd buy it. But since he got Jackson about 2 minutes after calling off the SAR deal, I call that his second option.


With all of this "SAR is being overvalued by us", this should show some of us fans that Damon, NVE, and DA had absolutely NO VALUE.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

Scout226 said:


> I guess if I were calculating this stuff, while last year stats are real nice, I'd consider some career stats. It's plain to see SAR's numbers decreased in Portland because he was kind of the 5th wheel. I understand NJ fans wanting to hold onto these stats and thinking the best decision was made, but come on, Marc Jackson can't be compared to SAR.


As Cpawfan noted above, The Nets already have Krstic, Jefferson, Carter. Adding SAR would had done what? He needs touches to be effective.

And while those stats are from 1 season, consider the fact the Nets only gave the 6ers the rights to swap 2nd round picks (while the Nets should be the better team / lower pick anyway), and gave the Nets 3 Million dollars when Jackson only makes 4 Million this year and has a 4 Million dollar player option next year. It's not a bad trade.

So that breaks down to 1 Million for 1 year (if he exercises his player option) or 5 Million for 2 years.

Besides, I think Thorn did this as Jackson can be traded with other players in 60 days, unlike the TE he can be packaged with other players and he can go over by 25% in salary differences.

-Petey


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

I am just saying that it must take quite a bit of rationalization and well...homerism for that matter to accept Jeff McInnis over Shareef. Who can be a near 20/10 power forward? And who is the pg who has been allowed to leave or traded from every team he has been on after a very short stint? Team cancer anyone?

It just seems like priorities are way off here.....

Prunetang


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Petey said:


> He hasn't, but that doesn't mean he can't have one in the future. That is what the concern over, it wasn't would SAR play this year?


Well, if this was a possible issue at day 1 of his career, and we 9 years into his career(the future of day 1), and everything is fine... That should be something. Yes, we can still say, "but, something might happen".. But he's proven it hasn't been an issue. Look at DA. How in the hell could that guy pass the LA physical? We all know he's broken, or he's been pulling a "VC" on us. 



> You mean waive physicals like how the 6ers did to get Rodney Rogers up to the game the day he was traded? Or how the Raptors waived Zos to insure they ship off Carter? Desperate circumstances.


I don't consider those desperate. Especially Rodney Rogers. Now the Carter deal.. It wasn't desperation, it was a dumb *** GM who was trigger happy. That or VC is a great con man.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

cpawfan said:


> It is called fiscal responsibility. Having cap wastes of 7 million dollars per for 2 seasons is a problem when you are a team that will always be close to the Tax threshold is enough of a problem. However, Thorn wasn't able to get insurance on SAR's knees so that meant the Nets would have been on the hook for the contract when it becomes a problem.
> 
> It takes a lot for an NBA team not be able to get insurance on a player


The Blazers are in a big cost-cutting mode, so I understand about fiscal responsibility. Every franchise has to balance costs versus the win/loss record. Generally, that means that team's spend more when they have a window of opportunity to compete for a title and then pull in their horns when that window passes. Given the age and condition of Kidd, that window is sliding downhill pretty quickly for the Nets. SAR could have been the piece that let them really have a shot at going deep into the playoffs...at which point his salary is more than offset by additional revenues. That's why I question Thorn being such a bean counter at this particular time.

As far as insurance goes, I wonder why it is that the Kings and other teams are now scrambling to get offers in front of SAR. Maybe they have a different agent than the one Thorn uses.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

Prunetang said:


> I am just saying that it must take quite a bit of rationalization and well...homerism for that matter to accept Jeff McInnis over Shareef. Who can be a near 20/10 power forward? And who is the pg who has been allowed to leave or traded from every team he has been on after a very short stint? Team cancer anyone?
> 
> It just seems like priorities are way off here.....
> 
> Prunetang


Dude... what are you talking about? You do realize I'm not Rod Thorn and I didn't make these moves right? *I'm just reporting what the Nets offered McInnis.* Thorn had a TE and he was going to use it. Either SAR, McInnis or WHOMEVER (who turned out to be Jackson)! THORN (not me) MADE McINNIS an offer which he accepted. This was already reported on the Blazers' forum here. During the weekend he said the TE would be used regardless, and if it meant using it on McINNIS so the MLE is free for a big man, that is what he would do.

-Petey


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

Scout226 said:


> Well, if this was a possible issue at day 1 of his career, and we 9 years into his career(the future of day 1), and everything is fine... That should be something. Yes, we can still say, "but, something might happen".. But he's proven it hasn't been an issue. Look at DA. How in the hell could that guy pass the LA physical? We all know he's broken, or he's been pulling a "VC" on us.


You do realize **** happens unexpectly right? I smoke, you smoke? Been smoking for 9 years now. Don't have cancer... should I smoke without fear of cancer? Like smoking increases the chance for cancer, this condition does increase the chance of a serious knee injury right?

As I simply put, it was the same deal as before but years 5 and 6 were team options. If SAR is whom you guys think he is at years 4, and 5 can put up 18ppg/8rpg, you don't think Thorn would had happily used the options to pay him 7M or 8M a year?

-Petey


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Petey said:


> I think Thorn can live with that considering Marc Jackson's contract only runs 2 years, 2nd year is a player option, makes about 4 Million a year, the Sixers gave the Nets 3 Million dollars and all the Nets gave up was the rights for the Sixers to demand swapping 2nd round picks next year... LOL
> 
> -Petey


Sorry, Petey, but using 48 minute figures to compare players is like using using a sprinter's time in the 100 meters to predict that he'll win the marathon. If Jackson could produce those kind of numbers over the amount of time that SAR plays, he'd still be playing for the Warriors instead of on his fourt(?) team in that past couple of years.


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

Oooh Mr. Ego here......jk.
WEll, maybe I worded myself wrong, but I was in no way implying that you are Rod Thorn. Sorry for the cunfusion...haha
And maybe you were wording yourself wrong, but not only were you "reporting" what was going on, you were backing it up and seeming to defend it. Maybe we are disagreeing about nothing..
All I am really saying is that I think accepting Jeff McInnis over Shareef is a huge HUUUUUGEEEE stepdown. Obviously you didn't make the choice, as you are not Rod Thorn. So my question to you Petey is on this basis alone. Do you agree that it is a stepdown? Do you feel that Jeff McInnis os worth more than Shareef, and would you rather have him on your team?

Thanks, and by the way, I like our little conversation here... nothing I am saying is meant to be degratory or mean spirited alright...
Prunetang


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

> As I simply put, it was the same deal as before but years 5 and 6 were team options. If SAR is whom you guys think he is at years 4, and 5 can put up 18ppg/8rpg, you don't think Thorn would had happily used the options to pay him 7M or 8M a year?


