# Juan Dixon a Blazer?



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

KGW said we offered him a 3 year deal. Numbers weren't disclosed. He's a streaky scorer, but when he's on he's tough to guard (35 pts vs Bulls).


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

QRICH said:


> KGW said we offered him a 3 year deal. Numbers weren't disclosed. He's a streaky scorer, but when he's on he's tough to guard (35 pts vs Bulls).


it seem's to be a little strange that the team is going after a PG who isn't exactly a 'vet' PG.

seem's like they're either preparing to do something big trade wise, or they're just hell bent on stock-piling pg's and sf's.


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

seems official...

isn't he more of a SG that can play PG, but not very well?? that's why us Sonics fans thought it was redundant to resign Flip Murray & Juan Dixon. Makes sense for you guys though if you cut Derek Anderson....he probably got promised some good minutes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/27/AR2005072702141.html


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> seem's like they're either preparing to do something big trade wise, or they're just hell bent on stock-piling pg's and sf's.


We've seen this several times before with Nash stockpiling players at the same position, with no apparent rhyme or reason to the timing. I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt (that he has a plan, in that regards) anymore.

Dan


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Dixon can play SG, no doubt about it.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Hap said:


> it seem's to be a little strange that the team is going after a PG who isn't exactly a 'vet' PG.


Well I think it's a little bit strange that someone that's so obviously evil would represent themself with the symbol for all that is good and true in the universe via his avatar but it's a strange world we live in. I'm just kidding you bald headed son of a gun (It's been a while, the 2003 draft "party" to be exact, are you still shaving your head?)

But on the topic at hand this makes basically no sense at all. It seems to me that if we wanted a point guard to challenge Telfair for the starting spot and show us whether we got our money's worth in picking Jack there's a number of other guys we could have tried to obtain. 

Dixon has been a shooting guard in a point guard's body since the beginning of time. Am I the only one that thinks Dixon is a slightly taller version of Damon?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

:banghead:

man oh man... I sure hope Nash knows what he is doing (assuming the report is accurate)

He is 6'-3" tall....

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/juan_dixon/index.html

Is he a PG or SG? or tweener?

CAREER NUMBERS
1.6 assists per game
39.6% 2FG
30.8% 3FG
83.3% FT

not what we call a great shooter :banghead:


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

http://hoopshype.com/players/juan_dixon.htm

interesting...

164 lbs....he's smaller than Luke Ridnour, lol.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

he is a good player, he hasnt gotten the playing time he needs. he needs a situation wheere he will get time. if we truely aquired him im happy. he will fit our run and gun style and can play both pg and sg although he is more of a scorer then passer


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

This is an excellent free agent signing IMO...We got a cheap player who can come in and give instant offense at either the 1 or 2.... He's got big game experience (from college) as well, which is always a good thing to have on your team...


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

This would be a great signing by the blazers , Juan can light it up coming off the bench .


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

didnt he score 30 off the bench against us before


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> didnt he score 30 off the bench against us before


Yep, in January of 2004. It was his career high.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Juan Dixon AND Charles Smith?

What the heck is Nash doing?

PBF


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> Juan Dixon AND Charles Smith?
> 
> What the heck is Nash doing?
> 
> PBF



I'm a little confused now as well. Hey, why don't you email Nash, PBF? Or did you use your 1 question limit this week already? :biggrin:


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Is Jaun Dixon a quick guard? 

My only guess is Nash is trying to find a guard to challenge Telfair and maybe Jqace in practice to get better and better. What do you all think?

gatorpops


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hmm... it's good news that the Blazers haven't put their pocketbook away altogether, but I don't know what Juan Dixon is going to add to this team. 

He was a reach at #17 by the Wizards (it was clear at the time) because the guy doesn't have a position. He doesn't set up other players and he's not a very good shooter.

He's 27, and he doesn't have a ton of upside.

I wonder if the Blazers' new system of evaluating talent (assuming it applies to free agents) heavily discounts height, because signing Smith (6'4") and Dixon (6'3") makes it look that way.

Another aspect of this signing is that it gets us that much (~$2.5m or so) farther away from getting under the cap for next summer.

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Scout226 said:


> I'm a little confused now as well. Hey, why don't you email Nash, PBF? Or did you use your 1 question limit this week already? :biggrin:


Yep. He said he admired my passion for the welfare of the team, but can really only answer one question per fan per week.

In other words, "Dude, you're starting to annoy me. Go get a life."



PBF


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> Juan Dixon AND Charles Smith?
> 
> What the heck is Nash doing?


Maybe aspiring to someday tread water??? To suck slightly less??? 

I hope that the 3 year deal is for lowball numbers as I see Dixon as an end of the bench type scrubbie. He's a streaky shooter and a poor playmaker (IMO), and I really doubt he's 6'3 more like 6'1. 

btw...I bumped around to find a 2002 pre-draft barefoot measurement, but came up empty. 

STOMP


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Any other confirmations about this signing? I don't see anything up on Eric's Blog yet...

PBF


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I wonder if the Blazers' new system of evaluating talent (assuming it applies to free agents) heavily discounts height, because signing Smith (6'4") and Dixon (6'3") makes it look that way.


Isn't Smith superior to Dixon on the Off end and Def end? It would seem to me that bringing both in would mean goodbye to DA, which is a good thing, but it also says Webster might not get as much time, which is a bad thing.

Maybe I'll email Nash. I have about 4 question piled up since I haven't used my quota for a few weeks..


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Trailblazer fans. Know what you are getting.

Juan Dixon is not a PG, unless you want a PG that will literally pound a hole into the court with the ball. He is strictly a SG. He has never met a shot he didn't like. He will shoot until the coach takes him out, and has no qualms about jacking another 3 when he is 0-8. When he is on, he can be a productive scorer, when he is off, he is "The Momentum Killer". His defense is almost strictly off the ball, passing lane steals, as he is not good enough, or strong enough to man up very well on even the quicker players in the league.

Washington did not want him, and he is a hometown HERO. Juan Dixon walks on water in DC, there is no doubt, and is probably the city's most beloved atheletes. The Wizards still did not want him.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

It's up in Eric's Blog now, but he's only quoting the same article.

Assuming this report is accurate, I'm going to adjust the snapshot ('Puzzle Pieces' thread).

Sayonara DA!

:wave:

PBF


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

ProudBFan said:


> It's up in Eric's Blog now, but he's only quoting the same article.
> 
> Assuming this report is accurate, I'm going to adjust the snapshot ('Puzzle Pieces' thread).
> 
> ...


Here is an article from NBA.com confirming and quoting his agent.

http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20050728-124652-1639r.htm

gatorpops

sorry don't know how to do the address thingy.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

This likely means that the Blazers expect the Sonics to match their offer to Damien Wilkins, and are no longer interested in either him or Chris Duhon.

Doesn't it?

PBF


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I'm not so down on this signing... 

Maybe it's because I'm in Maryland right now. Maybe it's because my girlfriend really loves Juan Dixon and might watch more games with me if he's a Blazer.

Or maybe it's because I know he's a guy who has been counted out at every level but has tremendous heart and fight. For all his flaws, he had a pretty solid year with Washington last year and could help out a Blazer team that is lacking in perimeter scoring and mental toughness.

While I certainly dislike the idea of another small backcourt, if he's anything close to 6'3, he is WAY taller than Damon at 5'8 and only a couple of inches shorter than DA who is probably an average sized SG.

We've all been talking about how we'd like a solid combo guard and that's what I think Juan can be for us. He instantly becomes one of our top 3 guards: Telfair, Dixon, ?, therefore improving our rotation.

IMO, this is this year's Przybilla signging... the guy who is still fairly young, had a solid year, but for some reason nobody wants. This time, at least he's on a 3 year deal if we want to retain him.

This might also mean no Charles Smith... or bye bye DA.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ebott said:


> Well I think it's a little bit strange that someone that's so obviously evil would represent themself with the symbol for all that is good and true in the universe via his avatar but it's a strange world we live in. I'm just kidding you bald headed son of a gun (It's been a while, the 2003 draft "party" to be exact, are you still shaving your head?)


nope. altho the day after my brothers wedding I will be re-doming myself.



> But on the topic at hand this makes basically no sense at all. It seems to me that if we wanted a point guard to challenge Telfair for the starting spot and show us whether we got our money's worth in picking Jack there's a number of other guys we could have tried to obtain.
> 
> Dixon has been a shooting guard in a point guard's body since the beginning of time. Am I the only one that thinks Dixon is a slightly taller version of Damon?


there just has to be a trade happening. I know that Nate probably will be telling the guys to put up or shut up, but we've seen this dog and pony show before. Several players for the same position, of which none is a clear cut "better" player (and the only posistion where we do have a clear cut better player is PF, the spot we aren't stock piling on)...

there has to be a few trades and a big waiving in our future.

has to be.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> there has to be a few trades and a big waiving in our future.
> 
> has to be.


Agreed. Too many people under contract to make sense. I'm going to go check out PBF's "state of the Blazers" thread to see how many people we have on our roster now.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> Yep. He said he admired my passion for the welfare of the team, but can really only answer one question per fan per week.
> 
> In other words, "Dude, you're starting to annoy me. Go get a life."
> 
> ...



you sure it's "one question PER fan" and not "one question PER YOU per week"?

Ive asked him already 2 questions this week (I know, I'm flodding his emails!) and he hasnt told me to get-ta-steppin yet (but than again, I generally will respond after he emails me and thank him for his time).


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap said:


> you sure it's "one question PER fan" and not "one question PER YOU per week"?
> 
> Ive asked him already 2 questions this week (I know, I'm flodding his emails!) and he hasnt told me to get-ta-steppin yet (but than again, I generally will respond after he emails me and thank him for his time).


Yeah, it's probably just me. And I can understand it. At the height of the negotiations w/ New Jersey over SAR, I was sending more e-mail to him than I was to my manager. 

PBF


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Since all reports have us SIGNING Charles Smith asap, this additional agreement to sign - MUST mean that DA is going bye-bye. There is no way we can carry this number of players into season opener. It would not make ANY sense to send Webster down to NBDL for a stint either - as we are not playing for playoff spot, but development.

Seems also that attempts have changed from getting under the cap sufficiently to sign Joel - to - put together a good enough team that Joel might stay for what we can offer. Thoughts?

At least we've seemingly acquired a couple of guards who can shoot the ball with "some" accuracy, until Webster is ready to take over at SG. Tough position to fill! Not many in the whole league I'd want.


----------



## Kidd Karma (Oct 30, 2003)

Through the whole SAR negotiations, Nash said the Blazers would not be adding players. Nice, he fooled Thorn into unloading a #1.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

gatorpops said:


> Here is an article from NBA.com confirming and quoting his agent.
> 
> http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20050728-124652-1639r.htm
> 
> ...


at the top of the area where you type the response, there's a *B* *I*......and then what looks to be a yellow square with a mountain (for pictures) and a blue globe and I guess glasses (?)

you can click on the blue globe, and paste the address of a web site in that.

Or just do ([ ] instead of (), it's just easier to do ()'s ):

(url) http..blah blah blah (/url)

hope that makes any sense, because re-reading it just now, it doesn't make much sense to me.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I really wish I knew HOW they intend to sign Dixon. I mean, are they using a portion of their MLE? Some/all of the TE they're getting from the Nets in the Shareef deal? Neither (flat-out FA signing)?

This info would help me keep the Puzzle Pieces list accurate...

PBF


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Agreed. Too many people under contract to make sense. I'm going to go check out PBF's "state of the Blazers" thread to see how many people we have on our roster now.
> 
> Ed O.


I'm assuming it's:
Ha
Theo
Joel
Zach

Darius
Outlaw
Monia
Khryapa
Patterson

Telfair
Jack

DA
Webster

*Smith
*Juan

That's 15 by my count, and I might've missed someone too.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> I really wish I knew HOW they intend to sign Dixon. I mean, are they using a portion of their MLE? Some/all of the TE they're getting from the Nets in the Shareef deal? Neither (flat-out FA signing)?
> 
> This info would help me keep the Puzzle Pieces list accurate...


It's either part of the MLE or a sign and trade with Washington. The former seems more likely.

Ed O.


----------



## BigDtoPDX (Jun 30, 2005)

I dont like this possible Dixon signing, all it does is make a backcourt a little bit better now and hampers the development of Webster or Outlaw. Unless they think Webster might be better at the 3. If they're signing him for cheap then I can live with it, but he wont live with not playing a ton of minutes. This should be interesting.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> That's 15 by my count, and I might've missed someone too.


