# Blazers Rejected Knicks Attempt At Ratliff, Miles



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

New York Post - The Knicks were re buffed by the Blazers in their attempt to ob tain Theo Ratliff and Darius Miles, according to Peter Vecsey of the New York Post. 

Portland may have been a bit tempted to trade Ratliff, had Isiah offered Tim Thomas instead of Penny Hardaway. Then again, it's hard to believe Nate McMillan would consent to dealing his best shot-blocker and rebounder when much-improved backup Joel Przybilla can't be re-signed until the summer. 

Miles is being counted on to carry the team's offense and, therefore, is untouchable.

Source: http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archi...ers_rejected_knicks_attempt_at_ratliff_miles/


Prior to the draft the Blazers rejected Pierce ($45M over three) on a platter for the No. 6 pick and an irrelevant overpaid player or two. Despite Pierce's everlasting pronouncement, it's believed he'll be shopped 'til Rivers drops.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

too bad miles pulled his groin


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Ratliff is not our teams leading rebounder, and it's even arguable right now about shot blocking. 

Przybilla most likely can't be re-signed regardless of next summer or now. 

A team with as many SF's as we have can't possibly consider Darius Miles untradeable. 

on the other hand, considering that Penny's $15 mil contract expires this year. would that create enough cap space to re-sign Przybilla? 

if we did this deal, we'd almost certainly have one of the two worst records in the NBA, which means great chances at a #1 lotto pick. it'd be something like Miles/Ratliff/#4 pick for Przybilla/#1 pick. 

if LeBron was in the draft, it'd be worth it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

hm...so, Isaih thomas was rumored to take on another pathetically overpaid group of players?

seriously, how does this man keep his job?

So Portland trades 2 commodities (one defensively, and one potentially decent offensively) for Penny ****ing Hardaway?

is it any wonder why they rejected the trade!?

holy crap, that's like a stereotypical NY trade that's laughable at best.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Neither Miles nor Ratliff will be an important part of the next Blazers title contender (whenever that is). Neither player does much to get Portland to that level. Therefore, I'd be perfectly happy to shed both deals (by trading them for Hardaway's expiring contract) if it opens up enough room for Przybilla.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> hm...so, Isaih thomas was rumored to take on another pathetically overpaid group of players?
> 
> seriously, how does this man keep his job?
> 
> ...


maybe if by trade deadline, I wouldn't be opposed to this if Darius isn't playing great and Outlaw is. But it'd still have to include a pick at least.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I think Portland considers this trade and doesn't look at Penny as anything more than a salary dump. 

but really it's a "panic button" kind of deal for us that will probably still be available to us in December if it looks like we are going to be a 15 win team anyway. if we really, really stink, we might as well tank the season and keep Przybilla long-term.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Neither Miles nor Ratliff will be an important part of the next Blazers title contender (whenever that is). Neither player does much to get Portland to that level. Therefore, I'd be perfectly happy to shed both deals (by trading them for Hardaway's expiring contract) if it opens up enough room for Przybilla.


of course, you realize that if we did that deal we'll have traded Rasheed Wallace for a (roughly) #25 draft pick. 

ugh. 


oh yeah--and good PR.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

theWanker said:


> of course, you realize that if we did that deal we'll have traded Rasheed Wallace for a (roughly) #25 draft pick.
> 
> ugh.
> 
> ...


Good PR is worth between 0 and 1 wins per century.

And yes, that's why breaking a tremendous talent into lesser talents via trade is almost always a mistake. The devaluation seems to just keep going, though subsquent transactions.

Look at the Lakers with Shaq. They dealt him for Butler, Grant and Odom. Butler has now become Kwame Brown (remains to be seen how that goes, but as for now, he's much less productive than Butler). When Grant departs in free agency and if Brown remains a slug, that deals becomes Shaq for Odom. Assuming the Lakers don't cut bait on Odom.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> When Grant departs in free agency and if Brown remains a slug, that deals becomes Shaq for Odom. Assuming the Lakers don't cut bait on Odom.


I don't think Grant was ever anything more than salary matching baggage for the deal.

Butler worked out fine for them, but on a roster where half the guys can cover the SF slot, they couldn't pass up the chance to trade small for big, even if there is a large risk the big will never be as productive as the small.