Good point.
However, I am not so sure the answer is so obvious. Thorn has a history of making cost cutting moves at strange times.....like when he wouldn't match Kenyon Martin and ended up trading him for picks after he helped the team to 2 straight finals appearances. And wasn't Kenyon younger and around 18 and 8? I understand that Kenyon's deal was probably for more money, but it is a case that would at least throw some bit of question into your assumption.

Prunetang


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

Prunetang said:


> Oooh Mr. Ego here......jk.
> WEll, maybe I worded myself wrong, but I was in no way implying that you are Rod Thorn. Sorry for the cunfusion...haha
> And maybe you were wording yourself wrong, but not only were you "reporting" what was going on, you were backing it up and seeming to defend it. Maybe we are disagreeing about nothing..
> All I am really saying is that I think accepting Jeff McInnis over Shareef is a huge HUUUUUGEEEE stepdown. Obviously you didn't make the choice, as you are not Rod Thorn. So my question to you Petey is on this basis alone. Do you agree that it is a stepdown? Do you feel that Jeff McInnis os worth more than Shareef, and would you rather have him on your team?
> ...


I don't see where I was defending the move. And I took you to calling me a homer as rude. I was stating what Thorn said he would do.

McInnis and SAR play different positions. The Nets have a MLE and TE. Their goal was to get a backup PG and PF this summer. They could have had both. There was no need to pick and still isn't as Marc Jackson appears to be whom they traded for to replace SAR, and they still will sign McInnis or that is the plan.

McInnis was making 3.5M this year, with a 3.7M player option for the following year.

SAR was going to make alot more.

With that I still would had perferred a healthy SAR.

Don't know if that was a valid option.

-Petey


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

Alright Petey, good post. Your answering the questions brings us together a bit. I guess I just don't see Marc Jackson as a viable replacemtn for Shareef. And I really don't like Jeff's game personally. Honestly, the whole thing with SAR and New Jersey is really confusing to me. I guess will all find out how SAR will hold up. If he ends up getting injured and not finishing out his career....well Thorn will actually look pretty good on this one. However, I think he could look pretty inept if Shareef proves himself.
And sorry about the homer thing. I guess I didn;t find it rude....but sorry if you did... I guess I consider myself a Blazer homer and am proud of it..haha

Well, I think we are just about done here eh.....unless you have anything else to add.....

Prunetang


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Scout226 said:


> What if that "degenerative condition" has been there for 10 years? Doesn't that prove something? Maybe someday it will bother him, who knows. It sounds like a big, "what if?".


That is the point, someday it will. The medical advice Thorn received said the chances were pretty good that it would happen in the next couple of seasons.



> You have to admit a low 1st rounder for SAR is pretty cheap. I guess if I were a GM, I'd give a 1st rounder up in a weak draft for SAR.


That is not the proper way to evaluate the deal. From the Nets perspective, they needed to weight the value of SAR vs other players available with the TE and first round pick. In most cases, SAR wasn't a first round pick better than other available players.



> Well, I call that a backup plan. If Thorn took a week to look for other options and then signed Jackson, I'd buy it. But since he got Jackson about 2 minutes after calling off the SAR deal, I call that his second option.


Do you honestly believe that Thorn wasn't exploring other deals the entire time?


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> Sorry, Petey, but using 48 minute figures to compare players is like using using a sprinter's time in the 100 meters to predict that he'll win the marathon. If Jackson could produce those kind of numbers over the amount of time that SAR plays, he'd still be playing for the Warriors instead of on his fourt(?) team in that past couple of years.


 K, and what is comparing SAR's number where he was the 3rd (2nd?) option to a situation where he would be one of 5 offensive options in the starting lineup?

-Petey


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

Prunetang said:


> Good point.
> However, I am not so sure the answer is so obvious. Thorn has a history of making cost cutting moves at strange times.....like when he wouldn't match Kenyon Martin and ended up trading him for picks after he helped the team to 2 straight finals appearances. And wasn't Kenyon younger and around 18 and 8? I understand that Kenyon's deal was probably for more money, but it is a case that would at least throw some bit of question into your assumption.
> 
> Prunetang


Thorn is only a GM, you have to blame last offseason on Ratner and his other investors. 

His season highs were 16.7ppg, 9.4rpg for all that money LOL

Sorry Cpawfan.

-Petey


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

e_blazer1 said:


> The Blazers are in a big cost-cutting mode, so I understand about fiscal responsibility. Every franchise has to balance costs versus the win/loss record. Generally, that means that team's spend more when they have a window of opportunity to compete for a title and then pull in their horns when that window passes. Given the age and condition of Kidd, that window is sliding downhill pretty quickly for the Nets. SAR could have been the piece that let them really have a shot at going deep into the playoffs...at which point his salary is more than offset by additional revenues. That's why I question Thorn being such a bean counter at this particular time.


I don't believe SAR would have helped the Nets that much. Even Thorn who really wanted him, didn't believe that SAR alone was enough to make the Nets a championship team.

At the end of the day, smart teams don't hurt their long term cap situation for cogs and all SAR would be to the Nets is a cog.




> As far as insurance goes, I wonder why it is that the Kings and other teams are now scrambling to get offers in front of SAR. Maybe they have a different agent than the one Thorn uses.


Well, the owners of the Kings are gamblers by trade :bsmile:


----------



## casebeck22 (Jul 20, 2005)

They are better off without him. Turst me.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Why should SAR trust NJ now? If I was SAR, I would look at the contract as a 4 yr contract, and those option years would probably never happen.


If the option years aren't picked up, it's no one's fault but Shareef's. Produce or don't get paid, pretty simple.



> When has he had a knee injury and sat out? Last year he had some shoulder problems, and that's why he sat out. From what I know, his knee has never been an issue, even though what they found was their years ago.


Then what's he got to worry about?! He still has a 6 year contract on the table if his health isn't an issue. His response to the new deal implies he doesn't expect to be productive in 4 years, which is a major red flag if you're NJ management.

Some of you think Shareef is entitled to a big contract (but only in so much as it benefits us in a S&T, as far as I can tell), but what's he done to deserve it? He's been paid like a superstar, but his impact on the win-loss column has been roughly that of a minimum wage scrub.