Here's what it looks like to me (from my post in the other thread): 

1. Juan Dixon (through 2007-2008)
2. Sueng-Jin Ha (through 2005-2006)
3. Jarrett Jack (through 2006-2007, Team Option through 2008-2009)
4. Viktor Khryapa (through 2008-2009)
5. Darius Miles (through 2009-2010, Full Base-Year Comp)
6. Sergei Monya (through 2006-2007, Team Option through 2008-2009)
7. Travis Outlaw (through 2007-2008)
8. Ruben Patterson (through 2006-2007, Trade Kicker)
9. Joel Przybilla (through 2005-2006)
10. Zach Randolph (through 2010-2011, Full Base-Year Comp)
11. Theo Ratliff (through 2007-2008)
12. Charles Smith (??)
13. Sebastian Telfair (through 2008-2009)
14. Martell Webster (through 2006-2007, Team Option through 2008-2009)
[strike]15. Derek Anderson (through 2006-2007)
16. Nick Van Exel (through 2005-2006, Non-Guaranteed)[/strike]

Ed O.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

I emailed Nash about Smith and Dixon, but this is all he could say:

"No I can not because we are in a moratorium and we can't comment."

From what I read about Smith, I'd take him over Dixon. Signing both seems to be redundant, while maybe taking time away from some of our youngsters..


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BigDtoPDX said:


> IIf they're signing him for cheap then I can live with it, but he wont live with not playing a ton of minutes. This should be interesting.


It's reportedly 3 years, $8m. Not a ton of cash, but not an insignificant commitment, either.

As for ton of minutes: he's never played a ton of minutes in the NBA before, and I would be surprised if he started complaining as a Blazer if he doesn't get them... but who knows.

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Scout226 said:


> I emailed Nash about Smith and Dixon, but this is all he could say:
> 
> "No I can not because we are in a moratorium and we can't comment."
> 
> From what I read about Smith, I'd take him over Dixon. Signing both seems to be redundant, while maybe taking time away from some of our youngsters..


That's how I see it, too, Scout. And I'm still trying to make sense of it all.

Well, one thing we know for sure is that the Blazers will apparently be making a flurry of announcements as soon as the new CBA goes into effect (SAR deal, Smith signing, Dixon signing, and likely DA being waived at a minimum). That ought to be the "splash" the Blazers are hoping for to get the more "casual" fans interested in the team in the early season.

PBF


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> there just has to be a trade happening. I know that Nate probably will be telling the guys to put up or shut up, but we've seen this dog and pony show before. Several players for the same position, of which none is a clear cut "better" player (and the only posistion where we do have a clear cut better player is PF, the spot we aren't stock piling on)...


If memory serves, those similar situations we've seen under Nash's direction haven't resulted in trades, just eventual cuts. I guess Eddie Gill did "net" us a draft pick, although it was the cash that made the deal, not him.

Dan


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

I really hope this is just a small part of a bigger picture.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

dkap said:


> If memory serves, those similar situations we've seen under Nash's direction haven't resulted in trades, just eventual cuts. I guess Eddie Gill did "net" us a draft pick, although it was the cash that made the deal, not him.
> 
> Dan


Distinct possibility, Dan. Maybe they're using this mechanism as a loophole in their salary reduction efforts.

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Ed O said:


> It's either part of the MLE or a sign and trade with Washington. The former seems more likely.
> 
> Ed O.


Yeah, that's what I'm thinking, too. Can the TE be split between more than one player? I don't see why not, as long as the total combined salaries don't exceed the max value of the TE. So that's a possibility as well.

PBF


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> Yeah, that's what I'm thinking, too. Can the TE be split between more than one player? I don't see why not, as long as the total combined salaries don't exceed the max value of the TE. So that's a possibility as well.


Yes, it can be split up. That's really the way that I was thinking a S&T with Washington would work, rather than Portland sending back a player.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Well Ha for sure, and possibly Monia? will be in the NBDL next year....not sure how that affects the 14 player roster limit...anyone know?

As for Dixon, I am mixed on him...in fact the only real negative I have against him is his size....I think he is an underated player...I think he could excel as a "spark/3rd guard" off the bench for POR. 

I don't like the prospect of a smallish backcourt, and with a 6'0 Telfair and a 6'2 Dixon, that is small...Jack has good size at 6'3 for a PG, and both Webster & Monia have GREAT size at 6'7 & 6'8 ...you could even throw Outlaw in there at 6'9.

POR also has great size at the SF with Miles, Outlaw and Khryapa all at 6'9 and all extremely versatile.

My worry is the PF position....I don't get what POR is doing here...Zach is coming off of a significant injury, and while he should be just fine, there is a possibility he may not....and yet Nash has said that they can play Theo, Khryapa and Miles there? I think on some nights Khryapa and Miles can play PF, but against some of the bigger bruisers out there, I don't see the wisdom of that logic....even Theo is a little "thin" for the PF spot, and playing him there, could put some strain on the C position, particularly if Pryzbilla or Theo get in foul trouble.

I don't mind the signing of Dixon...I just really wonder what POR is thinking regarding the PF position.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> I don't mind the signing of Dixon...I just really wonder what POR is thinking regarding the PF position.


I think they're waiting for the Lakers to waive Brian Grant on the Amnesty provision. But Nash has been talking like they are fully confident in their ability to run "backup PF by committee" with any combination of Darius, Ruben, Theo, and Khryapa.

PBF


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

What exactly is the Blazer's gameplan? You seem to be set at the PG position for the next ten years with Telfair but then you go ahead and trade for Jack and then Dixon. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Juan actually said he prefered coming off the bench last year for the Wizards. He was given multiple opportunities to start in his career due to injury to starters, and has always been inconsistent. His perference for coming off the bench was due to understanding his role in that situation.


----------



## RoseCity (Sep 27, 2002)

Should we keep Dixon, I think he can contribute and given the state of our team, his best asset to the orginzation will be his charecter and leadership. Too too small/slight for effective minutes at SG, poor shooter from 3PT range, marginal on the ball defender. As an Eddie House type of third guard who comes in to put the rock in the hole, I like the signing. Then again, don't we still need a STARTER quality SG? Dixon is not such a thing. You cannot deny the huge amount of heart,character, love of the game and leadership quality Dixon brings to the game. 

OTOH, Maybe Nash plans on trading Jack with the TE and Dixon is going to be our backup PG...Could be any other number of trade scenarios, something involving Jack/TE makes the most sense. Having followed Nash/Patterson comments regarding Jack make me think they plan on moving him. 

Lastly, these are the OTHER avalible combo/SG's reportedly avalible, all are preferable to Dixon-IMO: Marko Jaric, and Ronald Murray (S&T). Slim pickings, indeed.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> What exactly is the Blazer's gameplan? You seem to be set at the PG position for the next ten years with Telfair but then you go ahead and trade for Jack and then Dixon. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me


Don't forget Charles Smith as well.

I think it means that the Blazers will be waiving Derek Anderson on the Amnesty provision and letting Nick Van Exel go since this final year of his contract is non-guaranteed. That would leave them with a back-court of:

PG: Telfair/Jack/Smith/Dixon
SG: Monya/Webster/Dixon/Smith

The only trouble I have with that is that both Smith and Dixon are "shoot-first" guards - more suitable for the SG role than the PG role... but both are undersized as far as SGs go.

PBF


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

RoseCity said:


> OTOH, Maybe Nash plans on trading Jack.....


I've wondered that myself. I could see Jack playing in Atlanta.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

ABM said:


> I've wondered that myself. I could see Jack playing in Atlanta.


Then what will they do with Salim


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

cimalee said:


> Then what will they do with Salim


I think they'd rather have Jack than Salim.

I know I'd rather have jack squat than Damon.


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

ProudBFan said:


> Juan Dixon AND Charles Smith?
> 
> What the heck is Nash doing?
> 
> PBF



If we cut Derek Anderson the only 'true SG' we'll have on the team is 18 year old Martel Webster. We're not "stockpiling players". We're talking about a European league player and a bench player. It's not like they are two starts that will demand to start. 

It's actually a regular practice for NBA teams to sign 2nd and 3rd string players.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Seriously, you guys will realize it when he starts playing for you, but Dixon is not a backup PG. He is not a PG.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Dixon isn't a PG and probably won't be able to play many minutes there.

He's a bit undersized for a SG, but it's not like he has to match up with Duncan. SG's will often be a bit taller, but they won't exactly be able to throw him around.

We just have so many young players, but Dixon will actually end up being one of our older ones. With his serious heart and determination, he'll be a great guy to have in the locker room and in practice, I would think...

As for the games, if DA is not around, I would bet Dixon is the only SG on the squad ready to start. Webster might be ready by midseason but probably isn't yet, and both Monya and Outlaw might not be very effective at the position.

So to start the year, we may be looking at:

Telfair/Jack
Dixon/Webster/Smith
Miles/Outlaw/Khryapa/Monya
Randolph/Patterson
Przybilla/Ratliff/Ha

Khryapa and Monya might be on the outside looking in if Patterson isn't traded this summer.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

If true, Dixon and Smith will be SG's not PG's. Monia might benefit from time in the NBDL, and if not, then off the bench at any of SG, SF, PF as he is a fundamentally sound player. He will not start opening night at SG!!

Telfair - Jack
Smith - Dixon - Webster - Monia
Miles - Outlaw - Khryapa - Monia
Randolph - Ratliff - Patterson - Monia - Miles
Przybilla - Ratliff - Ha

I predict DA for amnesty clause waiver and NVE normal waiver.

14 players. Lots of flexibility.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Khryapa and Monya might be on the outside looking in if Patterson isn't traded this summer.


I don't think that Viktor and Serg should be on the outside looking in because of Patterson.

Viktor brings things to the game that Ruben does, and has a lot more other intangibles (he's not a moron and has basketball IQ) and has an outside touch.

Monya, while admittingly an unknown, probably brings the same things to the game that Viktor does, PLUS he's a better shooter than Viktor. 

so if both of those guys are behind Viktor, something is wrong with the team's methods. 

I know some like Ruben a lot, but he's a role player. A role player who, if you find players younger, smarter, and better all around games on your team, you put *behind* them. He's not a player you sit down younger smarter players for. He still doesn't have an outside shot, and his defense is overrated, and mostly he's just a spaz out there.

Improved his life? sure, no doubt about that. Worth being automatically ahead of Viktor and Sergei because he's "shown" that he does that? no chance in hell. He's simply not good enough of a player to justify that. 

And on top of all that, he's demanded to be traded every summer he's been here. Trade him asap.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> If true, Dixon and Smith will be SG's not PG's. Monia might benefit from time in the NBDL, and if not, then off the bench at any of SG, SF, PF as he is a fundamentally sound player. He will not start opening night at SG!!


would Viktor have benfiitted from going to the D league? Nope. 

so why does everyone seem to think that Monya is going to need to go to the D league? And why does he get behind Webster in the rotation? Because he was the 6th pick?

Webster is even less proven than Monya is. Hell, Webster hasn't played professionally for years like Monya has. 



> Telfair - Jack
> Smith - Dixon - Webster - Monia
> Miles - Outlaw - Khryapa - Monia
> Randolph - Ratliff - Patterson - Monia - Miles
> ...


I think at least 2 of the players you have listed there won't be on the team either because they've been traded (Ruben) or in the D league (Ha). And I wouldn't be surprised to see another (Miles) traded too. 

For all the talk about having players without outside shots, it's funny how so many fans put a player who's supposed to have one, buried on the bench.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I agree that Ruben should be traded with the team we have, but if he is not, he will get at least 20 mpg... that's my prediction.

If he gets that, I have no idea how Miles, Outlaw, Monya, Webster and Khryapa will all get regular minutes. At least two of them would have to be getting spot minutes...


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

It seems to me that the 2005-'06 season is shaping up to be just an extended audition for 2006-'07. We have so many players under contract who have little or no game experience that if the Blazers can just figure out before the end of the year which guys are keepers, which are duds, and which can be made into attractive trade pieces, it will have been a successful year...in a highly unsatisfying sort of a way.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap said:


> For all the talk about having players without outside shots, it's funny how so many fans put a player who's supposed to have one, buried on the bench.


Assuming DA leaves, Monya is #1 in my "fantasy" 2005-2006 Blazers SG rotation.

PBF


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

It would be foolish to trade Jack and keep Dixon. Telfair has the starting role but Jack brings an element and tempo change this team needs when Telfair has to come out. Jack is not a shoot first PG, and yes JACK unlike Dixon is a PG.

The only think I can think of is that Dixon,Miles,Patterson,Theo might be part of some big trade coming. Not all four but a pair of these guys.

I could see Larry Brown taking Dixon and Miles for Sweetney and other player. That would give us the backup PF we need.

Maybe the Celtics would like Dixon, Miles and Theo for Pierce. Then we get a mature #2 to guide Webster and Monia.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

..