And most importantly, if Shaq stayed, Kobe was gonzo. So the deal from the Lakers perspective will end up:

Shaq for Kobe, Odom & a big man prospect. Not great, but not too awful.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Good PR is worth between 0 and 1 wins per century.....


Yet, seemingly, a boatload of increased ticket sales - as far as the Blazers are concerned, at least.


FWIW.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

good pr = building trust
building trust = interest
more interest = more stuff bought by fans
more stuff bought = more money in paul allens pocket
more money in paul allens pocket = contracts for youngins if they want to keep them
contracts for youngins = building a better team.
building a better team = more wins

so in the long run, good PR can build more wins than keeping a player short term who wasn't going to win us fans, games or a title, and would cost the team more in each of those groups.


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

Trade Theo for Pollard and Bender.

Pollard is fine to backup Joel, and have an expiring contract. Bender is a backup PF, and I believe that Nate McMillan can turn him as a poor version of Rashard Lewis.

And if you guys will be trading some SF, try to move Patterson for Brent Barry, or Miles for Jamal Crawford (if both trades happen, move Webster to SF)


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Masbee said:


> And most importantly, if Shaq stayed, Kobe was gonzo.


I think that's far from a given. Bryant certainly implied that, but there's a big difference between threatening it, and actually turning down the extra money, championship contention, LA market and his home.

Anyway, it wasn't meant to be a really careful analysis of that deal, including all factors. The Rasheed Wallace deal also had other factors, like the belief he'd skip town at the end of the season. I just tend to see a pattern whereby when greater talents are broken down into lesser talents, further transactions involving those returns tend to break them down further.

Of course, eventually everything turns into nothing, if you give it enough time. So I'm not even necessarily endorsing the idea of putting a sequence of deals together to link the original player with the final results.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> good pr = building trust
> building trust = interest
> more interest = more stuff bought by fans
> more stuff bought = more money in paul allens pocket
> ...


I don't think that it's at all valid to attribute all that (trust, interest, purchasing) to PR. Every team generates good PR wherever they can, and I think it has very minimal effect, especially when combined with a terrible team.

Winning breeds interest, and talent leads to winning. I think trading away talent (the biggest reason for winning) for PR (possibly the tiniest reason for winning) is a bad exchange.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

Zuca said:


> Trade Theo for Pollard and Bender.
> 
> Pollard is fine to backup Joel, and have an expiring contract. Bender is a backup PF, and I believe that Nate McMillan can turn him as a poor version of Rashard Lewis.
> 
> And if you guys will be trading some SF, try to move Patterson for Brent Barry, or Miles for Jamal Crawford (if both trades happen, move Webster to SF)


Ya know I would do that first trade in a second.....despite how much I love Theo. 

I'd certainly at least consider trading Reuben for Barry.....but I'd neeeeever trade DMiles for Jamal Crawford.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> I don't think that it's at all valid to attribute all that (trust, interest, purchasing) to PR. Every team generates good PR wherever they can, and I think it has very minimal effect, especially when combined with a terrible team.


good PR would've helped the Hornets stay in Charlotte.

good PR helps build a teams reputation among fans. It helps build interested in the team.



> Winning breeds interest, and talent leads to winning. I think trading away talent (the biggest reason for winning) for PR (possibly the tiniest reason for winning) is a bad exchange.


it's not as tho Rasheed was soley traded because of PR. He, like many players, had worn out his welcome.

Now, they're on the good PR thing, and people are acting like good pr = getting no talent in return.

not all trades (need I remind people of the Kiki Vandeweghe trade?) have to be for equal talent to be a bonus.

There's a bottom line in basketball, and it's not 100% winning.

and while winning does help encourage interest, it's mostly the more bandwagoner fans that it garners the positive interest. Plus, good PR now, can lead to more wins later. Trading away disgruntled and somewhat unpopular players so that younger players can get their moment in the sun, can be a good thing.

It's a big reason why Jim Paxson was traded.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> There's a bottom line in basketball, and it's not 100% winning.


This seems to get at the crux of our disagreement. I think the bottom line for a professional sports franchise is 100% winning (unless one is talking about the business/profit end of things, which I don't think you are).



> and while winning does help encourage interest, it's mostly the more bandwagoner fans that it garners the positive interest.