> 2004-05 Season - Per 48 minutes
> SAR - 23.4 PPG / 10.1 RPG / 2.9 APG
> "Big Jack" - 23.5 PPG / 9.9 RPG / 2 APG


Very important stat there. Jackson is not the afterthought many of you are making him out to be. He's likely just as productive as Shareef and a better fit, just as I mentioned their other options like Hunter and Songalia are.



> I guess if I were calculating this stuff, while last year stats are real nice, I'd consider some career stats. It's plain to see SAR's numbers decreased in Portland because he was kind of the 5th wheel.


Jackson has been a productive big man ever since his Golden State days as an old-ish rookie...



> I am just saying that it must take quite a bit of rationalization and well...homerism for that matter to accept Jeff McInnis over Shareef.


I don't understand where McInnis keeps entering this discussion... Isn't it Shareef vs. Marc Jackson, or did I miss something? McInnis is a separate deal.

Too many other posts in between to respond to in detail...

Dan


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

dkap said:


> If the option years aren't picked up, it's no one's fault but Shareef's. Produce or don't get paid, pretty simple.


Not true! SAR can continue to put up 18/8 for the four years, but if the Nets strike gold in the draft and get a good PF in next seasons draft, groom him for three seasons behind SAR and then cut SAR in a youth movement, then what? 

SAR is screwed even if he does produce. And Thorn will be drafting a PF, because their is a youth movement on the horizon for the Nets in 3-4 years as that is how long Kidd and Carter will most likely be productive. 

Come on, you know this, you can see it for yourself, and you may be lying to yourself but not us. Hate SAR and Nash all you want, but my scenario is easy to envision.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

cpawfan said:


> I don't believe SAR would have helped the Nets that much. Even Thorn who really wanted him, didn't believe that SAR alone was enough to make the Nets a championship team.
> 
> At the end of the day, smart teams don't hurt their long term cap situation for cogs and all SAR would be to the Nets is a cog.


I guess we'll never find out for sure how good the Nets would have been with SAR, but I'm pretty sure that we'll find out just how mediocre they're going to be with Jackson. Maybe Shareef alone wouldn't have been the answer to moving the Nets into title contention, but they certainly would have gone deeper and been more exciting with him than with Marc Jackson at PF.




> Well, the owners of the Kings are gamblers by trade :bsmile:


True.

And Thorn's not. :biggrin:


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> SAR isn't that valuable. SAR's potential impact on the Nets has been greatly overstated. Especially on this forum where people wanted a first round pick for him.


We GOT a first-round pick for him, plus a trade exception, until the deal fell through.

As for SAR's potential impact on the Nets, just ask Rod Thorn. He said they had SAR at the top of their list of best free agents.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

BIG Q said:


> *Not true! SAR can continue to put up 18/8 for the four years, but if the Nets strike gold in the draft and get a good PF in next seasons draft, groom him for three seasons behind SAR and then cut SAR in a youth movement, then what?
> 
> SAR is screwed even if he does produce. And Thorn will be drafting a PF, because their is a youth movement on the horizon for the Nets in 3-4 years as that is how long Kidd and Carter will most likely be productive.
> 
> Come on, you know this, you can see it for yourself, and you may be lying to yourself but not us. Hate SAR and Nash all you want, but my scenario is easy to envision.*


Easy to envision... well it's easy to find the flaw. If Thorn were to draft a younger PF, which is very possible, BUT SAR puts up the 18/8 you say, teams will bend over backwards to pick him up at that rate for 2 years... IF he is healthy.

-Petey


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Petey said:


> K, and what is comparing SAR's number where he was the 3rd (2nd?) option to a situation where he would be one of 5 offensive options in the starting lineup?
> 
> -Petey


I thought we were comparing Shareef with Jackson, not trying to figure out what their stats in a Nets lineup might have been.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

cpawfan said:


> I don't believe SAR would have helped the Nets that much. Even Thorn who really wanted him, didn't believe that SAR alone was enough to make the Nets a championship team.


What player available for $5 mil/year singlehandedly turns an 8th seed in the EC into a champion? Nobody, don't say that as if it means something.



> At the end of the day, smart teams don't hurt their long term cap situation for cogs and all SAR would be to the Nets is a cog.


If Rahim, a highly successful inside scoring PF on a team lacking inside presence, is a cog, then what does that make Jackson? A screw? A splinter?

It's cool that people have justified the move, but don't pretend like the Nets didn't lose out - or that Rahim didn't get pretty screwed in the deal.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

e_blazer1 said:


> True.
> 
> And Thorn's not. :biggrin:


Actually, Thorn is a big gambler on players with mental questions, just not physical ones. He took Kidd after the domestic abuse problems, he took Vince after he crapped on the Raptors, he is signing McInnis, he went after Eddie Griffin after Houston released him, etc.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> I thought we were comparing Shareef with Jackson, not trying to figure out what their stats in a Nets lineup might have been.


You are trying to say SAR will be a better player then Jackson for the Nets? Yes SAR is the more established if not superior player. But is the difference they bring worth the number of years on the contracts and vast difference in dollar amounts?

What they pay Jackson for 2 years, that is if he doesn't opt out, is what they would had paid SAR in his 1st.

-Petey


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> We GOT a first-round pick for him, plus a trade exception, until the deal fell through.
> 
> As for SAR's potential impact on the Nets, just ask Rod Thorn. He said they had SAR at the top of their list of best free agents.


Yeah but he also had Swift ranked second. I'm actually not a believer in Thorn's ability to identify and land the proper free agents. I find his best skills to be in making trades and looking at the long term picture of the team.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Petey said:


> You are trying to say SAR will be a better player then Jackson for the Nets? Yes SAR is the more established if not superior player. But is the difference they bring worth the number of years on the contracts and vast difference in dollar amounts?
> 
> What they pay Jackson for 2 years, that is if he doesn't opt out, is what they would had paid SAR in his 1st.
> 
> -Petey


Oh come on, Petey. You were doing verbal backflips on the Nets board when it looked like they were getting a top PF for a bargain basement price. I understand sticking up for your management, but no matter how you spin it, the Nets aren't going to be nearly as good with a journeyman player like Jackson at PF as they would have been with Shareef. And it's not as though Jason Kidd's going to be near the top of his game for many more seasons.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> What player available for $5 mil/year singlehandedly turns an 8th seed in the EC into a champion? Nobody, don't say that as if it means something.


Well, the Nets were a tattered squad last season. It was amazing that they even made the playoffs. Kidd, RJ, Vince & Krstic is more than enough to win the Atlantic. This isn't a normal 8th seed.



> If Rahim, a highly successful inside scoring PF on a team lacking inside presence, is a cog, then what does that make Jackson? A screw? A splinter?
> 
> It's cool that people have justified the move, but don't pretend like the Nets didn't lose out - or that Rahim didn't get pretty screwed in the deal.