> Trail Blazers: Dixon signs three-year deal
> 
> by Fanball Staff - Fanball.com
> Thursday, July 28, 2005
> ...


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I'm not very excited about Dixon. My only hope is that a trade is coming. I would much rather have DA than Dixon. Along with others, I just don't get this one.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Could a Dixon, Miles, Theo get you a shot at Pierce?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Are the Trail Blazers not allowed to send out a press release etc. regarding Dixon because the CBA isnt official yet? All seems rather quiet at Trail Blazer headquarters, so maybe they cant talk about it, or maybe they are waiting to announce a trade to help explain this signing.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Signing Dixon can't make Telfair or now Jack happy. If I'm Telfair I'm thinking does this franchise believe in me bringing in two backups?

Telfair and Jack is enough for a decade.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Are the Trail Blazers not allowed to send out a press release etc. regarding Dixon because the CBA isnt official yet? All seems rather quiet at Trail Blazer headquarters, so maybe they cant talk about it, or maybe they are waiting to announce a trade to help explain this signing.


akaik, which obviously is loads, they can't say anything about anything.

but than again, they did do a press conference for Trenton Hassell last year...


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

YardApe said:


> Signing Dixon can't make Telfair or now Jack happy. If I'm Telfair I'm thinking does this franchise believe in me bringing in two backups?
> 
> Telfair and Jack is enough for a decade.


Can we dispell the idea of Dixon as a backup PG? Maybe he could play a few spot minutes there, but as a last resort, IMO. Dude is a gunner - definitely a SG regardless of height.

I'm not even sure if his ball handling is good enough to bring the ball up the court under any sort of pressure.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Can we dispell the idea of Dixon as a backup PG?


we can dispell that one with the Ruben as a SG idea too. And the Ruben as a start idea. And Ruben as a player who deserves minutes ahead of Viktor and Sergei.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Can we dispell the idea of Dixon as a backup PG?


PLEASE!!!

:clap:

Just think of Dixon as a healthy DA with a good attitude.

I do.

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Are the Trail Blazers not allowed to send out a press release etc. regarding Dixon because the CBA isnt official yet? All seems rather quiet at Trail Blazer headquarters, so maybe they cant talk about it, or maybe they are waiting to announce a trade to help explain this signing.


I expect a rather large flurry of press releases from the Blazers as soon as the new CBA takes effect:

SAR trade
DA waived
Nick waived / traded
Smith signed
Dixon signed
*POSSIBLY* Ruben traded
Brian Grant signed

Hold onto your hats, people.

PBF


----------



## J_Bird (Mar 18, 2005)

Hap said:


> but than again, they did do a press conference for Trenton Hassell last year...


Ya, but the whole Hassell ordeal last year took place after the moratorium.


----------



## Doggpound (Nov 1, 2002)

You guys will enjoy watching him shoot in pre-game warmups. I'm not sure you'll enjoy watching him get abused on the wing, then dominated in the post. Every third game you'll enjoy watching his "hot" streaks.

At least you guys now have a designated driver.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> I expect a rather large flurry of press releases from the Blazers as soon as the new CBA takes effect:
> 
> SAR trade
> DA waived
> ...


Then you're going to be disappointed, IMO.

I expect to hear about the SAR trade, Dixon signing and possibly the Smith signing. Bringing in Dixon has raised doubts with me on whether or not Smith was really a done deal, or just one option among many.

As for Da - he doesn't have to be waived immediately, so why do it except as a last resort?

Nick doesn't have to be waived immediately either, might as well hold onto his contract as a chip for the time being.

Brian Grant would have to be waived (and clear waivers) before he could be signed.

And a Ruben trade, as much as I like it, probably would have leaked by now if it were a "done deal", so I'm not getting my hopes up.

There's a lot of offseason still left though...


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Doggpound said:


> You guys will enjoy watching him shoot in pre-game warmups. I'm not sure you'll enjoy watching him get abused on the wing, then dominated in the post. Every third game you'll enjoy watching his "hot" streaks.


You're talking about DA, right?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Juan Dixon is a Shooting Guard, not a classic Point Guard.

He is a bench player, not a starter.

I am neutral on this signing. 

Dixon doesn't seem that exciting of a player, since he doesn't solve our need for a starting caliber shooting guard. He is undersized. He is not a great shooter.

On the other hand, I seemed to always like what he brought off the bench to the handful of Wizards games I saw last season. He certainly had his moments. He shores up the guard rotation without costing a whole lot, and without threatening the long-term plans of Telfair & Webster development.

He also improved his shooting percentages his third year. 42%, 33% from 3 point, 90% Free Throw. 2 to 1 assist to turnover ratio, btw. He may have found a grove in the NBA.

What does this signing tell us about the plans of the Blazers?

I agree with others above, that this makes it much more likely that all of Derek Anderson, Nick Van Excel and Damon will not be wearing a Blazer uni this season.

I think this also portends the acquisition of a backup power forward - using the Trade Exception, the MLE (or what might be left of it), a sign-and-trade involving Damon, or a trade of one of our many small forwards (Ruben hopefully).

Why do I think this?

I think they have analyzed what would be needed under the new CBA to try to get far enough under the cap next summer to make a fair offer to Joel, and decided it would not be worth the further tear down to accomplish. They were hoping the new "Gilbert Arenas" provision would somehow grandfather in Joel. It didn't. They have to move on. Adding Dixon just proves it.

Nate McMillian was undoubtedly brought in with a promise by the team that they were going to ADD (not subtract) to the existing core, and that they would give him viable rotation pieces to work with. Nate wouldn't have come here if they were still in tear down mode. The tear down (the end of which is Damon, SAR, Nick, and DA) is over (for now).

The Blazers are in cost cutting mode. They are not flipping ALL of their expiring deals to maintain a very high payroll. But, I see the Blazers as willing to spend a little money, up to about the luxury tax limit of $60million, depending on what they get.

After the Dixon signing, the next biggest hole in the lineup is backup Power Forward. I think the Blazers will try to accomodate Nate's need for one.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Hap said:


> but than again, they did do a press conference for Trenton Hassell last year...


I've said this numerous times... the Trail Blazers didnt want to hold a press conference for Hassell until it was official, but the media asked/begged for it because he was in town. The Trail Blazers obliged, and when the TWolves matched our offer, those same media bafoons who asked for the presser turned and bashed the team for it.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Someone called Dixon a bit undersized.

Dixon is a lot undersized.

He is not 6'3" and he is listed as 164lbs. Not even close. 

His only attribute is his confidence in himself and his heart. I used to think he always hustled but a few times during the playoffs last year, when someone like Gordon or Hinrich stripped him, he fell to the ground and just watched the Bulls get an easy layup.

He also reads message boards. He talked about how he was driven by a thread called "The Amazingly Sucky Juan Dixon Thread" on RealGm's site to comeback from a woeful, pathetic 1-10 outting in which he had to stop the coach in the parking garage and tell him not to give up on him. Of course he did have 35 the next game.


----------



## Doggpound (Nov 1, 2002)

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=368144

For reference regarding "the post"


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Have to question some of these moves. With the 2nd pick in the 2006 NBA draft, the Portland Trailblazers select... (probably another wing player).


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

E-blazer, I think you have it right. This next year is going to be all about determining what the new players can do, getting experience for all players, and determining what pieces to keep for the long run. The new coach is going to institute new defense schemes and start to mold a team. Zach is going to test his "new" knee and learn to play the NateWay (defense does count). Miles is going to sink or swim. On this team, his scoring will be needed, and if he can at all get along with Nate, his stats will go up and he will be much more tradeable by next summer. This is going to be an uptempo, hustling defense, scrambling type of team. It will be a crowd pleaser, if they can manage about 30 or more wins.

Coming into July, the Blazers needed some more backcourt help and help at PF. Nash said he wasn't sure whether they needed a true vet PG to cover minutes or whether they needed some experienced player to spell and teach the young guys, while Telfair and Jack would get the most time. I think reality has hit. PGs are in short supply in the league. Telfair, by all accounts showed very well in summer league, and other teams have offered deals for Jack. I think management has decided to more or less go with Telfair and Jack at the PG spot. Probably 3 years down the road, there will be a trade of Telfair or Jack for real value, but it is too early now to worry about.

As for PF, I think the addition of Nate has changed the situation some. Where did Nate play Ruben when he was in Seattle? He played much time (not all, but much) at the 4. Nate likes Ruben at the 4. Viola. Ruben at the 4 solves a good bit of the need for an additional PF, and it frees part of the log jam at the 3. I wouldn't be surprized to see the Blazers pick up a big body at the end of the summer, if a decent one is available cheap, but I think the frontcourt is basically set already with Theo, Joel, Zach, and Ruben. Teams will still sag in against the Blazers, because of the need to stop Zach, and because other Bigs can't shoot from more than 10 feet (Joel has shown some promise here). However, the outside shooting of this new team is potentially better, and there may be more balance between outside and inside than we had last year. In this area, Dixon helps as an experienced shooter. He also will help with fastbreak scoring.

I think it will be fun to see how individuals and the team as a whole, develops.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

What a great signing.

I mean Dixon fills SO many holes.



It will be fun to watch this team get yammed on all year long.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

arenas809 said:


> What a great signing.
> 
> I mean Dixon fills SO many holes.
> 
> ...


cause yah, he (or any free agent signing for as little $$ as the blazers have) was so expected to fill all the holes and be the difference maker.

but damn, the team will get "yammed" on now for sure.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

arenas809 said:


> What a great signing.
> 
> I mean Dixon fills SO many holes.
> 
> ...


Hey troll!

Actually, he does fill a hole for us. In case you didn't notice, we sucked last year and SG was the weakest of the weak for us. So signing a guy who plays the position we're weakest at and getting him for next to nothing isn't a bad thing, is it? Or does 'yammed' mean something good?


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

i love the Dixon signing

the guy has heart and who cares if he is streaky...thats why he isnt gonna start, rather hopefully supply a nice spark off the bench

my ideal lineup

Telfair...Patterson...Outlaw...Randolph...Joel

with: Jack...Dixon...Khryapa...Ratliff...Seung-Jin

and the second tier bench- Webster and Monia seeing spot time


i would like to see us trade Darius Miles for some frontcourt help so we dont rely solely on theo and Ha

i like the idea of Ruben starting at the 2 to help make up for any defensive mistakes by sebastian and travis



this is my idea now but will probably change right after i post this

GO BLAZERS!!!!


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Some notes from BlazerBlog contributors...



> I live outside DC and watch all Wizards and Maryland Terrapins games, so I have seen Juan from the time he was 18 to now. He's a great character guy, someone who I guarantee works harder than anyone the Blazers have (the story from this years playoffs was him going 1-10 in game 3 against Chicago and pleading with Eddie Jordan to give him another chance and to keep faith in him. He went back to the arena and shot for 3 extra hours. Game 4 he went 11-15 and dropped 35.) He is a gunner when he sees the floor, but doesn't usually take bad shots. If he would have gone to a bad team, like the Bobcats or Hornets, he would average 20 a game. I wouldn't expect any more than 20 minutes a night from him. A nice back up SG who can win a game every now and then if he gets hot. He's not much of an on-the-ball defender because he might be the lightest guy in the NBA (no way he is more than 150 pounds). But he is quick and plays passing lanes well. Not a great ball handler or passer, but OK in spots. Don't expect him to be paired with Telfair much. He will be a nice guy to play in the last few minutes of the first quarter and late in the third and early fourth and is a good guy to have out at the end of games for free throw purposes. I think a good signing for the Blazers, he won't cause trouble and will be a good example to the high schoolers they have.
> - Jordan
> 
> I live in the DC area and watch the Wizards a lot. Remember Vinnie Johnson (the guy who sunk Portland in the '90 Finals)? Dixon is a player in the same mold. He's a little bit streaky (though not as much as some claim), but when he gets hot from the outside, its lights-out...he's a great shooter. Having him on the floor will really open up Zach's post game; defenders cannot take their eyes off Dixon. He's deceptively quick on his feet and has a lightning-quick release.
> ...


----------



## RoseCity (Sep 27, 2002)

Masbee said:


> After the Dixon signing, the next biggest hole in the lineup is backup Power Forward. I think the Blazers will try to accomodate Nate's need for one.


I disagree here...The biggest hole is STILL finding a viable starting SG, Dixon/Smith/DA/Monia should not be the answer. If so, be verrrrry afraid!


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

RoseCity said:


> I disagree here...The biggest hole is STILL finding a viable starting SG, Dixon/Smith/DA/Monia should not be the answer. If so, be verrrrry afraid!


If we were hoping to contend next year, I agree with you... but c'mon. How great of a SG do you need.

