# The Long Haul: I'm Prepared...Are You?



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

From: The Big O



> Trail Blazers owner Paul Allen on Monday said he is committed to the team's youth movement and trusts himself not to veer from the rebuilding plan by trading for a veteran to make the team more competitive.
> 
> "A transition like this is not something you take lightly," said Allen, who watched Monday's practice before hosting a function at the Portland Art Museum for the team's sponsors.
> 
> ...


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I'm ready. As bad as it may get, at least we won't have to put up with the shenanigans and piss-poor attitudes of Wallace, Wells, Stoudamire, Anderson, Van Excel, et al. That in itself is reason to rejoice. Plus we'll have a team that is getting better, not worse!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Allen's saying the right things, but unless he's already eying Oden or Mayo (in 2007 and 2008, respectively) I find it hard to believe that he will be able to stay interested in a losing club for that long.

Talkhard's comment is a perfect one to show the pitfalls of the plan that's going on:

-- players attitudes. Miles and Zach and Ruben and others ARE going to get grumpy when they keep losing. Whether that will result in players shutting it down because of "injury" (NVE), or flipping off hecklers (Bonzi), or exploding at refs (Rasheed) is unclear... maybe it will result in none of it, of course, but the odds are that players WILL make mistakes and that when they do some fans that expect squeeky cleanness will jump all over them.

-- improving team. There's no guarantee this team will improve. This year. Or the year after. Or the year after that. It's all but guaranteed that the team will improve, eventually, but we don't know when it will come. If we knew we'd win 25 this year, then 35 the year after, then 45... of course it would be easier to put up with rebuilding because of progress. But this team might win 25 this year and 20 next year and 22 the year after... even as individual players are added via the draft and younger players improve, injuries will occur and veterans will leave and other teams will improve in our division and conference. An expectation of improvement over time is natural and something that we should have, but I have a feeling that if/when it doesn't come Paul Allen's going to wonder why he's wasting his time with a bad team.

Allen's been through a half year of really bad basketball. I'm glad that he's committed to doing it right and not making rash decisions... but I still have serious doubts as to whether he'll remain committed to it.

And, indeed, one might wonder whether he'll be committed to the Blazers generally in the way he used to be. Missing the opener and talking about reducing the team's spending long-term are both entirely reasonable for a man in his position, but the owner that we used to have wasn't always reasonable about his team... and it made being a Blazers fan more exciting.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Allen's saying the right things, but unless he's already eying Oden or Mayo (in 2007 and 2008, respectively) I find it hard to believe that he will be able to stay interested in a losing club for that long.
> Ed O.


What do you mean by "if he will stay interested in a loosing club"? are you implying he will sell or buckle down and make a trade for a vet?



> "We had extensive discussions during the summer about the direction we wanted to take leading up to the draft, and we all looked at each other and said, 'This is the direction we are going to take.' *It's a multiyear process, and the fans and I are going to have to be patient with it."*.......


Mr. Allen knows it will take time and he has to be patient. I see no quote in their of him waffling


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> What do you mean by "if he will stay interested in a loosing club"? are you implying he will sell or buckle down and make a trade for a vet?


I think that he'll get rid of Nash and bring in a GM who is better at building a winning team. I don't know when this will happen, but I think that it will.

I FEAR that he won't bother. That he'll move on to other interests, give management a salary figure not to exceed, and become hands-off. That he, like so many of us fans, will become used to losing and not be upset enough to make changes.



> Mr. Allen knows it will take time and he has to be patient. I see no quote in their of him waffling


Why would he waffle now, after half a year of losing? He's got to put a brave face on and hope for the best. After 2.5 or 3.5 years, though, I doubt he'll do the same. Unless, of course, he just doesn't care anymore.

Ed O.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm definitely ready for the long haul. My homerism allows me to beleive that our players will not only improve year after year but that managment will also not turn down a really good deal if it were to come up. 

And honestly, I can't see us going the way of the Clippers and being a crappy team for the next 20 years.

It seems like we finally have a plan of action and I trust that Paul Allen knows what he's doing.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Trader Bob said:


> I see no quote in their of him waffling


No there is no flip flopping quote, but of course talk is cheap. His long haul quotes don't dictate what the clubs eventual actions may be based on whatever unfolds from here... they certainly don't say that management won't look for a roster balancing trade or to move a vet (like most of the trade discussions here advocate). 