Which happens to be the vast majority of sell-out crowds. It's cool to talk disdainfully of bandwagon fans...maybe you don't want to talk basketball with them, but I sure want their money in the team's hands if it will lead to more money spent on talent.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

theWanker said:


> on the other hand, considering that Penny's $15 mil contract expires this year. would that create enough cap space to re-sign Przybilla?


No, it still wouldn't clear enough room to make a greater-than-MLE offer to Joel.

So why make the deal? It makes no sense.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

theWanker said:


> A team with as many SF's as we have can't possibly consider Darius Miles untradeable.


Miles is one of two players on our team who has EVER shown that they can score more that 10 points on even a semi-regular basis.

Khryapa? He may be good defensively, but the next time he makes an impact in a meaningful game will be the first time. 

Outlaw? Proven pre-game dunker...that's about it.

Patterson? Clearly not in the team's long term plans. 

Monia? He sucks. 

Then there's...uh...um....I guess that's it. 

The fact is Miles is probably our 2nd best scorer and arguably our best overall defender. I think Darius Miles IS pretty close to untouchable.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Storyteller said:


> No, it still wouldn't clear enough room to make a greater-than-MLE offer to Joel.
> 
> So why make the deal? It makes no sense.


The way I work it, even with Anderson's contract, we'd be at around $43-44 million next year without Miles and Ratliff. That's under the cap more than the MLE. 

Not that it matters. We won't make this trade.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Fork said:


> Miles is one of two players on our team who has EVER shown that they can score more that 10 points on even a semi-regular basis.
> 
> Khryapa? He may be good defensively, but the next time he makes an impact in a meaningful game will be the first time.


So I guess Elton Brand would also fall into that category... yeah, he's garbage.



> Outlaw? Proven pre-game dunker...that's about it.


Proven pre-game dunker who's shown he can throw down in real games as well, has shown a boat load of coachability, is a genuinely nice guy who gets along with his teammates, is developing a nice midrange shot and can occasionally hit the three, is ultra athletic... not too much there.



> Patterson? Clearly not in the team's long term plans.


Agreed.




> Monia? He sucks.


Your proof is where? Exactly how many times have you seen him play for the Blazers?



> Then there's...uh...um....I guess that's it.


Other than Telfair, Dixon, probably Joel and likely Webster



> The fact is Miles is probably our 2nd best scorer and arguably our best overall defender. I think Darius Miles IS pretty close to untouchable.


Though he may be our second best scorer and our best overall defender, he's nowhere near untouchable when you consider his track record and the players behind him.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Fork said:


> The way I work it, even with Anderson's contract, we'd be at around $43-44 million next year without Miles and Ratliff. That's under the cap more than the MLE.
> 
> Not that it matters. We won't make this trade.


You're planning on the Blazers giving away their first round draft pick and the pick from Detroit? They count against the cap, too.....


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Fork said:


> The fact is Miles is probably our 2nd best scorer and arguably our best overall defender. I think Darius Miles IS pretty close to untouchable.


well, i think that says more about the sad state of our team than it does of his value in the NBA, or our willingness to trade him. there are probable 50 players in the league who are more highly valued. I think in most people's minds you aren't an untradeable asset unless you are a top 10 player or have top 10 potential.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> So I guess Elton Brand would also fall into that category... yeah, he's garbage.


In case you haven't noticed...Elton Brand is a career 20 and 10 guy. That's laughable to even compare Khryapa to Brand.



SheedSoNasty said:


> Proven pre-game dunker who's shown he can throw down in real games as well, has shown a boat load of coachability, is a genuinely nice guy who gets along with his teammates, is developing a nice midrange shot and can occasionally hit the three, is ultra athletic... not too much there.


What's the career scoring average for Outlaw? Or rebounds per game? Oh yeah...not much. Miles has proven himself a LOT more than Outlaw has. I like Outlaw a lot...but he still hasn't proven he can do anything but dunk and occasionally block a shot. 

Coachability? What does that do for us NOW. I'm not talking about what he can do 2-3 years down the road. I mean NOW. 



SheedSoNasty said:


> Your proof is where? Exactly how many times have you seen him play for the Blazers?


None. And that's almost exactly how many times I expect him to help us win this year.