Considering that I never want the Nets to go after SAR, I'm not justifying anything. As I said, SAR would have only been a cog. Yes a cog with more talent than Jackson, but not one that would contribute much more. This is a double win for the Nets in that they keep their first round pick and the time frame of this process kept Thorn for acquiring Swift.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> Oh come on, Petey. You were doing verbal backflips on the Nets board when it looked like they were getting a top PF for a bargain basement price. I understand sticking up for your management, but no matter how you spin it, the Nets aren't going to be nearly as good with a journeyman player like Jackson at PF as they would have been with Shareef. And it's not as though Jason Kidd's going to be near the top of his game for many more seasons.


 I wanted SAR, still do, and most likely will until the season starts... maybe a bit after that, but I can't change anything, and for what it's worth, Jackson at his price is not a bad deal, that was my point. And it was a pretty good deal if you consider the circumstances it came under with how many hours before the TE expires?

-Petey


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

cpawfan said:


> Well, the Nets were a tattered squad last season. It was amazing that they even made the playoffs. Kidd, RJ, Vince & Krstic is more than enough to win the Atlantic.


Guess we'll see, won't we... 



> This isn't a normal 8th seed.


Whatever, so they're a SUPER 8th seed. Are you saying that there is/was a player available at $5 mil/year that could have made them a champion? 

Who then?

Stomile Swift?
Damon Stoudamire?
Jerome James?
Keyon Dooling?

These are the types of players that $5 mil/year bought this year. Clearly Rahim is much better than all of these players - and therefore is an incredible bargain at that price for any number of years. And that's what everybody has been saying for however long it has been that this deal was being negotiated - incredible bargain. Now, I'm hearing from NJ fans that he would have been overpaid and wouldn't have added that much.

Whatever, this is just silly.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Whatever, so they're a SUPER 8th seed. Are you saying that there is/was a player available at $5 mil/year that could have made them a champion?


I guess I wasn't clear enough. I didn't expect any player the Nets added this summer to make them a champion. I always viewed this as the summer to add key depth to continue progressing in the playoffs.



> Who then?
> 
> Stomile Swift?
> Damon Stoudamire?
> ...


Yes, a healthy SAR is a value at that price and that was the only thing I liked about the deal prior to the revelations about his knee. However, I still don't believe that he would have had much of an impact.

Additionally, I wouldn't have considered any of the 4 players you listed.



> Now, I'm hearing from NJ fans that he would have been overpaid and wouldn't have added that much.
> 
> Whatever, this is just silly.


You are hearing from this Nets fan that was always against acquiring SAR that he is very happy the deal fell apart. There are plenty of other Nets fans are unhappy about it.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

cpawfan said:


> Do you honestly believe that Thorn wasn't exploring other deals the entire time?



Nope. I'm sure he was. I'm guessing it was set up before they rescinded the SAR deal. JMO, but I think Thorn went into the whole thing trying to get SAR cheaper. He probably thought if he could string SAR on long enough, where other options in FA were diminishing, he might get SAR to change his demands. If signing Marc is going to save more money and he thinks it's a better fit, great. I'm just saying if I was SAR, I'd be a little pissed. This hinges on bad business. Yes, everything goes in business, but if you screw over enough people, it will come back to get ya..


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Scout226 said:


> Nope. I'm sure he was. I'm guessing it was set up before they rescinded the SAR deal. JMO, but I think Thorn went into the whole thing trying to get SAR cheaper. He probably thought if he could string SAR on long enough, where other options in FA were diminishing, he might get SAR to change his demands. If signing Marc is going to save more money and he thinks it's a better fit, great. I'm just saying if I was SAR, I'd be a little pissed. This hinges on bad business. Yes, everything goes in business, but if you screw over enough people, it will come back to get ya..


Based upon the way Thorn went after SAR, I don't believe that he was trying to get him cheaper. Once Thorn received the medical report, he was trying to get SAR to allow team options on the last 2 years of the contract so that if the knee became a problem, he would be off the cap the same time as Kidd's max deal. If SAR performed, Thorn would have easily picked it up.

This entire process was about risk management and not selling out the future for the present.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

cpawfan said:


> If SAR performed, Thorn would have easily picked it up.


But that would still be a risk and not a gaurantee. If Kidds' knee doesn't hold out and VC's mystery injuries came back and NJ is in salary cap problem, I don't see them having any problems not picking up the option for SAR, even if he was performing. I think that's a legitimate thing to think of. Kidd has probably more chance of having knee issues than SAR does. If he goes down, so does any championship hopes. If it came time, SAR would be one of the first one cut.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Scout226 said:


> But that would still be a risk and not a gaurantee. If Kidds' knee doesn't hold out and VC's mystery injuries came back and NJ is in salary cap problem, I don't see them having any problems not picking up the option for SAR, even if he was performing. I think that's a legitimate thing to think of. Kidd has probably more chance of having knee issues than SAR does. If he goes down, so does any championship hopes. If it came time, SAR would be one of the first one cut.


Considering that 4 years of SAR would be over the same time Kidd's contract is up, I don't understand your point.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

Scout226 said:


> But that would still be a risk and not a gaurantee. If Kidds' knee doesn't hold out and VC's mystery injuries came back and NJ is in salary cap problem, I don't see them having any problems not picking up the option for SAR, even if he was performing. I think that's a legitimate thing to think of. Kidd has probably more chance of having knee issues than SAR does. If he goes down, so does any championship hopes. If it came time, SAR would be one of the first one cut.


 What don't Blazer fans get?

In that situation if Kidd goes down and the Nets want to cut salary, if healthy at 7/8 Million dollars if SAR puts up 18/8, there will be someone that wants him. If he's not healthy, well then the report would be right on.

-Petey


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Petey said:


> Easy to envision... well it's easy to find the flaw. If Thorn were to draft a younger PF, which is very possible, BUT SAR puts up the 18/8 you say, teams will bend over backwards to pick him up at that rate for 2 years... IF he is healthy.
> 
> -Petey


Not exactly. Look, through luck Portland had Rasheed, Brian Grant and Jermaine Oneal all at the same time. This could happen in NJ. Once they are over loaded at a position teams do not offer as much (think our SF situation). And it should be the Nets bending over backwards for him, not other teams as they are the ones courting him.