Dixon and DA are both capable NBA players. Smith, Monya and Webster - well at least one of these guys has to be an NBA player.

You don't need to have an all-star at every position. It's okay to have role players or prospects learning on the job at one or two spots on the starting lineup.


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

> Just think of Dixon as a healthy DA with a good attitude.


How do you figure?

DA has been a double digit scorer in the NBA for the better part of a decade....Dixon hasn't shown anything near that ability. 

Yes, DA probably needs to be moved out....but Dixon isn't the answer as the replacement....maybe a decent bench player though.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

the big difference between DA and Juan=

$7 million dollars a yr

QUITE A BIG DIFFERENCE IF YOU ASK ME


at the deal we got him at, Dixon is a great value and will be solid off the bench


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

RoseCity said:


> I disagree here...The biggest hole is STILL finding a viable starting SG, Dixon/Smith/DA/Monia should not be the answer. If so, be verrrrry afraid!


I didn't say it was a well plugged hole. But since the Blazers now have some help there, backup Power Forward IS now the BIGGEST hole, IMO. Unless you agree with the smokescreen/spin/bs coming from Blazerland that Darius/Ruben/Monia/Khryapa are good options for backup powerforward. Me, I don't buy it.

If you want to be picky, the truth is EVERY POSITION is a "HOLE" on the Blazers and could easily be upgraded/fixed. We don't have one single position locked up with a player likely to be above average - top 15 or better.

PG: nothing proven and young points rarely are above average. Toughest position to learn.
SG: Nobody who has ever been top 15 on our roster & not likely to get that kind of play this season from any on our roster.
SF: Darius is close, real close. But, he will have to pull off his most consistent season. Since he has never done it before, can't pencil him in for above average. If you listen to some of the posters on this board Miles is garbage that should be shipped off and the next opportunity. After that we got a lot of potential. Great. We might have someting in 3 years.
PF: Zach was above average 2 seasons ago. We know he can do it. We can't pencil him in for that coming off knee surgery.
C: A one-trick pony coming off an injury riddled season, and a former dissappoint who had two great months and may not have a long future in P-Town. Though, to be fair, I consider the combo of Theo & Joel at Center to be an above average Center rotation in the NBA. Can we fuse them into one person? Theo should give up half his bloated salary to Joel anyway.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> the big difference between DA and Juan=
> 
> $7 million dollars a yr
> 
> ...


I'd say the biggest difference between a healthy DA and Juan is their performance on the floor. DA was at least an average starter, and Juan isn't even an above-average bench player.

Dixon demonstrated to the Wizards over the course of three years that he wasn't worth keeping. The team didn't pick up his option and had exposed him in the expansion draft.

Portland doesn't NEED depth anywhere. We don't need young veterans with almost no starting experience. We need upgrades in talent/performance, we need veteran players with winning experience, and/or we need to fill some obvious holes in our roster.

I just don't see how Dixon does any of these things, as I think on it over the day and as I read the posts in this thread.

This is a clearly different situation than the Joel signing, IMO. Joel was a 7'1" former (high) lottery pick. He'd started in 104 games in his career, which was over two-thirds of the games he'd appeared in. He was also 25 when Portland signed him.

Dixon is undersized for his position. He's never been considered a top prospect. He's started 23 games (of 176, for 13%) in his NBA career. He's two years older than Joel was when Portland signed him.

Add in the fact that Portland is reportedly going to be paying him over $2m a year (which is a bit more than Joel made) and I'm not willing to treat this like the Joel signing. 

I was one of the only ones on the board that thought Joel still was a good prospect before the Blazers signed him up, iirc, so maybe that's why I don't see it.

I just don't like the Blazers using a roster spot and committing $8m over three years to a guy that shouldn't be playing for us when we get good and isn't good enough to help us be decent in the mean time.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

and just think we could have signed Joe Johnson, Ray Allen or Larry Hughes instead of Dixon.....



Why does this have to be made into a bigger deal than it really is?

He is a backup SG, who can help provide a spark off the bench, and possibly give POR a little time to get Webster (in particular) and possibly Monia ready to start at SG.

I'd rather POR had signed Jaric, for example, but since he probably wasn't avaiable (nor was Jaskivicus), I don't think it is a bad signing at all...kind of ho-hum IMO.

Stop making this out to be more than it is...


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

NBAGOD said:


> How do you figure?
> 
> DA has been a double digit scorer in the NBA for the better part of a decade....Dixon hasn't shown anything near that ability.
> 
> Yes, DA probably needs to be moved out....but Dixon isn't the answer as the replacement....maybe a decent bench player though.



Yes, DA has been a double digit scorer for 7 years, but who cares? He should only get credit for doing it for about 3-4 years because that's about how many full seasons he's put in over his career if you add all his games together. Last year he was down to 9.2. 

Dixon isn't the answer, and isn't going to start to many games for us, but I bet if you give him DA type minutes at 30 plus, he can average 10-12 ppg like DA would do. He'll probably jack up as many bricks as DA also.

To me Dixon is worth a hell of a lot more than DA because he can play most of the season.

EDIT- I still don't agree with the Dixon signing though. Charles Smith is probably better than Dixon, IMO.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I just don't get it.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I'd say the biggest difference between a healthy DA and Juan is their performance on the floor. DA was at least an average starter, and Juan isn't even an above-average bench player.
> 
> Dixon demonstrated to the Wizards over the course of three years that he wasn't worth keeping. The team didn't pick up his option and had exposed him in the expansion draft.



The problem with that, Ed, is you can't compare a "healthy DA" to Juan. DA is hardly healthy. When he is healthy, it's for about 5 days, or everyone is hoping he gets injured because he keeps jacking up brick after brick.

I'm not in favor of signing Dixon, since I think signing Charles Smith is plenty, but in all fairness, didn't we leave DA exposed in the expansion draft? DA isn't worth keeping either.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Stop making this out to be more than it is...


The Blazers could have paid a backup the league minimum. Instead they just (reportedly) committed over 2 million a year for three years to a guy who doesn't fill a need, has little upside, and isn't NBA starting caliber.

It's better than committing $5m a year for the same, but it's not an insignificant amount of money and it's not an insignificant mistake, IMO.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I still think it's a solid signing... Juan could very well end up being a solid sparkplug type player off the bench once the team gets back to a decent level.

At 3 years, 8 mil, we have him at a rooke price.

Even if he doesn't end up fitting in, he would be very tradeable with this deal and would never demand much of the cap.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Scout226 said:


> The problem with that, Ed, is you can't compare a "healthy DA" to Juan. DA is hardly healthy. When he is healthy, it's for about 5 days, or everyone is hoping he gets injured because he keeps jacking up brick after brick.


You certainly can compare a healthy DA to Juan. And Dixon is clearly the inferior player.

It's not an either-or decision here, but I'd prefer to go with DA and hope he gets healthier than pay extra to take on an inferior player like Dixon.



> I'm not in favor of signing Dixon, since I think signing Charles Smith is plenty, but in all fairness, didn't we leave DA exposed in the expansion draft? DA isn't worth keeping either.


I know. DA is an albatross on the franchise because of his contract and his inability to stay healthy. He's a player that the team doesn't want because of those two factors.

Dixon stays relatively healthy and he had a reasonable contract and the Wizards STILL were willing to let him go (and the Hornets weren't interested in him in the expansion draft). What does that say?

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Looks like the Blazers are using part of their MLE on Dixon:

http://www.hoopshype.com/rumors.htm

Not a surprise, but nice to have the (kinda) confirmation.

PBF


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Ed O said:


> The Blazers could have paid a backup the league minimum. Instead they just (reportedly) committed over 2 million a year for three years to a guy who doesn't fill a need, has little upside, and isn't NBA starting caliber.


Doesn't fill a need?

He plays SG and that's a position that is much in doubt on this team.

Has little upside?

I agree that he's not a great athlete who Hubie would describe as having "tremendous upside potential", but he improved every year in college and has improved every year he has been in the league... the kid has a hell of a heart and if he continues to push himself, he will continue to improve.

Isn't NBA starting caliber?

I think he actually might be starting caliber - but certainly below average. He just had a pretty solid year off the bench and at the very least, I think he'll be a solid rotation player to provide some decent perimeter offense and start a few fast breaks. 

Regardless, the way you phrased this post it makes it sound like you would expect to buy a solid starter or a top prospect for 2 mil/year, which is well below the league average.

You say he doesn't fill a need - I disagree and think that it is at least arguable. We'll see what happens.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Let's compare Dixon's last three years with DA's last three years. I'm going to mix them up to allow for some guessing:<CENTER><TABLE BORDER=1 WIDTH=50%><TR><TD><b>Year</b></TD><TD><b>Games</b></TD><TD><b>FG%</b></TD></TR><TR><TD>A</TD><TD>63</TD><TD>41.6</TD></TR><TR><TD>B</TD><TD>47</TD><TD>38.9</TD></TR><TR><TD>C</TD><TD>42</TD><TD>38.4</TD></TR><TR><TD>D</TD><TD>76</TD><TD>42.7</TD></TR>
<TR><TD>E</TD><TD>51</TD><TD>37.6</TD></TR><TR><TD>F</TD><TD>71</TD><TD>38.8</TD></TR></TABLE></CENTER>

The point of this isn't to determine who's been better or who will be better... this is WAY too simple for that. It's just to show that in spite of all the heat DA (rightfully) takes for his performances, Dixon's no better.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Regardless, the way you phrased this post it makes it sound like you would expect to buy a solid starter or a top prospect for 2 mil/year, which is well below the league average.


I don't mean to sound that way at all. He's just not worth paying that much for. Whether he is a $5m player that we pay $10m for or a $1m we pay $2m for, it's still overpaying.

For a regime that seems to put lots of weight on financial prudence, this seems like another unnecessary splurge.



> You say he doesn't fill a need - I disagree and think that it is at least arguable. We'll see what happens.


You're ENTIRELY right that it's arguable. He's a 2 guard, and we lack 2's. But he's small and he's not experienced and he's just not very good.

That, IMO, is why he doesn't fill a need.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Fair enough Ed...

I certainly share your concerns. I guess I just have a good feeling about the guy and think that he'll end up being a very solid contributor to the club - perhaps suprising some people along the way.

You can draw a lot about a player from statistics, measurements and combine scores, but Dixon to me is one of those guys that has the will to make something happen in the league, and I hope he finds a way to do it in Portland.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Ed O said:


> You certainly can compare a healthy DA to Juan. And Dixon is clearly the inferior player.
> 
> It's not an either-or decision here, but I'd prefer to go with DA and hope he gets healthier than pay extra to take on an inferior player like Dixon.


I look at DA in two ways I guess. 1) The old DA 2) The current DA

If we had no SG and had to sign two players out of DA, Smith, or Dixon, I'd sign Smith then Dixon. I'm to the point that DA is useless. The Blazers can't count on him. If they don't use the amnesty on him, they have to go into the season thinking DA can play 0 games. If they expect anything else, it's fools gold. 

Still, our choices in FA aren't that great. Smith seems like an interesting option for now, but I'd pass on Dixon and use the amnesty on DA and go from there. By mid season I'm guessing webster will be better than DA and Dixon.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> You can draw a lot about a player from statistics, measurements and combine scores, but Dixon to me is one of those guys that has the will to make something happen in the league, and I hope he finds a way to do it in Portland.


I 100% support your optimism... it sounds like you have a good connection with him with the whole Maryland thing and that's cool. I hope that he emerges as a Vinnie Johnson-type player for Portland over the next few years.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I 100% support your optimism... it sounds like you have a good connection with him with the whole Maryland thing and that's cool. I hope that he emerges as a Vinnie Johnson-type player for Portland over the next few years.
> Ed O.


And I 100% support your criticism.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Dixon is an excellent 11-12th man, one of the few in the league from that spot who can go on a hot streak -- offensively and defensively -- to bring you back from a large defecit very quickly. He's going to have a half dozen games throughout the year where he scores 23 points on 8-12 shooting with 5 steals, probably all coming at the perfect time to squash any and all momentum the opponent had going for them.

Dixon is a poor 1-10th man, one of the few in the league who can play so poorly -- offively and defensively -- that an opponent will find their way back into games more easily than they have any right to. He's going to have 76 games throughout the year where he scores 7 points on 3-10 shooting while getting burned on defense left and right, probably coming steadily throughout his court time to always make sure you're at a slight disadvantage when he's in the game.

<hr>
As a Washinton guy, I wanted Dixon back as our 11-12th man for no more than about $1.5 million a season, for no more than a couple of seasons. Any more than that and I was happy to see him go. I'm not saying people should necessarily be upset at the signing, but I most definitely wouldn't be excited about it either.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

From the blog:



> he won't cause trouble and will be a good example to the high schoolers they have.