SheedSoNasty said:


> Other than Telfair, Dixon, probably Joel and likely Webster


Those are not small forwards. The original post stated : A team with as many SF's as we have can't possibly consider Darius Miles untradeable. 

So...those people you mentioned don't matter.



SheedSoNasty said:


> Though he may be our second best scorer and our best overall defender, he's nowhere near untouchable when you consider his track record and the players behind him.


Again...Khryapa is a great backup SF who can defend and shoot a little bit. Outlaw hasn't shown anything yet. Patterson is as good as gone. Monia sucks. 

I don't comprehend how anyone can argue with this. Miles is our best SF right now and probably will be for at least another year after 05/06.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

theWanker said:


> well, i think that says more about the sad state of our team than it does of his value in the NBA, or our willingness to trade him. there are probable 50 players in the league who are more highly valued. I think in most people's minds you aren't an untradeable asset unless you are a top 10 player or have top 10 potential.


No, I agree with that. I guess I shouldn't have said I think he's 'untouchable' but he is close to it for Portland. 

Considering his value to other teams...I think he SHOULD be untouchable for us because no team will give us greater value than he holds for us. We can't get a more skilled player or a more valuable draft pick than him and honestly, I don't think his contract is outrageous, so getting rid of him for cap space isn't that great a deal for us either.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Storyteller said:


> You're planning on the Blazers giving away their first round draft pick and the pick from Detroit? They count against the cap, too.....


No, I'm planning on Patterson opting out.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Fork said:


> No, I'm planning on Patterson opting out.


That's a nice.....this


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

theWanker said:


> there are probable 50 players in the league who are more highly valued.


probably? IMO there are definitely 50 players in the league who are more highly valued then Miles, and arguably more then 100. I'd go so far as to guess that there are probably a good percentage of folks here who value Outlaw more then Darius... factoring in personal makeup and contracts into this evaluation (which is reasonable IMO) only adds weight to that side.

Of course none of that contradicts your point that DM shouldn't be considered untradable :smile: If we're to take this trade proposal as legit (it is Vescey after all), I'd _probably_ be for it because it would get Portland to the doorstep of clearing enough room for resigning Joel and solidifying the center spot for the future mix. I'd imagine that other space clearing players will become available during the course of the season.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Fork said:


> No, I'm planning on Patterson opting out.


:laugh: 

...you are joking right? 

STOMP


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Khryapa? He may be good defensively, but the next time he makes an impact in a meaningful game will be the first time.


When was the last time he played a meaningful game with the Blazers?........He hasn't. He has however guarded one of the leagues most dominant players (Dirk Nowitzki) as well as anyone in the NBA has...

Darius has been in the league for 5 years compared to Outlaws 2 and Khrapya's 1.........

We aren't a highly competitive team right now anyways, so what does it matter right NOW who's better....What matters is our future core were building, in which my opinion involves Outlaw and Khraphya more than Miles....


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Giving up on Miles would be a huge mistake. Kid is going to be a star.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Goldmember said:


> Giving up on Miles would be a huge mistake. Kid is going to be a star.


a star what?


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Basketball player.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

hey, I agree that Miles still has upside and may even have star potential. I'd just rather have the sure thing in Przybilla. 

none of this seems to matter, though, since Storyteller pointed out that even if we dumped both the Miles and Ratliff contracts we still wouldn't be able to offer much more than the MLE to Joel. therefore this trade is worthless.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Fork said:


> In case you haven't noticed...Elton Brand is a career 20 and 10 guy. That's laughable to even compare Khryapa to Brand.


And yet Brand really hasn't played in a meaningful game throughout his career. If you're going to base VK off of how many times he's done something in a meaningful game, why not use the same rubric on other players?



> What's the career scoring average for Outlaw? Or rebounds per game? Oh yeah...not much. Miles has proven himself a LOT more than Outlaw has. I like Outlaw a lot...but he still hasn't proven he can do anything but dunk and occasionally block a shot.


Outlaw has proven a lot more in terms of integrity and coachability in his last two years than Miles has in half a decade. If you break them down in terms of athleticism and raw ability you'll find that they'll probably be about equal. The only difference is that you're not going to get the attitude from Outlaw that you'll find in Darius. Don't get me wrong, if Darius can turn it around this year then he's a keeper. I just don't see it happening (yet still hoping).



> Coachability? What does that do for us NOW. I'm not talking about what he can do 2-3 years down the road. I mean NOW.