If the Nets really wanted SAR they should have proposed restructuring the deal so that if he did not miss games due to knee injuries then year 5 and then year 6 would automatically be picked up. To my knowledge this was never offered. Why not? Because Thorn knows at the end of year 4 they will be rebuilding because of Kidd and Carter naturally on the decline. And Thorn also did not, under any circumstances want to give up the FRDP to Nash. This was his feable attempt to get out of it. Very sad and very bush league.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

It has become painfully apparent that Petey is the only one to blame in this issue.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

cpawfan said:


> Considering that 4 years of SAR would be over the same time Kidd's contract is up, I don't understand your point.



Sorry, I looked over Kidds contract ending after 4 years. If there wasn't a nice replacement for Kidd and the window was closed, SAR would be let go probably and miss out on the last two years. 

I just wanted to point out, NBA players want that gauranteed money. 6 yrs with the last two at a team option does not equal 6 yrs gauranteed.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Not true! SAR can continue to put up 18/8 for the four years, but if the Nets strike gold in the draft and get a good PF in next seasons draft, groom him for three seasons behind SAR and then cut SAR in a youth movement, then what?


If all Shareef does is rack up points and rebounds, then yeah, he may not be kept around after 4 years. If he impacts the team positively, then I'd be shocked if they didn't keep him at an average salary for years 5 and 6, even in a backup/mentoring roll, regardless of who they draft between now and then. I repeat, if Shareef can't produce the goods to get picked up in 4 years, then he doesn't deserve a 6 year guaranteed contract now.



> It has become painfully apparent that Petey is the only one to blame in this issue.


I think I deserve some credit, too. 

Dan


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Petey said:


> What don't Blazer fans get?



I would have to follow that up with another question. What don't Nets fans get? :biggrin:


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Scout226 said:


> I would have to follow that up with another question. What don't Nets fans get? :biggrin:


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I think that it comes down to *cold feet*. I think that New Jersey is a team that has a small window to make some noise and that window is going to close over the next few years with Kidd & Carter on the decline. I can see why New Jersey didn't want to go past 4 years on the deal, but I can also see Rahim's reasons for say no to the deal. Still at a bargin the contract would have never been in the Brian Grant range of holding the Nets back from a younger stud in the future.

Jackson isn't going to produce near what Rahim would have given the Nets and I think if I was Thorn I would have rolled the dice on Rahim. This deal has better odds than what he gave Zo.

Oh yeah, don't forget that Petey more than likely had something to do with the trade falling apart too! There really isn't any reason to sling mud on fault here, I say it is all about *cold feet*. 

In this deal, everyone (Rahim, New Jersey, Portland, Petey) loses! :yes:


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

HOWIE said:


> There really isn't any reason to sling mud on fault here, I say it is all about *cold feet*.


Where in lies the "rub." There was a signed contract, and reports say that the doctors that reviewed the med records said there was no worries with the knees. Cold feet yes, it is obvious now that we know that Thorn both tried getting the FRDP back from Nash and also tried shortening the years an SAR's deal that it had nothing to do with the "injuries." I can not believe the players association is not raising hell on this one.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

BIG Q said:


> Where in lies the "rub." There was a signed contract, and reports say that the doctors that reviewed the med records said there was no worries with the knees. Cold feet yes, it is obvious now that we know that Thorn both tried getting the FRDP back from Nash and also tried shortening the years an SAR's deal that it had nothing to do with the "injuries." I can not believe the players association is not raising hell on this one.


Which reports are saying that the doctors had no worries? Oh, you mean the ones put out by Goodwin?

I normally don't side with Thorn, but I have no faith that there is any honesty to anything Goodwin does.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Schilly said:


>


Hey, just because Petey has problems, don't go lumping the rest of the Nets fans in with him


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

cpawfan said:


> Hey, just because Petey has problems, don't go lumping the rest of the Nets fans in with him


 Nice one cpaw.. Classic.. :biggrin:


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

All of this debate is moot. We're arguing over something that could or could not happen 3-4 years from now. That's just stupid. 

It's quite simple, what Thorn did was understandable, but that doesn't make it ok. It was underhanded and I think everyone knows it. You don't go back on a deal. It will hurt his reputation, much the same way Carlos Boozer and his agent will have a bad rep from this point on as well.

As far as what Shareef could have done for the Nets, I'm not as sold on him as some of you are. Honestly, I think he's a sub-par All-Star. I think he needs a lot of touches in order to get his points. From watching Reef over the course of a season and a half, I see a guy who will get 17-20 points for you, but he'll need you to run plays for every one of those shots.

While some guys like Zach will score in bunches, Reef has to grind his points out. This is why his production dropped so much in Portland. He wasn't getting the same amount of time or shots as he did in Atlanta or Vancouver. 

Abdur-Rahim is not the kind of guy who can get points on his own. He needs plays run for him. As stated before, that would have been hard to do with Carter and Richard Jefferson also calling for the ball. 

Overall, I think he was a bargain at the price the Nets were going to pay, but I don't think he was going to be nearly as influential as some people thought. 

I think in the end everyone loses on this one. The Blazers, the Nets, and of course Reef.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Petey is right that it was about risk management, but he seemed not to be cognizant of the idea that because of the supposedly sincere efforts from the Nets, SAR tied up much of his "opportunity window" to get the best contract for himself (reportedly including a $47-48 million offer from the Bucks). There is nothing that says that the Nets have the "right" to sway risk management in their favor. It is all about negotiations, and I do think that the Nets are guilty of underhanded tactics in this negotiation.

It is really uncertain how much value SAR will add to the team, however this can be said about any player anytime. It is always a judgement call, and always subjective. Errors will always be made, in both directions. My guess would be that SAR would be more helpful to the Nets than Jackson will be. He could well be the difference in going 1 round futher in the playoffs. How much is that worth? I have no real idea in terms of dollars, but if it were one round further for 2-3 years, I expect that the revenue might cover the cost difference between Jackson and SAR.

One point that seemed to be missing in the discussion was the "asset" value that SAR would have versus that of Jackson. Many Blazer fans seem to think that the Nets would be getting SAR at a very good price. If so, SAR could have become a valuable element in a future trade by the Nets to better their team. I don't think that Jackson has nearly the same asset value.

I definitely think that all parties lost in this, but in the short run SAR seemingly lost the most. I hope that he ends up getting on a team that goes further in the playoffs than the Nets. The Nets seem pretty fragile to me, and I think it quite likely that injuries will keep the team from winning as much as they might otherwise have in the next 2-3 years.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I would have to follow that up with another question. What don't Nets fans get?


Shareef. Losing. Good for them.



> Which reports are saying that the doctors had no worries? Oh, you mean the ones put out by Goodwin?
> 
> I normally don't side with Thorn, but I have no faith that there is any honesty to anything Goodwin does.