I think that's the #1 reason for the signing. He doesn't really bring anything tangible to the team, but like "addition by subtraction," the real measuring stick often is how the rest of the group responds to a change.

Dan


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Although I don't know how Dixon will help this team, I can tell ya he has heart and determination. If I'm not mistaken this kid lost both of his parents to AIDS before he even entered college. 

If he could go on to stay in Maryland and win a national championship then far be it for me to say he can't be a positive in Portland. 

I just don't want it to take away from Webster or Jacks growth.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Ed O, those numbers are absymal and I'm speaking about the games played. The Blazers just replaced DA with DA part Deux.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

> Dixon is a poor 1-10th man, one of the few in the league who can play so poorly -- offively and defensively -- that an opponent will find their way back into games more easily than they have any right to. He's going to have 76 games throughout the year where he scores 7 points on 3-10 shooting while getting burned on defense left and right, probably coming steadily throughout his court time to always make sure you're at a slight disadvantage when he's in the game.


This is what scares me the most. I don't mind picking up someone who has adequate skills (although I wish we were paying less), but we have too much familiarity with inconsistency to be happy about acquiring it.

Damon had times when he seemed he could do no wrong but overall, most wanted him gone.

Sheed could be incredible, you just couldn't count on it. 

Miles, see Sheed (and here's to the eternal hope that springs in all Blazer fans that the guy with possibly the most upside will actually work hard and be consistent).

We've got a group of very young guys from whom I expect occasional flashes of greatness but more often than not, I expect to see passable adequacy with the occasional "I can play better than that!".

The last thing I want added to the roster is someone with barely adequate skills, little consistency, etc. Sure we're getting him at a rookie price but he's already proven that he's not worth that price.

Surely, we can do better.

Gramps...


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I guess I'm in the minority, I like the signing. He is a good spark plug off of the bench who can fill it up. He knows his role. He plays with heart, and if you doubt him he will prove you wrong.
My depth chart....

PG-Telfair/Jack(I really hope we keep him)
SG-Outlaw/Dixon/Webster
SF-Miles/Monia
PF-Randolph/Khyrapa
C-Joel/Theo


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

I guess I see the Dixon signing as no big deal either way. Most likely he'll play the same role here as he did in Washington; a backup 2G who on certain nights can be an impact player. If he can earn more playing time than that and develop into a bigger asset, great. If not, the guy is cheap enough and his contract is short enough that he can be dealt pretty readily as filler in just about any move Nash makes.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

The Blazers need some veterans with character to help the youth develop. DA seems to be a failure in that area, and since the team isn't going anywhere for a couple of years, it seems prudent to invest in the gradual development of the young players by bringing in someone like Dixon. This isn't about Dixon's stats and his basketball strengths leading the Blazers to more victories. It is about his work ethic and general character helping the youth to develop in the right way. If Portland has to pay a few extra million over the next 3 years to obtain better support for youth development, it seems to me to be the right time and a very sound investment.

Good bye DA. Enjoy the LA scene.


----------



## chula vista blazer (Jul 13, 2005)

These signing make me think of the saying "penny wise, pound foolish" or something like that... It strikes me that for the price of a Charles Smith and a Juan Dixon, we could have just about had Antonio Daniels- an actual talent at both the Point and Shooting Guard- exactly what we needed to make this season respectable and coming off the bench in future seasons.

Maybe we should only hire Nash during the draft and get someone else for the rest of the season.

Hate to sound like Ed, but even this optimist is kind of disappointed by these scraps we're rumored to be picking up...


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

Yep, this team is gonna stink! Nash can draft, but look out when it comes to Free agent signings


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

ChulaV, I think you are correct in some ways, but you may be missing a key point -- the Jerm factor. Daniels is better than the ones we are sigining, but won't he slow the development of the younger players? I think, if not this year, then next year and the following year, a Daniels would keep Jack and maybe Telfair from getting the minutes he/they need to quickly develop. It seems to me to be a case of higher risk (lower quality vets) for higher return (faster development of high quality young players).

It is also probably questionable whether Daniels truly wanted to sign with the Blazers. It always behooves FA to get multiple teams making offers, so they can drive up their own salaries with the team of their choosing.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

A year ago almost nobody was excited about signing Joel and now everyone is scared we won't be able to retain him for the MLE exception. 

One and a half years ago, people were questioning why Nash would trade our starting SG for Wes Person and a draft pick. Now that trade is looking like a steal.

At this point, every draft pick of Nash looks very good. 

Does Juan Dixon excite me? No really. If he's a flop is that going to really hurt the team? No.

I don't get why everyone is up in arms, especially since a lot of times, we as fans don't have full information.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Maybe we should only hire Nash during the draft and get someone else for the rest of the season.


I hear ya. I alternate between applauding his draft moves to cringing at his trainwreck strategizing the rest of the year.

Does that make him better suited to scouting than GM duties? Sure sounds like it.

Dan


----------



## dcfan (Jul 29, 2005)

I do not think that some of you Portland fans realize what Nash just did for your team. I am not going to say that getting Juan is of epic proportions, but the Blazers probably got the steal of this years crop of free agency players. Having watched Dixon since I was at U of Maryland, and as a Wizard, this dude is all heart and never backs down. If he signed to play with the Blazers, than I will bet that he will be penciled in as the starting 2, or as the sixth man off of the bench. This guy is sick, and during the season this past year with the Wizards, in a starting role he averaged 20 pts, 3 steals, and 4 assists. Take it from me, he was as good, if not better than Hughes and Arenas.

At Washington, he never got the time to play. I believe that the coaches (first Doug Collins, and MJ, and than Eddie Jordan, did not want to play him for fear of being labeled as homers and loyal to a hometown superstar and beloved player) but the truth is this dude has ice water in his viens. 
For people who like stats check this out, he holds and shares the nba record for most steals in the 4 quarter, he holds the MCI center record for most steals in a game. He has like 30 plus games in his career of scoring 10 or more points in the 4th quarter. He is 6'3 and not 6'1 and can make play making ability, but he is a natural 2. Plus, don't let his slight frame fool you, he has a wiry strength, and you fans will see it.

For you critics, look at his stats, and go to NBA.com and bring him up. Compare him to bum *Do not mask your cursing* Charles Smith. Juan only averaged between 14 and 16 minutes per game. And still averaged between 8 to 10 points per game over the past two seasons. He has only played in like 60 some odd games over the past two seasons because the coaching staff in DC did not like him. He's not a trouble maker, but you guys are used to having trouble makers...look at his stats he would have games of scoring 20 pts, 28 pts, 26 pts, than zero points. Do you want to know why he did not score any points? That is because he would not play because of a coaches decision. Eddie Jordan tended to do that to all of the wiards players, and that is why the zards are losing players to free agency. 

Juan was being chased by the heat, pacers, cavaliers, suns, sonics, you guys, kings, fakers, nuggets, and the knicks, if he is such a bum, why are these teams chasing him, in which the majority of them are playoff teams, and contenders. He is a difference maker, and the Blazers got a steal. Do not worry, you guys are OK at the 2. So what if Kobe and T-Mac are bigger, they can't stay with him. I'm just pissed he left Washington, and did not sign w/ the Heat so that he could bust Washington's *Do not mask your cursing*.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

Dixon is a player in this league no question about it he just needs to gain confidence. i could see him becoming the starting SG on this team for the next couple years untill webster steps in.... btw you heard it from me first if dixon becomes a blazer you wont be disapointed if you play him


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

So I guess this boils down to Nash choosing Dixon over DA. In terms of usefullness to the team and production on the floor it's pretty even, with DA maybe having a slight edge. The difference I'm guessing is attitude. DA will cry and become a possible cancer if he's playing behind Telfair Jack and Webster. Dixon from what I've heard, wont. His contract is good and could be useful in trade possibilities down the road. 

It's a very ho hum signing. Not good and not bad. I would rather get AD, but as someone mentioned his presence would stunt the growth of Telfair Jack and Webster. You wont have to worry about that with Dixon. I see him more as an insurance policy in the back court than anything else.


----------



## dcfan (Jul 29, 2005)

This is for that Cavalier administrator dude. Momentum killer? WTF are you talking about? Does your animosity towards Juan have no limits? Eddie Jordan, the Wizards organization are momentum killers.... Gilbert Arenas shooting 5 for 25 is not a momentum killler, lets just say his is a momentum that never was. Juan is not Steve Kerr, where he can just sit, plant his feet, smell the roses, and relase...and than splash the ball goes in the basket...all with the help from a set up pass from Jordan or Duncan. Don't set the Blazer fans a fire. If you live in Fairfax, Va. than you know that Zards NEVER PASS THE BALL. SO WHEN JUAN SHOT IT WAS A SHOT HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN BUT IF LH SHOT THE BALL, and SHOT THE BALL, and SHOT the BALL, he WAS GETTING into his groove. Sure, we are talking about DIXON, but tell the truth MAN. Huges would have games going 0- for 15 and was still given the green light. Why don't you mention that the Zards did not run screens for him, except for the BULLS Game when he dropped 35 pts.

Don't worry portland, you guys are A OK. I predict the line up to be 1) Sebastian 2) Juan or Webster 3) Miles 4) Randolph 5) Ratliff Key reserves either Juan or Webster, and Pryzbilla. 

I think the main questions for this upcoming season should be, will Lary leave the Knicks after a 4 and 15 start? And will Lebron go crazy in Cleveland, once he realized that Cavaliers signed a deal with the devil in acquiring Larry Hughes. Lebron is gone after this season. Than all the teams will come callling for that dude!


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

I'm still hoping he's somehow involved in the trade with SAR.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I think a lot of you guys are downplaying Dixon a lot....He is a solid player who accepts his role and can score....Sure he isn't a Larry Hughes, Michael Redd or Joe Johnson but he is a solid NBA player and I think he will be a surprise addition to this team....I watched over half of the Wizards games this year on NBA pass and I was truly impressed by Dixon....When he's hot, he's one of the best shooters in the NBA, his defense is good and has big game experience...On top of that he's a great player for the younger guys to have around, because you know you'll never see him getting caught smoking weed on I-5 or calling the coach the 'N' word.....

He has something that DA has never shown and thats HEART.....I watched a documentary on him when he was in the final four for Maryland about his drug addict parents and a brother who is in jail, he was taken in by his uncle who was police officer and he worked his way to where he is now by hard work and determination and has never touched drugs or alcohol in his life.....I have been a fan ever since.....Sure, good stories don't win ballgames but the kid can play as well and won't complain....He's a solid player...I'm loving the type of character players that Nash is bringing in and slowly dwindling out the rotten apples.....I realize a lot of the fans on this board could care less about character and more about wins and losses.....But our management is making personnel decisions thats bring class back to the city and that makes me look past the wins and losses for right now....Our young players will come along and we'll be in contention again very soon....

I know I'm rambling on, but Juan will be a very solid player for us...and become a fan favorite like he has been in college and the pros.....I love this deal and was hoping that we would go after him from the get-go...

Now we just need a backup PF and fill out the assistant coaches on the staff and I'll be happy until the trade deadline...

-Here is the link to Juan Dixons official website: http://65.61.22.167/dixon/ where he even has his own diary....



> To me it's not about whether I am in the starting line-up or not; it's about how I can best help my team. During those weeks when Larry was out, I believe I did just that and really got a chance to show what I can do and to help my team.


-Here is a good article about Dixon's work ethic: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=250502027



> "Juan is one of the toughest players I have been associated with," coach Eddie Jordan said. "He is very sensitive to his profession. He cares about his teammates and about winning. He has won at Maryland and he wanted to be a big part of the playoffs and have an impact -- and he certainly had an impact tonight."





> On Sunday, Dixon took 750 shots before practice and 300 afterward.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I'm usually not a big stats guy but look at how good Dixon's stats are per 48 minutes...

Per 48 minutes (via ESPN.com)


----------



## chula vista blazer (Jul 13, 2005)

Bwatcher said:


> ChulaV, I think you are correct in some ways, but you may be missing a key point -- the Jerm factor. Daniels is better than the ones we are sigining, but won't he slow the development of the younger players? I think, if not this year, then next year and the following year, a Daniels would keep Jack and maybe Telfair from getting the minutes he/they need to quickly develop. It seems to me to be a case of higher risk (lower quality vets) for higher return (faster development of high quality young players).
> 
> It is also probably questionable whether Daniels truly wanted to sign with the Blazers. It always behooves FA to get multiple teams making offers, so they can drive up their own salaries with the team of their choosing.