Patience is the key when rebuilding. If you expect to see a winning team NOW or eight months from now you may be sorely dissapointed when time comes. I'd much rather take the route where we let Travis develop into the superior player 2-3 years from now than to see Miles get 15 and 7 for a few years on a crappy team.



> None. And that's almost exactly how many times I expect him to help us win this year.


Fair expectations considering that you have yet to see him play but saying outright that he sucks seems a bit rash.



> Those are not small forwards. The original post stated : A team with as many SF's as we have can't possibly consider Darius Miles untradeable.


That's what the original post stated, correct. However, you mentioned that Darius and Zach are the the only two players who have ever shown that can give us 10 points a night... "players" not "small forwards". Therefore, I gave you some more "players" as options.



> So...those people you mentioned don't matter.


They do if you're counting players who can possibly score 10 ppg, not necessarily small forwards.



> I don't comprehend how anyone can argue with this. Miles is our best SF right now and probably will be for at least another year after 05/06.


This might be true, but if history repeats itself Darius will be out by December.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I think that we should deal miles, unless he shows us in the first 20 or so games that he can be a unique, allstar type player. If he comes out and gets 13 points, 6 boards and 2 assists while not really improving, cutting down on TO's or playing more under control I think he has got to be dealt. 

I think in other news, that Ratliff has to be moved. His contract is going to bite us in the ***. I think we should aim to get contracts that end after the 06/07 season, rather than this upcoming summer. Ratliff for Pollard and Crosure or Bender and a pick. That gets us rid of 10,894,737; 12,105,263; 13,315,789. 

Pollard would expire after this year, and if Joel wont take a MLE offer for a year, then Scott could be cheaply re-signed. Patterson(6.8M), Derek(9.7M), Bender(7.9M) all expire after 06/07 season. Leaving only Zack(12M) and Miles(7.6M) making significantly more than 3 million a year. What a cheap team.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

picks are always nice


----------



## Swerv (Jan 2, 2003)

Is Ogden this years draft or next years? 
I would consider sucking this year to get our hands on him


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

next year


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

The new CBA is putting off our pursuit of Oden another year. Although the Blazers have acted like he's eligible for the draft in 2006 

The particulars of this trade could vary wildly, and that would determine whether I would support it or not... Theo and Ruben for Hardaway and pick(s)? I'd probably do it.

But Miles as a throw-in, just to get rid of his contract? I don't think so. I am not sure that he's going to amount to anything other than a passable starter--and he's far from untouchable IMO--but passable starters have value in the NBA commensurate with what he's being paid and there's still the decent chance that he's going to take a big step forward.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> But Miles as a throw-in, just to get rid of his contract? I don't think so. I am not sure that he's going to amount to anything other than a passable starter--and he's far from untouchable IMO--but passable starters have value in the NBA commensurate with what he's being paid and there's still the decent chance that he's going to take a big step forward.


While I'd agree with your overall assessment of Darius, the reason Portland would just cut bait on a passable starter like him is to better position themselves for a run at locking up their passable starter at center... those guys have considerably more value in the NBA because of supply and demand. There are not many contracts expiring this next offseason that could clear capspace like Penny's could. 

That said, if NY would throw in their 2007 1st I wouldn't be opposed :wink: 

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

yeah, STOMP, but like I pointed out, Storyteller says we still wouldn't have the space to sign Przybilla. 

maybe if we hadn't devoted nearly $4 mil to Blake and Dixon next year it'd make sense. then we'd have around $9 mil to throw at Joel, which would probably do the job. 

look at Storyteller's numbers: 
http://home.earthlink.net/~jtkramer65/05-06salaries.htm

the real killer is the nearly $10 mil bucks we'll owe Derek Anderson next year. man does that deal bite.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Seeing as how NY has no players I really want at this point, and I am waiting to see how the team responds to Nate, I am more then willing to go into the season with what the Blazers currently have, check in on them at midseason, and start thinking about adjustments from there. My personnel gut feeling is that Miles will end up covering PF for Zach, and that will clear up time at the SF position.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> the real killer is the nearly $10 mil bucks we'll owe Derek Anderson next year. man does that deal bite.