Exactly. Goodwin's credibility is somewhere out of sight on the negative side of the scale.



> It's quite simple, what Thorn did was understandable, but that doesn't make it ok. It was underhanded and I think everyone knows it. You don't go back on a deal.


The deal was contingent on passing a physical, which didn't happen, so Thorn didn't go back on anything. He offered a new deal that took the medical condition into account and Shareef didn't like it, which isn't exactly the same thing.



> While some guys like Zach will score in bunches, Reef has to grind his points out. This is why his production dropped so much in Portland.


And why his presence would kill an up-tempo team like NJ.

Dan


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

dkap said:


> The deal was contingent on passing a physical, which didn't happen, so Thorn didn't go back on anything. He offered a new deal that took the medical condition into account and Shareef didn't like it, which isn't exactly the same thing.
> 
> Dan


They found something that everyone already knew about and has been there since Reef came into the league. It's not like the scar tissue is new. It's obvious Thorn used it as an excuse to get out of the deal. Reef is fit to play. That's the whole point of a physical.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

A physical is also meant to uncover long-term concerns. The knee problem was presented as a degenerative condition, so Shareef's ability to play now is not at all in contradiction to the concern with 5+ years down the road.

If, as you say, everyone knew about the condition already, then why would it take the physical for Thorn to want to get out of the deal??? He presumably knew about the condition ahead of time... Doesn't it make sense there was more to it than what everyone already knew about from HS?

Dan


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Why don't you think it's possible that Thorn had buyers remorse and wanted to use this to leverage SAR into a cheaper deal? That seems much more plausible to me.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Why would he? It's a player he's been pursuing for a while and at a price that most seem to think is a steal, so why would Thorn be second guessing things?

The whole situation is sketchy, yes, but none of the NJ conspiracy theories make a shred of sense. Until proven otherwise, the blame has to be on Goodwin, who's got a track record of making a mockery of anything he weighs in on.

Dan


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Dkap, I don't understand your logic. It is sketchy, but if there is very little information, is it not better to not put any blame?


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> if there is very little information, is it not better to not put any blame?


Then what's the point of this entire thread?

Dan


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

dkap said:


> Why would he? It's a player he's been pursuing for a while and at a price that most seem to think is a steal, so why would Thorn be second guessing things?
> 
> The whole situation is sketchy, yes, but none of the NJ conspiracy theories make a shred of sense. Until proven otherwise, the blame has to be on Goodwin, who's got a track record of making a mockery of anything he weighs in on.
> 
> Dan


Because Thorn wanted to get his FRDP back from John Nash. He never wanted to give it up, and when he did his ego took a big hit. 

Thorn figured by bringing up this very weak knee injury crap he could go to Nash, scream "dammaged goods," and then Nash would quake in his boots and agree to a SRDP instead because that is better than nothing, which was the logical threat because Thorn was telling Nash he would call the deal off if Nash did not yield. 

When Nash did not budge, Thorn had to turn his sights to SAR because he had created a sh** storm by questioning SAR's health publicly when he was just trying to rip off Nash. Thorn knew he was on shaky ground trying to change the deal after the contract had been signed. It was all about him trying to strong-arm John Nash, and when that failed he had to try to save face by getting SAR even cheaper. When that failed he *HAD* to do something or every fan and reporter would be all over him.

My other belief is that Thorn or Rattner decided after they signed the contract that they did not want SAR for longer than the four years they were trying to change the deal to. This would be because they realized the Kidd/Carter championship window would be closed in four years and a rebuild would be under way with two extra years of an old SAR on the books.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Because Thorn wanted to get his FRDP back from John Nash. He never wanted to give it up, and when he did his ego took a big hit.
> 
> Thorn figured by bringing up this very weak knee injury crap he could go to Nash, scream "dammaged goods," and then Nash would quake in his boots and agree to a SRDP instead because that is better than nothing, which was the logical threat because Thorn was telling Nash he would call the deal off if Nash did not yield.


That's giving Thorn extremely little credit. From what I can tell, he's one of the more shrewd GM's in the game and would not have made such a blatantly obvious move/mistake.



> My other belief is that Thorn or Rattner decided after they signed the contract that they did not want SAR for longer than the four years they were trying to change the deal to. This would be because they realized the Kidd/Carter championship window would be closed in four years and a rebuild would be under way with two extra years of an old SAR on the books.


Again, that would have been extremely obvious ahead of time. It's not like Shareef was a last minute target acquisition for them.

Dan


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

dkap said:


> That's giving Thorn extremely little credit. From what I can tell, he's one of the more shrewd GM's in the game and would not have made such a blatantly obvious move/mistake.
> 
> 
> Again, that would have been extremely obvious ahead of time. It's not like Shareef was a last minute target acquisition for them.
> ...


But that is where Thorn has been getting into hot water. He has been rather obvious. When this crap about the deal being on hold first came out he was rather cavalier about it. He was discussing the "findings" of the physical prior to anything being finalized. 

Then he got real quiet about it. I envisioned the Nets legal dept. telling him to shut his trap. Remember how jockular he was telling everyone he would never give up a FRDP for SAR? He has been very obvious in his dealings, rather arrogant. I think he did get warned by the Nets to calm down because he was being transparent.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> But that is where Thorn has been getting into hot water. He has been rather obvious.


Only if you are convinced he's up to no good regardless of the evidence to the contrary... He postured initially to keep the pick, but he later conceeded and made no mention of it, which is how just about every bargaining session I'm aware of proceeds. I'm not aware of any precedent for findings of failed physicals to be kept private... Sean Elliott?

Dan


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

HOWIE said:


> I think that it comes down to *cold feet*.


Good points here Howie, just want to make one point...




> I think that New Jersey is a team that has a small window to make some noise and that window is going to close over the next few years with Kidd & Carter on the decline.


I hadn't heard anything about any sort of window for NJ until they were reportedly acquiring Rahim. When the idea was going around that NJ was adding Rahim, people were starting to put them up there with the Heat, Pacers and Pistons as a dangerous EC team. Without Rahim (or a player of his caliber), I think the greatest concern is not that their window would close too soon, rather that it would never open in the first place.

IMO, Rahim would have given them the firepower to put them over the top as an elite offensive team... great point guard - too many weapons to defend. If they had simply played average defense (which is just about effort), then I think they could have been a contender.

But insert Mark Jackson and suddenly they are neither an elite offensive or defensive team. They'll probably make the playoffs, but have they added enough to avoid getting swept by the Heat again? I don't think they have - certainly not enough to contend with the Heat, Pistons or Pacers...