_"We had extensive discussions during the summer about the direction we wanted to take leading up to the draft, and we all looked at each other and said, 'This is the direction we are going to take.' It's a multiyear process, and the fans and I are going to have to be patient with it."......."You want to see (the youth) develop, because often you don't know what you have on your roster until a few years," _

As the club is currently made up, how exactly are they going to give all their young SFs a good look? How will they really know what they have when there arn't any minutes available? 

I think Paul does want patience from fans, because all signs (IMO) point to the club struggling mightily for years. I'd imagine that he'd rather go through this period with patient fans paying for tickets and not assailing him and his organization for putting together such a bad club... even worse would be if they stopped caring (and coming) altogether. But I can't imagine that it was in their plans to have 5 SFs, and if there was a way to turn Theo into value for the future I'm sure they'd seriously consider it. If they did make such a trade that improved the club's makeup, I don't think anyone would take Paul to task over making these statements.

STOMP


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Ed O said:


> -- improving team. There's no guarantee this team will improve. This year. Or the year after. Or the year after that. It's all but guaranteed that the team will improve, eventually, but we don't know when it will come. If we knew we'd win 25 this year, then 35 the year after, then 45... of course it would be easier to put up with rebuilding because of progress. But this team might win 25 this year and 20 next year and 22 the year after... even as individual players are added via the draft and younger players improve, injuries will occur and veterans will leave and other teams will improve in our division and conference. An expectation of improvement over time is natural and something that we should have, but I have a feeling that if/when it doesn't come Paul Allen's going to wonder why he's wasting his time with a bad team.
> 
> Ed O.


I generally agree with your posts, but this one seems overly pessimisitc. It's true there are no guarantees. But injuries and veterens leaving are an issue with every team, not just the Blazers. I think it is safe to assume that a young roster like this will improve. How much, is the question but generally players with 0-3 years of experince tend to improve. If history is any indication of the future, young players get better and older players skills tend to decline after a certain age. So barring any injuries, I would venture to guess this roster will be better after 82 NBA games under their belt. At least the odds are much better this team improves over the course of one to two years v. an old aging team.

Again good enough to be a powerhouse in the NBA is another issue.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> How much, is the question but generally players with 0-3 years of experince tend to improve.


But do TEAMS with lots of players from 0-3 years of experience improve?

Outlaw should get better. Telfair. Webster. And so on.

But losing Joel (which still has a better-than-even chance of happening IMO), seeing Theo continue to whither, losing Ruben... We are a young team, but the few veterans we have actually are key to whatever success we will have this year and not replacing them with anyone except young players that we hope will get better is a recipe for trouble.

Look at last year's team to this year's... almost to a man, everyone is better on the team now than they were last year (Theo is probably the exception, and even he might be better since he was hurt last year). But the team lost too many guys in Damon, SAR, NVE, and DA to improve.

There likely won't be another massive diaspora of talent and production like that one in the next few years, but there will be the ever-present drain from injuries and veteran departures. And, with the team being where it is, it will have difficulty replacing them with anything other than draft picks or whatever trades it decides to make.

I'm not trying to be pessimistic here. I'm looking at things in anything but the most favorable light and trying to make up my mind if Allen will be willing to keep with the multi-year plan if it's still failing to generate wins after multiple years.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

it's doubtful that the team would be at the same place (record wise) after next year, and the year after..and it's kind of funny that some posters are acting like it's a 100% given that we'll be the worst team in the league (basically) for the next 3 years.

I guess growth and improvement only happens when you have "superstars" in the making.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I think Paul does want patience from fans, because all signs (IMO) point to the club struggling mightily for years.


I don't see these "signs" you are talking about. An NBA team can be turned around very quickly with the right coach, the right addition or subtraction of players, and with solid drafting. The Miami Heat are a case in point. With Pat Riley at the helm, they went from a terrible team to a very good team almost overnight. And look what Hubie Brown did in Memphis, and what George Karl did in Denver last year. They both took struggling teams and turned them around very quickly.

The Blazers have a solid (albeit very young) foundation. I think we've going to see a lot of improvement from them during the season, and I think adding a key piece or two next summer will accelerate that process. Veteran players aren't necessarily the answer anymore in the NBA. Look at the Knicks and the 76ers, who are both stocked with veterans yet are pretty lousy. The Bulls are probably better than those teams, even though they were the "Baby Bulls" only 2 seasons ago. And imagine how much better the Bulls would be today if they had just hung on to some of their young players like Brand and Artest!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Ed O said:


> But do TEAMS with lots of players from 0-3 years of experience improve?
> 
> Outlaw should get better. Telfair. Webster. And so on.
> 
> ...