Getting rid of DA might have made financial sense for the Blazers, but it just about killed us retaining a Joel who has a good year this season. Right now we could be talking about moving DA and Theo to NY for expiring deals...

Antonio Davis + Penny ($28.75m)

for

Ruben + Theo + DA (~ $27.6m)

Or we could include Miles instead of Ruben if we had to.

THAT would be clearing some space and the Knicks might have gone for it.

But oh, well.

Ed O.


----------



## Harry_Minge (Oct 4, 2005)

Goldmember said:


> Giving up on Miles would be a huge mistake. Kid is going to be a star.


at what profession???

it sure aint gonna be basketball


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

theWanker said:


> yeah, STOMP, but like I pointed out, Storyteller says we still wouldn't have the space to sign Przybilla.


Ummm yeah I know, thats why I've made statements like..._"to better position themselves for a run at locking up their passable starter at center"_ and _"it would get Portland to the doorstep of clearing enough room."_ I hardly think this deal would be "worthless" because if they are able to move just one more modest deal during the year they'd be there.



> maybe if we hadn't devoted nearly $4 mil to Blake and Dixon next year it'd make sense. then we'd have around $9 mil to throw at Joel


no doubt. Thats the biggest reasons I think those were poor signings. Sure they are decent backups and supposively super duper guys, but their dollars move Portland father away from a much more important piece. 

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Getting rid of DA might have made financial sense for the Blazers, but it just about killed us retaining a Joel who has a good year this season. Right now we could be talking about moving DA and Theo to NY for expiring deals...
> 
> Antonio Davis + Penny ($28.75m)
> 
> ...


oh man that would've been a sweet deal for us, and it might've even made sense for New York (not like that ever made a bit of difference to them, though). 

we'd have our backup PF/C in Davis. we'd have a clear path to keeping Przybilla. we'd have cleared out Patterson. 

*sigh*


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP--yeah, it might've "positioned us" a little better, but clearing out any more cap space would start to get pretty painful. nobody wants Patterson's contract in exchange for expiring deals. so you are looking at giving up Randolph and/or some of our youngsters for expiring deals, which just ain't worth it. we'd effectively be positioned to be closer to signing Joel, but this isn't horseshoes or hand grenades, and closer just wouldn't be enough. 



> no doubt. Thats the biggest reasons I think those were poor signings. Sure they are decent backups and supposively super duper guys, but their dollars move Portland father away from a much more important piece.


yeah, it does seem like Nash spent too much of the off-season worrying about role player guys and not enough on our starting center.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

Hap said:


> a star what?


starfish. I believe in reincarnation.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

theWanker said:


> STOMP--yeah, it might've "positioned us" a little better, but clearing out any more cap space would start to get pretty painful. nobody wants Patterson's contract in exchange for expiring deals. so you are looking at giving up Randolph and/or some of our youngsters for expiring deals, which just ain't worth it. we'd effectively be positioned to be closer to signing Joel, but this isn't horseshoes or hand grenades, and closer just wouldn't be enough.


I'd strongly disagree. IMO it would be relatively easy to move Portland's various other assets if packaged, though I'm certainly not talking about moving Zach. I know that some would cringe, but I'd advocate combining Jack, Ha, one of the Ruskies, or Detroit's 06 pick with Rube's dollars for purposes of retaining Joel for the future mix... I'd figure that not only could they get said expiring deal, they'd very possibly gain another future pick of value. Even if they couldn't and took a strait salary dump in return, take any of those senerios and compile who's left, and you'll find the cupboard is hardly empty for 05/06. Add in next years likely lotto pick and that future mix looks all the brighter.

IMO what would (and apparently will) be much more painful is watching the center spot become a vacant hole in 06/07 and seeing JP excell elsewhere. Center is traditionally the hardest position to fill, and IMO Joel decisively proved last year to be worthy of starters minutes and pay. Unless Nash is completely sold on the potencial of Ha and/or Ned (he's seen them 10,000 times more then I so I'll defer), I'd argue that decisive moves made to sort the core/keepers from the masses that now clutter up Portland's roster would be the best course to take.

Anyhoo, since (reportedly) Theo is having shoulder issues again, I think we can likely kiss any hopes of moving him bye bye. You stated nobody is going to touch Rube's contract, who's going to touch 32 year old Ratliff's if he's relagated to the IR again? 

STOMP


----------