----------



## coolblue (Apr 28, 2005)

Can we use a little common sense here for just one minute.

Last week Rod Thorn was every Nets fan hero for the trade of SAR at such a great price. Even most sport publications reported it as one of the better trades of the season. Most people on bbb.net thought it was a great deal as well. Rod has also been working overtime time to recruit SAR for over a year now, with a full court press for the last month.

But right after all his hard work has been completed and he actually got the man at what most people agree is a steal. And by his own admission brings us back to the elite Status in the NBA. 

He suddenly says to himself..........

Self.... I don't think I want SAR here any more. Lets make up something about his knee on the physical so we can use the TE on Marc Jackson instead. Who cares that all the Nets fans will think I lost my mind and that Jackson is half the player SAR is. Let the media will have a field day with this as long as I get to screw over John Nash out of that 1st round pick I gave up.  

http://www.nba.com/nets/features/jackson_conference.html

If you look at the recap from Thorns press conference, he says that he is not permitted to dicuss players injuries. So everyone assuming that its only because of scar tissue isnt necessary acurrate. The easy thing for Rod to do would be go through with the trade and have everyone be happy. Because you cant tell me that Rod did not realize the **** storm he would go through when he announced the deal was not going to happen. Its pretty obvious that he made the decison he had to make not the one he wanted to.

just my :twocents: 

BTW can someone provide me with a link to where they said when Rod wanted to put options on the 5 and 6th year *AND that portland would not be getting the first round pick as well*? I have never seen that anywhere.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

coolblue said:


> BTW can someone provide me with a link to where they said when Rod wanted to put options on the 5 and 6th year that portland would not be getting the first round pick as well? I have never seen that anywhere.





> It was no decision at all, in fact, the free agent will tell you. When the Nets came back with a reduced contract offer -- a four-year deal valued at $22.7 million, with *two more years at the team's option* -- Abdur-Rahim never flinched. No, thanks, he said.



NJ.com 

I myself haven't seen anything for asking for the pick back, but I am sure that if it was put on the internet that someone can find it......this is all moot for me and I don't want to look for it......yeah I'm lazy, I'll admit it. :biggrin:


----------



## coolblue (Apr 28, 2005)

HOWIE said:


> NJ.com
> 
> I myself haven't seen anything for asking for the pick back, but I am sure that if it was put on the internet that someone can find it......this is all moot for me and I don't want to look for it......yeah I'm lazy, I'll admit it. :biggrin:


I was most interested in taking the pick back part.

Thanks


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

coolblue said:


> BTW can someone provide me with a link to where they said when Rod wanted to put options on the 5 and 6th year *AND that portland would not be getting the first round pick as well*? I have never seen that anywhere.


I am sure you are asking per a previous post of mine. I personally saw the bit about Thorn trying to get the FRDP back on a NJ site the day Thorn officially killed the deal.

As for the options for years 5 and 6, that is a hypothetical I threw out. I asked why if Thorn was ok with SAR for four years, why would he not do a deal where year 5 and 6 are guaranteed automatically if SAR does not miss games due to the "injury" that Thorn is concerned with? 

*I have not seen anything where this was offered. In my mind this goes to the heart of the matter that shows Thorn really had ulterior motives and just did not want SAR past 4 years come hell or high water. He did nothing to let SAR "earn" years 5 and 6 simply by staying healthy.*

I do not see why others do not see this point or are glossing over it. This ommission on Thorns part is the "bloody glove" that shows me this entire thing is a sham perpetrated by Thorn. Please try to convice me otherwise, anybody. This is not a conspiracy theory. Thorn's own inactions is all the proof needed. He was circumventing a signed contract.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> As for the options for years 5 and 6, that is a hypothetical I threw out. I asked why if Thorn was ok with SAR for four years, why would he not do a deal where year 5 and 6 are guaranteed automatically if SAR does not miss games due to the "injury" that Thorn is concerned with?
> 
> I have not seen anything where this was offered. In my mind this goes to the heart of the matter that shows Thorn really had ulterior motives and just did not want SAR past 4 years come hell or high water. He did nothing to let SAR "earn" years 5 and 6 simply by staying healthy.


Where's the precedent for such a guaranteed option? Since I've never heard of it being done, your suggesting it on a message board and expecting Thorn to come to the same conclusion is borderline ludicrous. Even worse is saying he has ulterior motives because he didn't miraculously make the offer.

Dan


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

NetIncome said:


> Link
> 
> If the Nets had added Marc Jackson and Shareef Abdur-Rahim to their roster, Jersey fans would have really had something to shout about. But adding Jackson by himself leads me to just one conclusion:
> Forget what I said a few weeks ago about a Heat-Nets Eastern Conference final.
> ...


Thread in the Nets' Forum w/ the same discussion.

-Petey


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

dkap said:


> Where's the precedent for such a guaranteed option? Since I've never heard of it being done, your suggesting it on a message board and expecting Thorn to come to the same conclusion is borderline ludicrous. Even worse is saying he has ulterior motives because he didn't miraculously make the offer.
> 
> Dan


*You have really never heard if incentive clauses an extending contracts?* They are part of negotiations. Just like Rubens trade kicker. It is not a precedent. There is nothing novel about this. I did not just think up a new negotiation tactic. Players have incentives written into their deals all of the time. How about the bonus for making the all star team, winning awards, etc... Come on, you probably can think of a few. See Larry ****, Q 48, 49,59.

I did err when I said an option for year 5, and then year 6. It can only be extended once, so if incentives are reached then years 5 and 6 could be picked up.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Ok people. Let's all move on.. 

Obviously SAR/Goodwin will have their doctors saying one thing, and the Nets doctors will say something different. It's like having two kids and them blaming each other.

Still, why even offer SAR a deal if they are convinced his knee is already bad?

Oh well. Let's move onto the next deal for SAR


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Scout226 said:


> Ok people. Let's all move on..
> 
> Obviously SAR/Goodwin will have their doctors saying one thing, and the Nets doctors will say something different. It's like having two kids and them blaming each other.
> 
> ...


Agreed


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> You have really never heard if incentive clauses an extending contracts? They are part of negotiations. Just like Rubens trade kicker. It is not a precedent. There is nothing novel about this. I did not just think up a new negotiation tactic. Players have incentives written into their deals all of the time. How about the bonus for making the all star team, winning awards, etc... Come on, you probably can think of a few. See Larry ****, Q 48, 49,59.


How's that have anything to do with what you said previously?