You raise a good point. I'll admit that sometimes I think the best thing for the Blazers would be to give the kids each at least 20 minutes a game and maybe end up with a "final piece" top five pick next year. But, in balance, I think it's easier to develop them with talent around them. As a combo guard, I think AD could have helped all three young guards-- it would just be up to Nate to make sure he plays the kids enough to avoid a Jermaine situation. For the longest time, however, we've been developing good PF's in just this way--- jermaine just got stuck behind two really good power forwards, but i'm sure his development benefitted from being around talent and winning.

AS to whether Daniels truly wanted to sign with us, we'll never know for sure- but I can see where he might like this situation better than Washington.

But, you have given me things to think about. I'd really rather be wrong here!


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Dixon will be a steal for this team


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

e_blazer1 said:


> I guess I see the Dixon signing as no big deal either way. Most likely he'll play the same role here as he did in Washington; a backup 2G who on certain nights can be an impact player. If he can earn more playing time than that and develop into a bigger asset, great. If not, the guy is cheap enough and his contract is short enough that he can be dealt pretty readily as filler in just about any move Nash makes.


As E-Blazer says this is about as good of a signing as we could make given all the peramiters that Nash took into consideration. 

We, most of us, fail to see the value of "putting together a *team*" rather than individual players. 
Those that can all have a specific role. Much like the Pistons have. 

We are going to be a better *team* than most think. I think!

gatorpops


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

DCfan, thanks for the inside info. It's sometimes hard for us to follow an Eastern player. We only see them twice & if they are neither individual stars nor on a team that is a "glamour" team we won't read a lot about them or see them on TV much. As others have said, we don't expect Dixon to be Michael Jordan (his first incarnation), just help the team. Seems he will. He's not the keystone but looks like he can be another piece.

I had not heard he was so widely pursued, anyone know why in that case he chose Portland? Not that I'm complaining.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

cimalee said:


> Dixon will be a steal for this team


It sounds as if Dixon excels at "steals" so that may be apprpriate


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

crandc said:


> I had not heard he was so widely pursued, anyone know why in that case he chose Portland? Not that I'm complaining.


I'm not sure, but I could see Dixon and McMillan getting along in a big way so maybe that was a big factor... also he has a shot at a starting spot and while I don't think he'd pout if he had to come off the bench, that opportunity has to look pretty good.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

dcfan said:


> This is for that Cavalier administrator dude. Momentum killer? WTF are you talking about? Does your animosity towards Juan have no limits? Eddie Jordan, the Wizards organization are momentum killers.... Gilbert Arenas shooting 5 for 25 is not a momentum killler, lets just say his is a momentum that never was. Juan is not Steve Kerr, where he can just sit, plant his feet, smell the roses, and relase...and than splash the ball goes in the basket...all with the help from a set up pass from Jordan or Duncan. Don't set the Blazer fans a fire. If you live in Fairfax, Va. than you know that Zards NEVER PASS THE BALL. SO WHEN JUAN SHOT IT WAS A SHOT HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN BUT IF LH SHOT THE BALL, and SHOT THE BALL, and SHOT the BALL, he WAS GETTING into his groove. Sure, we are talking about DIXON, but tell the truth MAN. Huges would have games going 0- for 15 and was still given the green light. Why don't you mention that the Zards did not run screens for him, except for the BULLS Game when he dropped 35 pts.
> 
> Don't worry portland, you guys are A OK. I predict the line up to be 1) Sebastian 2) Juan or Webster 3) Miles 4) Randolph 5) Ratliff Key reserves either Juan or Webster, and Pryzbilla.
> 
> I think the main questions for this upcoming season should be, will Lary leave the Knicks after a 4 and 15 start? And will Lebron go crazy in Cleveland, once he realized that Cavaliers signed a deal with the devil in acquiring Larry Hughes. Lebron is gone after this season. Than all the teams will come callling for that dude!


This is why almost every single non-Maryland but Wizard fan is glad to see Dixon gone. Like I said, he walks on water for some guys, especially the Marylanders. 

Juan Dixon is a scrub that got motivated for one game in the playoffs because he was called out on a message board.

The Wizards were dying for a SG when Hughes left. Dixon didn't get the time of day, and he was a first round pick by that team, #17 overall. The Wizards have young guys like Blatche, that Dixon could have theoretically mentor, but they let him go. Plus, as a bonus, Dixon also put people in the stands, and still the Wizards did not want anything to do with him.

Just wait for his baseline pump fake, 1 dribble drive on the baseline, for a leaning pull up, blocked from behind. This usually happens because he pounded the ball into the ground for 20 seconds, leaving himself no other choice but to jack it.

Dixon has never but the commitment into developing his body, or consistency. Maybe he has been complacent knowing his core base will always support him no matter how many 2-10 or 3-11 games he has (see dcfan). 

If he can be consistent, then he can be a Vinnie Johnson type of guy. If not, then he is a Momentum Killer.

Hate to harp on Dixon's shortcomings, but dcfan is a big reason it is sometimes tiresome to live in the metropolitan DC area, and I just had to respond.

Let me finish by saying Dixon is a GREAT guy. His character and class are unquestionable.


----------



## Doggpound (Nov 1, 2002)

dcfan said:


> I do not think that some of you Portland fans realize what Nash just did for your team. I am not going to say that getting Juan is of epic proportions, but the Blazers probably got the steal of this years crop of free agency players. Having watched Dixon since I was at U of Maryland, and as a Wizard, this dude is all heart and never backs down. If he signed to play with the Blazers, than I will bet that he will be penciled in as the starting 2, or as the sixth man off of the bench. This guy is sick, and during the season this past year with the Wizards, in a starting role he averaged 20 pts, 3 steals, and 4 assists. Take it from me, he was as good, if not better than Hughes and Arenas.
> 
> At Washington, he never got the time to play. I believe that the coaches (first Doug Collins, and MJ, and than Eddie Jordan, did not want to play him for fear of being labeled as homers and loyal to a hometown superstar and beloved player) but the truth is this dude has ice water in his viens.
> For people who like stats check this out, he holds and shares the nba record for most steals in the 4 quarter, he holds the MCI center record for most steals in a game. He has like 30 plus games in his career of scoring 10 or more points in the 4th quarter. He is 6'3 and not 6'1 and can make play making ability, but he is a natural 2. Plus, don't let his slight frame fool you, he has a wiry strength, and you fans will see it.
> ...



He was the best Wizard guard on the court when Gilbert, Hughes, Hayes and Blake were on the bench getting a breather.

You are insane if you think T-mac, Kobe or for that matter Wally World can't stay with him. You make him out to be like he has Iverson's speed with Reggie Miller's shooting.

Go play NBA Live you can create this mythical Juan Dixon after you triple his ratings.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

So you're saying if Dixon is motivated he can put up those kind of #'s? 

That means talent isn't the issue, and motivation is?

We've got a coach for that!


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

YardApe said:


> So you're saying if Dixon is motivated he can put up those kind of #'s?
> 
> That means talent isn't the issue, and motivation is?
> 
> We've got a coach for that!


As I said, maybe complacency was his problem. All I know is what I wrote. He has had as many minutes as he could handle, and there was a starting spot for him on the Wizards if they thought he could do that. 

Don't believe for a second he did not get minutes. With Hughes being injured last year, and Arenas the year before, he has had sustained stretches to show what he had. The homer radio station that loves everything Maryland even said that his leaving was not a big deal for the Wizards, and that Juan was marginal as a player.

Let me also say that his entry passing to the post is non-existant as well.

I really do not dislike the guy personally, and I hate how it sounds like I am attacking him.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Actually I don't think you are being overly negative towards him. You are pointing out his shortcomings, which I appreciate as I haven't seen him play much in the NBA. He sounds an awful lot like Damon Stoudamire in play style... except hes taller (still undersized) with a better attitude. I saw enough dribbling for 20 seconds and then chucking a shot, I really hope Nate can get him trained out of that. Fortunately his contract isn't too bad so it's fairly low risk, and everyone seems to agree he's a good character guy (which is probably the main reason he was signed).

Anyways, thanks for your input.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

One more thing to add.

Between his rookie year and last year, Dixon increased his ball handling abilities tremendously. His first couple years, you would cringe when he had the ball in his hands out top. Now, you can have a modicum of confidence in his abiilty to handle.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Being a native of C'ville BCH, I can understand the anti Terp Dixon thing, but I'll give him a shot for at least half a season before I'll ask for his trade and to bring Ralph Sampson out of retirement. :biggrin:


----------



## dcfan (Jul 29, 2005)

Yes, I am sayin he has Iverson' speed. And hold up, va fan/administrator..time will tell whether Juan can step and play. The Wizards have a recent history of giving up decent players that they think can not play, but the organization usually finds out that they were wrong in their assessments about those players. Juan is one of them. Answer this for me... why was Juan being courted by 5 + playoff bound teams... No, your attitude is the reason why living in the DC metro area, w/ regards to following sports is a pain in the ***. That is because fans in DC are fickle. The truth of the matter is, that most fans here in DC felt that Juan was given a break because he was a local hero. Every time during a wizard wrap up show, the DJ would chastize and blast fans who questioned why Juan did not play more. For every fan that questioned the wizards use of Dixon, there were about 5 fans that said he was to small, not big enough, etc. 

I'm sure you are the same type of fan that was excited when the Wizards traded Ike Austin for Ben Wallace, Rip Hamilton for Jerry Stackhouse, Webber for Richmond.. do you get my point? Juan will succeed in Portland either as a starter or as a reliable bench player. If portland trades him than that is there loss. Give me a break about T-Mac and KOBE. I'm sure that they probably will light Juan and most of the leauge up, but tell me if they will win again. Kobe might with the Zenn master, but let me know when T-Mac gets out of the first roundof the playoffs, and let me know if KOBE can ever get out of Shaq's shadow, and get off of Jordan's lap. 

If you think that I sweat Dixon, than you are mistaken. I used to hate the dude. But, what I realized was that when the game was on the line he showed up. Unlike Arenas in the final game against Miami, where he intentially fouled out and put up sh!t shots when his team was down. Juan came in hit two three's and hit Jamison w/ an assist and the Zards had a brief lead...but that sh!t doesn't count. And for you who said he was the fifth best wizard guard, tell me something... did you come up with that one on your own, or did you ride the coat tails of the Cavalier fan to come up with that excuse. Portland should be happy that they got a dude for a small asking price...they will have to re-negotiate with him in the near future... Relax people, and think about it...why would the lakers, cavs, heat, pacers, blazers, sonics, kings, and suns go after Dixon if he was ****. Just use logic here, and than come up with a decision for your self. These same people that are cracking on Dixon now, used to say that Rip Hamilton was too small and not talented, that Ben Wallace was to Raw, and that Weber was all show and no go!!! How does someone drop 35 pts in a playoff game, if he was garbage. He ain't willie burton dropping 55 pts for the 76'ers back in 94. I was at the game, he could have scored 50 pts, but he was stoned by Arenas and Hughes... Just think about that why would the Blazers go after him, and why aren't they satisfied with DA, Webster, Miles, or whoever else plays the two for them.

*Don't mask your cursing.*


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm not overly excited about this signing, but as some posters have mentioned, Joel Przybilla didn't get anyone out of their seat when he was signed last year either. Dixon does have some interesting qualities that could end up paying huge dividends once he gets a change of scenery.

Chances are, it won't be a big chunk of change that he'll be getting paid and he's probably a better option for this team than Damien Wilkins. Lets face it, it could get a lot worse than Juan Dixon.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

dcfan said:


> Yes, I am sayin he has Iverson' speed. And hold up, va fan/administrator..time will tell whether Juan can step and play. The Wizards have a recent history of giving up decent players that they think can not play, but the organization usually finds out that they were wrong in their assessments about those players. Juan is one of them. Answer this for me... why was Juan being courted by 5 + playoff bound teams... No, your attitude is the reason why living in the DC metro area, w/ regards to following sports is a pain in the ***. That is because fans in DC are fickle. The truth of the matter is, that most fans here in DC felt that Juan was given a break because he was a local hero. Every time during a wizard wrap up show, the DJ would chastize and blast fans who questioned why Juan did not play more. For every fan that questioned the wizards use of Dixon, there were about 5 fans that said he was to small, not big enough, etc.
> 
> I'm sure you are the same type of fan that was excited when the Wizards traded Ike Austin for Ben Wallace, Rip Hamilton for Jerry Stackhouse, Webber for Richmond.. do you get my point? Juan will succeed in Portland either as a starter or as a reliable bench player. If portland trades him than that is there loss. Give me a break about T-Mac and KOBE. I'm sure that they probably will light Juan and most of the leauge up, but tell me if they will win again. Kobe might with the Zenn master, but let me know when T-Mac gets out of the first roundof the playoffs, and let me know if KOBE can ever get out of Shaq's shadow, and get off of Jordan's lap.
> 
> ...