"As for the options for years 5 and 6, that is a hypothetical I threw out. I asked why if Thorn was ok with SAR for four years, why would he not do a deal where year 5 and 6 are guaranteed automatically if SAR does not miss games due to the "injury" that Thorn is concerned with?"

I asked where the precedent is for a _guaranteed option_, which you stated Thorn had "ulterior motives" for not offering, and since you completely side stepped the question, I assume there is none... Trade kickers and monetary bonuses are totally different animals.



> Still, why even offer SAR a deal if they are convinced his knee is already bad?


That's an easy one. They think it's good enough now and for the next couple years, but it's too uncertain beyond that. What's so hard to understand there? Shareef can obviously play _right now_, based on the just completed season.

Dan


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Thanks for the great discussion here folks, I'm trying to straighten it all out. 

So the question is - did Thorn spike the Abdur-Rahim trade because he....

a.) was genuinely concerned about the forward's knee due to the physical? 

b.) had second thoughts? 

c.) felt all along that he was getting screwed by the Blazers and that bringing up the physical would allow him to play hardball and maybe get SAR cheaper? 

If the answer is either b or c (or if there's even a remote possibility that it's b or c), David Stern should investigate. Any time a trade is voided due to problems at a physical for a player who's been healthy, there ought to be some kind of investigation. 

Personally, I agree with BIG Q. If Thorn were primarily interested in the health of the knee, he should have structured the contract such that the last two years became "option years" if he missed more than a certain percentage of games of the 3rd and 4th seasons. However, that's the kind of condition that might get the union concerned about - it's not a condition I've heard about previously and it might be something older players would be uncomfortable seeing start.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> If Thorn were primarily interested in the health of the knee, he should have structured the contract such that the last two years became "option years" if he missed more than a certain percentage of games of the 3rd and 4th seasons.


That's not far from what he did offer: 4 years guaranteed and a 2 year team option. As has been said, it's silly to think the team wouldn't pick up those final 2 years if Shareef's health holds up, because he'd still be very reasonably priced at that point. It isn't strictly a guarantee, but I've never heard of one in that situation.

Dan


----------



## jwhoops11 (Nov 26, 2003)

Public Defender said:


> Personally, I agree with BIG Q. If Thorn were primarily interested in the health of the knee, he should have structured the contract such that the last two years became "option years" if he missed more than a certain percentage of games of the 3rd and 4th seasons. However, that's the kind of condition that might get the union concerned about - it's not a condition I've heard about previously and it might be something older players would be uncomfortable seeing start.


Honestly, if Thorn was truely only concerned about the health of the knee, I think he'd have walked away totally, and not offered the new contract to Shareef. 

If the knee was such an issue, why offer anything? There's certainly no guarantee that an injured knee would hold up 4 years, much less the first 2 minutes he played as a Net.

If Thorn would have voided the deal and walked, then I'd have no issue with what went on. But, then to turn around and offer 4 guaranteed years to a player labled damaged goods by his physical, it seems realy fishy to me.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

jwhoops11 said:


> Honestly, if Thorn was truely only concerned about the health of the knee, I think he'd have walked away totally, and not offered the new contract to Shareef.
> 
> If the knee was such an issue, why offer anything? There's certainly no guarantee that an injured knee would hold up 4 years, much less the first 2 minutes he played as a Net.
> 
> If Thorn would have voided the deal and walked, then I'd have no issue with what went on. But, then to turn around and offer 4 guaranteed years to a player labled damaged goods by his physical, it seems realy fishy to me.


 Understandable point. I think it has something to do with Thorn's nature, he appears to be a calculated risk taker.

Looking at some of his moves as the Nets GM:

* Traded a younger, and much longer contracted Marbury for Kidd after his wife beating incident and he only had 2 years left on his contract.

* Signing Zo to a 4 year MLE deal. This supposedly helped resign Kidd, and as West and Cuban said after offering the same deal, if he could play 2 of those years he is worth the contract as the breaks down to 10 million per season.

* Signing Griffin after he was released for his battery incident too. Then turning around and releasing him after 1 incident in a wedding at a hotel he was staying at while rehabbing in NJ.

* Looking into the deal where Wood was on the table for Armstrong. Why did he turn that down? Any Blazer fan remember? Wasn't this the year Wood got into alot of heat?

* Offering Eric William, Aaron Williams, and Zo for Vince Carter... Carter's contract is as long as Eric Williams and Zo's while a year longer then Aaron Williams. This coming off his lowest averages in his career.

But the longest contract was Zo's at 4 years, the rest were much smaller.

I think Thorn is willing to take risks and as someone said the Nets window with Kidd, and all is growing smaller. And SAR certainly would had made this team better. So why not? But at the same time maybe he had a hard time justifying a 6 year deal if he though SAR could only play 2? Paying him 19 Million per servicable season? If he played 3, 13 million per servicable season?

-Petey


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

dkap,

This is the first time I have seen anything in regards to this being public. My point was that they can do this type of deal, as is reported here. Now, as long as there were no ridiculuous terms to guarenteeing years 5&6, this did come down to SAR just staying healthy. It should have only been tied to his knee health, not points, rebounds, etc... I hope this ends this little disagreement.

"The Nets' original offer to Abdur-Rahim was for six years and $38 million, but it was scaled back after medical reports indicated that he might experience knee problems. Both Goodwin and team president Rod Thorn confirmed that the second offer included four guaranteed seasons, *but that the last two years would be guaranteed if Abdur-Rahim showed "no significant problems" through the first three years of the contract." * Newark Star-Ledger 

Quote taken from Insidehoops.com.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

That's the first I had seen of that quote. Seems pretty murky as to what exactly the guarantee and conditions consist of.

Dan


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

dkap said:


> That's the first I had seen of that quote. Seems pretty murky as to what exactly the guarantee and conditions consist of.
> 
> Dan


I agree to a point. But it does conform with the CBA as reported. The quick research that I did stated that the option would have to be picked up a year before the contract expired, and that a contract can only have one option. 

Since it was a reported 4 year offer, if there was an option it would have to be picked up prior to the start of year 4. The option would be to guarantee both year 5 and 6. I am sure that more info will leak as time passes. I am ready to back off of my previous accusations that Thorn seemed to be circumventing a contract now that this info is coming out, if accurate.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

BIG Q said:


> I am ready to back off of my previous accusations that Thorn seemed to be circumventing a contract now that this info is coming out, if accurate.


Don't be.

The question is: What defines "further issues" with his knee? 

If he was unaware of any issues to date - then it would be just as easy to say there are issues at a later date.


----------