Remember Juan's 35 point game? 0 Assists. 11-15 shooting (3-4 from 3) and 10-10 from the foul line. First, how often does a career 39% shooter go lights out? Second, that is the only game in his career with double digit free throw attempts. Even taking this game into account, he shot an incredible 37.5% for the six game series. The guy literally had the game of his life. Go look it up.

Now try and and remember the godawful game he had before that. 1-10 (0-4 from 3)

Ok, now try and remember the woeful season that preceded that godawful game.

Continuing down memory lane, try and remember the dismal previous 2 years with Juan.

One game does not a player make. Time has told the tale on Dixon, and that is a story where he is a defensive liability, and the epitome of a streak shooter. 

And as for the same people making personnel decisions for the Wizards, Grunfeld and Jordan are new kids on the block in that tired, worn out drama.

Now for Arenas not showing up, I guess you missed the game winner in game 5, and the game altering block in game 6. He is the reason the Wizards won their first round series, despite Dixon I might add.

I wish Dixon the best of luck, and I am glad he is not a Wizard. I hope he works out for the Blazers, and will definitely watch the Portland games with more of an interest. I apologize to the rest of the Blazers board for the little back and forth here, I know I should not get drawn in by a guy who created an account just to talk about Juan Dixon.


----------



## Chalupa (Jul 20, 2005)

Pessimistic view - The Telfair/Dixon backcourt is the shortest in the NBA

Optimistic view - The Telfair/Dixon backcourt is the quickest in the NBA

While those two will likely struggle defensively against bigger guards, their quickness will create match up problems for other teams.

I'd much rather have Dixon with his reasonable contract and desire to play than DA.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

foulliza ha get a tattoo?


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> foulliza ha get a tattoo?


Almost looks like Ha, but that's our beloved Brian Grant. I too had to ask him who that was because I didn't recognize him at first glance.


----------



## dcfan (Jul 29, 2005)

BCH said:


> Remember Juan's 35 point game? 0 Assists. 11-15 shooting (3-4 from 3) and 10-10 from the foul line. First, how often does a career 39% shooter go lights out? Second, that is the only game in his career with double digit free throw attempts. Even taking this game into account, he shot an incredible 37.5% for the six game series. The guy literally had the game of his life. Go look it up.
> 
> Now try and and remember the godawful game he had before that. 1-10 (0-4 from 3)
> 
> ...


No, I did not miss the game winner, but there is a difference between playing against the BULLS and the HEAT... Arenas knew that he was superior to the BULLS (Talent wise) but when the pressure was on against the HEAT, he folded... Don't worry we will see how he fares this season. When the wizards go back to reality and miss the playoffs again.

Look dude, I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you, but I will. You just don't like Juan, and that's your perogative. Maybe he tore your heart out of your cavs while in college... i don't know. And of course I remember the bad performances he had. But, he was used off of the bench. Most players who are used off of the bench show inconsistancies. He can not be expected to put up 11-15 shots every game. If Juan was expected to shoot 50 percent or better as a sub every game, than he should not worry about giving out assists..because his primary goal is to score. But, let's be real about the wizards, since most of the blazers fans don't know anything about them..they shoot first than pass second. How many times can you recall seeing a guard pulling up for three or at the free throw line on a one on three fast break. That includes Juan at times. But, it mostly was done by Hughes and Arenas. Don't fool yourself about that. They were never disciplined, so every player on the team felt that they had to shoot the ball, because the bulk of the shots were going to three players!!! It was so riddiculous that a common play was seeing Brendon Haywood pull up for a jump shot at the free throw line!! What is that all about? Juan's numbers are not about what kind of player he is. He is like Hughes and Arenas where he might miss three, but then hit 5 in a row. The problem is for whatever reason, even when he was in College this don't can't get any respect, so I wonder if people have a personal bias against him. As for Juan's performances, I also remeber the positive one's and how he was not rewarded for them. I also remember how players like Hughes were given the green light at any moment. Case in point, December 2003, a home game against the Warriors....Hughes goes 0-15 in the third and fourth quarters. He was not releaved of his duty, or told to sit down. So, what I am saying is that Arenas and Hughes could shoot when they pleased and did not have to worry about getting yanked out. It is funny how you even seem to criticize Juans' 35 point game, a game which the Wizards needed to control the series, also a game where the Wizards held control for most of the game. If Juan did not score 35, than they probably would have lost, because if I remember the Bulls brought it back froma 20 pt + defficit to make it a single digit game. I wonder if you were critical of his 35 point game in the win, back in April as you are now? 
We are on different spectrums about Dixon's ability, so it should be interesting to see how he fares in Portland. The blazers have a coach who is known to give players a chance and that should fare well for Juan and the rest of the blazers.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Please go on record as to what you think Dixon will do in Portland, and reasons why Juan will be successful. Apparently you think Gil, Hughes, and EJ kept the man down, but that can't be all of it, can it?

More stats for you from 82games.com about your boy Juan in the Clutch. His effective Field Goal percentage in the clutch is a stellar 35.7%. By comparrison Arenas was at 46.7% and Hughes was 52.6%. Both Arenas and Hughes also have better On/Off court stats than Juannie. The first 9 of the top 10 5-man units feature Arenas and Hughes, not Juan.


You have a lot of excuses and justifications for a player that showed 3 years of less than mediocrity. Stats show EJ had the right guys out on the floor.

I really wanted to stop repsonding, but I do think that your viewpoint needs balance. Your memory of how things went down, is completely off the mark in my opinion. I hope I have provided some stats to the Portlands fans to back up my point, and to give them some stuff to think about, and that this isn't useless banter.


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

I love you two going at it. I think this is giving us Blazer fans a lot of good information on the guy. It seems like we have a talented player with heart who will either be a nothing for us, or something special...haha Depending on who's viewpoint you are looking at. Anyways, guys, I appreciate the dialogue. It seems like you are both pretty set on your ways.....and I imagine Dixon's Blazers career as being somewhat in between these two viewpoints. I am not hot on the signing, but I don't hate it... It could end up being a steal or he could bust with us.....but even if he does we did not waste a substatial amount of money on him.....so heres to something good....
peace, Prunetang


----------



## dcfan (Jul 29, 2005)

BCH said:


> Please go on record as to what you think Dixon will do in Portland, and reasons why Juan will be successful. Apparently you think Gil, Hughes, and EJ kept the man down, but that can't be all of it, can it?
> 
> More stats for you from 82games.com about your boy Juan in the Clutch. His effective Field Goal percentage in the clutch is a stellar 35.7%. By comparrison Arenas was at 46.7% and Hughes was 52.6%. Both Arenas and Hughes also have better On/Off court stats than Juannie. The first 9 of the top 10 5-man units feature Arenas and Hughes, not Juan.
> 
> ...


What are you a statistician by trade? Where do you get the "in the clutch" stat? On the record all three players shot for the season and the playoffs at:
2005 Wizards Playoffs Statistics Printable 


PLAYER AVERAGES 
REBOUNDS 
Player G GS MPG FG% 3p% FT% OFF DEF TOT APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG 


Gilbert Arenas 10 10 45.0 .376 .234 .766 .80 4.40 5.20 6.2 2.10 .60 3.90 3.40 23.6 
Larry Hughes 10 10 40.1 .376 .212 .831 1.70 5.40 7.10 3.7 2.00 .70 2.50 3.50 20.7 
 Antawn Jamison 10 10 38.0 .451 .500 .688 1.60 4.70 6.30 1.2 .70 .40 1.60 2.40 18.5 
Juan Dixon 10 0 21.9 .406 .324 .840 .30 2.30 2.60 1.3 .70 .00 1.20 1.90 11.4 
Brendan Haywood 10 10 29.6 .542 .000 .636 3.50 4.10 7.60 1.0 1.40 2.00 1.00 4.00 10.6 
Jared Jeffries 10 10 24.7 .490 .500 .765 1.90 2.20 4.10 1.8 .90 .90 1.30 3.40 6.4 
Etan Thomas 8 0 15.8 .655 .000 .455 1.50 3.00 4.50 .3 .00 .88 1.13 2.90 6.0 
Kwame Brown 3 0 20.0 .385 .000 .556 1.30 3.70 5.00 1.0 .00 .67 .67 1.70 5.0 
Michael Ruffin 9 0 17.3 .700 .000 .563 1.70 2.40 4.10 1.0 .33 .33 .44 3.70 2.6 
Anthony Peeler 7 0 6.1 .111 .000 1.000 .00 1.00 1.00 .4 .14 .00 .43 .60 .6 
Steve Blake 4 0 4.3 .250 .000 .000 .00 .80 .80 .5 .00 .00 .25 .80 .5 
Laron Profit 3 0 1.7 .000 .000 .000 .00 .30 .30 .3 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 

Let's go then. If you notice your boys Arenas and Hughes shot an identical percentage... Juan shot a higher percentage from the field, free throw line, and three point line. Do you still want to go or what? Thank you so very much from enlightening me with your useless stats. If Juan played more his "in the clutch" stats would have been higher. If he had played more he would have shot close to 50 percent from the field.

EG is a franchise killer. He gets a lot of jazz for getting a franchise moving in the right direction, and than while he is still with the franchise, the franchise fizzles and fails. Just wait and watch the wizards.


Here are the regular season stats... 
2004-2005 Wizards Regular Statistics 


PLAYER AVERAGES 
REBOUNDS 
Player G GS MPG FG% 3p% FT% OFF DEF TOT APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG 
Gilbert Arenas 80 80 40.9 .431 .365 .814 1.00 3.70 4.70 5.1 1.74 .29 3.03 3.10 25.5 
Larry Hughes 61 61 38.7 .430 .282 .777 1.20 5.00 6.30 4.7 2.89 .30 2.51 2.80 22.0 
Antawn Jamison 68 68 38.3 .437 .341 .760 2.40 5.30 7.60 2.3 .81 .24 1.74 2.20 19.6 
Jarvis Hayes 54 22 28.9 .389 .341 .839 .80 3.40 4.20 1.7 .91 .17 1.15 2.00 10.2 
Brendan Haywood 68 68 27.4 .560 .000 .609 3.00 3.90 6.80 .8 .76 1.68 1.41 3.20 9.4 
Juan Dixon 63 4 16.7 .416 .327 .897 .50 1.40 1.90 1.8 .68 .06 1.08 1.60 8.0 
Etan Thomas 47 10 20.8 .502 .000 .528 1.80 3.40 5.20 .4 .36 1.09 1.06 2.80 7.1 
Kwame Brown 42 14 21.6 .460 .000 .574 1.70 3.20 4.90 .9 .60 .36 1.60 2.70 7.0 
Jared Jeffries 77 71 26.1 .468 .314 .584 2.00 2.90 4.90 2.0 .86 .45 1.48 2.70 6.8 
Steve Blake 44 1 14.7 .328 .387 .805 .40 1.20 1.60 1.6 .30 .00 .89 1.10 4.3 
Damone Brown 14 0 10.9 .371 .364 .444 .70 1.30 2.00 1.0 .07 .43 1.07 1.20 3.9 
Anthony Peeler 40 0 13.2 .373 .385 .889 .40 1.30 1.60 1.4 .45 .05 .70 1.00 3.8 
Laron Profit 42 4 10.2 .438 .286 .640 .60 1.20 1.80 .9 .38 .12 .64 1.00 3.2 
Peter Ramos 6 0 3.3 .500 .000 .500 .20 .50 .70 .0 .00 .17 .50 .70 1.8 
Samaki Walker 14 0 9.6 .355 .000 .667 .60 .70 1.30 .3 .21 .50 .57 1.80 1.7 
Michael Ruffin 79 7 16.0 .414 .000 .433 2.00 2.20 4.20 .8 .54 .52 .56 2.40 1.4 
Team Averages 82 0 241.2 .437 .343 .725 13.8 29.0 42.8 19.1 8.7 4.2 14.3 22.0 100.5 
Opponents 82 0 241.2 .459 .364 .762 12.4 30.6 43.0 23.0 7.2 5.0 15.9 24.3 100.8 
created: 05/14/2005,03:05 AM 

gilbert shot a point or two better than Juan, and Juan shot better than Larry...but Juan played limited minutes.. who shot better in the playoffs?


----------



## dcfan (Jul 29, 2005)

Those are the real stats.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Check out 82games.com for in the clutch stats. I am not sure how Juan is going to be a better shooter in clutch minutes, as it brings them to a per 48 stat. You think he gets better with more burn in all his 164lb glory?

Arenas was basically trying to carry the team on his back in the Miami series. Jamison was hurt, Hughes had injured his arm earlier.


----------



## dcfan (Jul 29, 2005)

Arenas was more like trying to carry the team on his wrist, not his back. So what if Juan is 164 lbs, last time I checked Basketball does not have a weight limit, and it ain't a collision sport. The only two players in the history of basketball that truly used their size as an ability to score were Shaq and Wilt. Basketball has the huge misconception that size matters, speed matters,... none of that sh...t matters, in sports heart matters, skill matters, intelligence matters, expericne matters, and determination matters just ask lary bird, earl boykins, charles barkley, george gervin if they were to small, to short, to slow, to skinny to play in the NBA..... do i have to continue? 

I knew where the clutch stat was, and how it is formulated. But, how can one create such a clutch stat dude? Juan came off of the bench at Wash. and like many of the players w/ the Wizards, he would go stints without even touching the floor.... the clutch stat is misleading because it supposingly goes by what a player does when the game is on the line, or some bogus sh..t like that...what it does not tabulate is how many foul calls or free throw attempts a player gets, whether a player has plays called for him...etc. The stat is made up by a computer!! It ain't real. Honestly must stats are b.s. but you wanted stats so I gave you some. Plus according to your logic, Juan should not have been on the court in a "clutch situation" because he was just a bench player. And Juan was far to inferior to be on the court in a clutch situation....Remember there were three players who shoot at all times, Arenas, Hughes, and Jamison... every one else had to look over their shoulders hoping that they would not get yanked out...no the wizards are limmited to the two duds.

What you did not comment on was that Juan led the guards in shooting percentage in the playoffs, and had a better percentage than Larry Hughes during the regular season. I did not want to bring up shooting percentage b.s. because it is misleading, but since you brought Juans dismal thirty some odd percentage clutch stat, *surely you must comment on how he was able to be better than or equal to the other two during the season?* Or is it that you don't want to talk about that? I must be talking to Chris Mathews, or maybe Sean Hannity, or possibly the big man himself Bill O'Reilly? You can't just look at what your saying and deny another piece of evidence that is right in your face. He led the guards in shooting percentage in the playoffs, and was one percentage behind Gilbert, and 3 more points than Larry Huges. If you crack on Juan, than you had better crack on Hughes and Arenas. But, you won't crack on them because they are "good" you don't like Juan. I now know that for a fact because you said something about his size...because of that you really don't have a logical reason for claiming why you don't like him now... you are just like all of his nay sayers throughout life and his career...remember he wasn't to small to set an NBA 4th quarter steals record in a game and an MCI center steals record in a game, he was not to small to score 35 points against the Bulls, or to bring them back against Miami when they were down by 15 in the fourth quarter, and Arenas quit and hid on the bench during crunch time. The boy is a ball player. You, sir have been exposed.


----------



## dcfan (Jul 29, 2005)

Actually Juan led the guards in both the regular season and playoffs? **DELETED**


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

dcfan said:


> Actually Juan led the guards in both the regular season and playoffs? **DELETED**


It appears that you are talking 99% out of your ***. I was going to try to relate that to apples somehow, but it's too early for that.

Juan Dixon sat on the bench behind players that were younger and better than him in Washington. I didn't see every game he played, and I am no Juan Dixon expert, but it seems that you're projecting your love of Juan, and therefore what you think he COULD have done, on top of what he actually accomplished, which is not much.

The biggest indicator of his value to the Wizards seems to be how willing they were to let him go... with a player like Jeff McInnis, who has big-time personality conflicts, it makes sense to simply let him walk. Dixon is by all accounts a nice guy, a hard worker, etc. So if they let him go doesn't that mean they think that he's just not a very good basketball player?

Ed O.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

All of those stats and ancedotes tell me he's already a better 2-guard than DA (hey, at least he SHOWS UP to play!), and isn't that what we're trying to do -- improve over DA for cheap?


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Ed O said:


> The biggest indicator of his value to the Wizards seems to be how willing they were to let him go... with a player like Jeff McInnis, who has big-time personality conflicts, it makes sense to simply let him walk. Dixon is by all accounts a nice guy, a hard worker, etc. So if they let him go doesn't that mean they think that he's just not a very good basketball player?
> 
> Ed O.


This is the biggest thing I'd take note of. As BCH has pointed out, Dixon is an absolute hero here in DC. He has people go to games just to see him, fans that will cheer for him at the top of the lungs no matter what he's actually doing on the court. He's a wonderful community guy, well-liked in the locker room, a tireless worker, always does what he is asked, and has no problems off the court. Yet Washington has never seemed to have shown the slightest bit of interest in keeping him around.

He was exposed in the expansion draft (where, I might add, he was passed over by Charlotte despite being inexpensive and expiring). The team did not pick up his very cheap option for next season. No reports were put out that I'm aware of that indicated the team offered him any kind of deal this summer. I didn't even read that the team was showing any level of interest at all.

The fact that Washington made little to no effort to hang onto Dixon -- for a relatively small sum that he would have made up a lot of with his merchandise and ticket sales -- really says a lot about what he brings on the court.

I don't want to sound too negative here, because I was actually in favor of bringing Dixon back to the Wizards. However, that was for a smaller deal (2-3 years, $1.5 million per), and I didn't want him in the regular rotation. He's an excellent type to have as your 11th man, but that's about it.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

MIN___FG______3PT____FT______OR_DR__TOT_AST ST B TO PF__PTS
1,239_219-525_56-173_102-114_38_102_140_130_51_5_80_115_596

1,239_152-391_58-151_70-87___25_103_128_143_36_4_70_89__432


One of these stats is DA's total stats last season, and one is Juan Dixon's 1054 minute season expressed as a 1239 minute season.

Honestly, It almost looks like a wash, and if you're signing a DA, sign him for $7 mil less.


----------



## dcfan (Jul 29, 2005)

Ed O said:


> It appears that you are talking 99% out of your ***. I was going to try to relate that to apples somehow, but it's too early for that.
> 
> Juan Dixon sat on the bench behind players that were younger and better than him in Washington. I didn't see every game he played, and I am no Juan Dixon expert, but it seems that you're projecting your love of Juan, and therefore what you think he COULD have done, on top of what he actually accomplished, which is not much.
> 
> ...


They were also willing to let Hughes go...if they were able to give a 30 million dollar contract to Daniels than they could have paid Hughes...but low and behold they let Hughes go...Jeff Mcinnis, wtf are you talking about, they never wanted sorry *** Jeff Mcinnis, get your facts straight. The Zards never wanted Mcinnis, he came into the leauge by the Wizards because his uncle is Bernie Bickerstaff...who oh my gosh, was the coach of the wizards at the time. The blazers took him, and for some reason he averaged double figures here once or some crazy **** like that. If Mcinnis can avg. double figure for the blazers, than Juan will kill here!!! You all just don't know...And DA, Juan lit that bum up for 30 two seasons ago, and made Maurice Cheeks pull him out of the game!!! 


*So if they let him go doesn't that mean they think that he's just not a very good basketball player?*

What kind of statement is this? If you use the Wizads history of letting players go, as a measurement to determine whether or not a player is good.....than the Detroit Pistons as a team must be horrible, Chris Webber must have been a huge bum, Tom G. must have been pure ****,...etc. They let him go because they are stupid! Do you all know that the entire league considers the Wizards organization as a whole...to be a joke? I know this on good faith, people laugh at Susan O'malley, and the whole gang. They ain't the Patriots, the ain't the Blazers, shoot the aint the Bobcats.. for years, many people joked that the MCI center was built on an ancient burrial ground!!

No one wants to argue the facts here. Somebody said I'm talking.... out of my mouth, but the truth is I present a detailed argument to some of you posters and you get caught with a foot in your mouth ailment. You don't have **** to back up what you are saying. Juan shot a better percentage than the starting backcourt while coming off the bench. Age don't mean **** in professional sports anymore, unless you are super old and dilapadated...With the advent of science and technology, athletes are playing longer and stronger. Jordan came back a million times, and during his last season the old man still averaged 20 + pts.. Bernard Hopkins untill his lost to J. Taylor, had 20 title defenses as a middle weight the spawned from his thirties until his age now of 40...Kurt Warner became an MVP at like 29, when he was in all practical purposes a rookie.

Trust me Blazer fans you guys got a steal...all I said was that he would be a good fit for your team because he either be efficient as a starter or coming off the bench. All these numskulls who keep cracking on him don't like him. But, when he gets the opportunity to play, than they will be eating their words, and eating crow!

 please don't mask your swearing. Just spell it out, so the sites automatic censors can catch them. Removing letters, or adding in periods or other characters isn't allowed. thanks


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

dcfan said:


> They were also willing to let Hughes go...if they were able to give a 30 million dollar contract to Daniels than they could have paid Hughes...but low and behold they let Hughes go...Jeff Mcinnis, wtf are you talking about, they never wanted sorry *** Jeff Mcinnis, get your facts straight.


I believe ed is comparing Juan Dixon's departure like that of Jeff McInnis's departure from both the Clippers and the Cavs. Whereas he was traded OFF of the blazers, the Clippers and Cavs let him go for nothing. They basically figured that getting rid of McInnis was worth it.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

i just want to say that it's nice to know that the Blazers are getting such a well loved player. seriously. i hope that he is a warmly accepted here.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

As in all acquisitions, if he plays well, it was a good acquisition, if he plays poorly, it was not. Of course all the people that posted on this thread with the correct position on this subject, will be recorded in the analogies of history, for all to read and revere from here after...... :biggrin:


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

hasoos said:


> As in all acquisitions, if he plays well, it was a good acquisition, if he plays poorly, it was not. Of course all the people that posted on this thread with the correct position on this subject, will be recorded in the analogies of history, for all to read and revere from here after...... :biggrin:


anals of history.
just trying to help.


----------



## Maybeso (Jan 29, 2003)

annals of history
just trying to help.

I'm anal about spelling.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

Maybeso said:


> annals of history
> just trying to help.
> 
> I'm anal about spelling.


dang... oops. thanks for the help, i knew it would happen, i just didn't think it would happen to me...


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

dcfan, you have no point, and there are no stats. Juan Dixon had a pedestrian efficiency rating (+7), where Arenas and Hughes were in the 20s. He had a worse +/- rating than Hughes and Arenas, who are admittedly poor in this rating. Finally he was a worse shooter than either guy, and that is saying a lot too. 82games tracks 5 man team stats, and Juan was not in the top 9 5 man team combinations. 

On offense he was worse. On defense he was worse. In a 5 man team look he was worse. How are you proving anything, when THESE ARE FACTS!

BTW, Portland fans, you not only got Dixon, but his rabid fan following. That makes me feel like dancing a jig. Remember, as long as you agree he walks on water, and are willing to overlook just about every statistical analysis, you guys will get along.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BCH said:


> BTW, Portland fans, you not only got Dixon, but his rabid fan following. That makes me feel like dancing a jig. Remember, as long as you agree he walks on water, and are willing to overlook just about every statistical analysis, you guys will get along.


if we can deal with Play..we can deal with anyone!


----------



## Leroy131 (Mar 11, 2004)

I guess I'll finally chime in on this signing after surveying the unexpected mayhem it has created. 

This is not a terrible move by any means. Dixon has limitations, but his pricetag (3 years, $8 million) is certainly managable. It almost seems like a bargain compared to the 5 years, $30 million the Wizards just gave Antonio Daniels. Juan Dixon obviously isn't a great shooter, but he knows how to score and I'd rather have a guy like that fill out a guard rotation than a one-dimensional scorer like Frahm. I think the Blazers were wise to go after a guy like Dixon to add depth rather than give away too many years and too much money to guys like Jaric or Daniels who are a small margin better, but aren't a clear answer short or long term either. Juan should turn out be a fine 4th guard.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

BCH said:


> dcfan, you have no point, and there are no stats. Juan Dixon had a pedestrian efficiency rating (+7), where Arenas and Hughes were in the 20s. He had a worse +/- rating than Hughes and Arenas, who are admittedly poor in this rating. Finally he was a worse shooter than either guy, and that is saying a lot too. 82games tracks 5 man team stats, and Juan was not in the top 9 5 man team combinations.
> 
> On offense he was worse. On defense he was worse. In a 5 man team look he was worse. How are you proving anything, when THESE ARE FACTS!
> 
> BTW, Portland fans, you not only got Dixon, but his rabid fan following. That makes me feel like dancing a jig. Remember, as long as you agree he walks on water, and are willing to overlook just about every statistical analysis, you guys will get along.


 Are we debating if Dixon is as good as Arenas or Hughes? Both those guys will make more in one season than Dixon will in his entire contract in Portland. I don't expect Dixon to be an all-star, but just fill a role on the team.


----------