I think the difference this year is the core players now are all young. Yes you lose some vets, but you can fill the holes of a Joel, Theo and Ruben. The team is hanging their hats on the young guns and hoping they will improve enough to carry the team, by how much . . . I'm not as sold as others that it will to the level of NBA powerhouse. I also think Allen (who is an incredibly savy businessman) has the patients to give it a couple of years . . . this is a man who loves capital investment (which takes time)

The flaw in Allen's reasoning, from my perspective, is he relies too much on Nash's judgment. And I'll make the same statement, if history is any indication of the future, Nash is going to get us close to the promise land. He has shown flashes of good drafting in the past, but his trades are below average at best and below average isn't going to get it done. 

Got to run so you can have the last word, but even given your intellictual analysis and replies, I'm going to stick with my opinion that this team will improve over the next couple of years . . .at least their odds are better or as good as any otehr team in the NBA.

Take care and don't let the koolaid drinking Blazer fans get carried away. : )


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

In answer to the question: no.


The Bulls are a case study in the good AND the bad. The bad is that rebuilding from scratch meant that they were TERRIBLE, essentially from Jordan's second retirement to this past year. That's Six Years of Serious Sucking. It also shows that it's practically impossible to keep your nerve: Brand was traded, Miller was traded, Artest was traded, and now Curry has been traded. The good news is that if you luck into the right combination, you *can *improve in a hurry with just young players (that is, looking at the Bulls from when they acquired Hinrich). And without even a "superstar". Have we got the right combo? The odds are stacked heavily against it.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

It seems to me that there are a few questionable underpinnings to the Blazers' youth movement plan:

1. Mr. Allen talks about the financial reasons for going with a less expensive approach in a small market town due to changes in the NBA. Okay, I'll buy that, but here's the problem with the current approach: It's cheap now, but over the next 2-3 years the young guys are going to come to the end of their rookie contracts. At that point, as Przybilla, Outlaw, Telfair, etc. start looking for big money second contracts added onto the deals that Zach and Miles currently have, the salary is going to balloon again.

2. He talks about letting the young guys develop because you're not sure just how good they may become a few years down the road. Yup, we don't want another Jermaine O'Neal fiasco, but here's the rub: In order to get good, a player has to get playing time. Jermaine didn't blossom until he got out from a situation in Portland where he was the third option at his position. When we've got 7 or so swing men on the roster, just exactly how are we going to find out how good they all are? Perhaps more importantly, who are we holding back from developing because they're not getting the minutes they need to build their confidence and skills up? Finally, if it's about the youth, why are guys like Smith, Dixon, and Patterson getting minutes that could be used to develop young players?

3. Given 1 and 2 above, who's to say that the Blazers will be able to keep things together long enough to turn things around? If the Blazers try to keep the salary down as their players mature, then they're going to look for better paying opportunities elsewhere. If certain players don't feel like they're getting the playing time they deserve, they're going to want to move along. If players just get tired of getting drilled by the opposing team every night, won't disillusionment set in?

4. Paul Allen cites San Antonio as an example of a small market team that's been successful while maintaining a low budget. The fallacy there, of course, is that San Antonio is succussful primarily because they have a dominant franchise player to fill in around with less expensive role players. As much as I love some of our young guys, I don't see a Duncan-type dominant player among them. Unless there's a good chance we'll get one in the draft in the next year or so, we're still stuck where we've been for years: trying to compete without a superstar.

In summary, a youth movement is no guarantee of either a successful team or a cheap roster. I suspect the Blazers know this and that all of this talk is just aimed at trying to keep the fans supportive while the team goes through the rebuilding effort. IMHO, by the end of this season the Blazers had better identify which players they want to keep and who they should part with to make trades to make the team better. They had better start moving guys like Patterson and Theo who certainly can't be a part of the team's long term objectives. They had better draft well or figure out how to trade to get a true franchise player to build around. Otherwise, all of this talk is just that and we're going to be watching a lot of losing.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> I'm ready. As bad as it may get, at least we won't have to put up with the shenanigans and piss-poor attitudes of Wallace, Wells, Stoudamire, Anderson, Van Excel, et al. That in itself is reason to rejoice. Plus we'll have a team that is getting better, not worse!


Me too. This team will get better, and will likely get some help from the draft also. They are headed in the right direction. I think they still need to get their star (through the draft) unless someone like Webster really steps up. 

Even knowing that they are one foul away from being 0-3, I'm converting to DirecTV and getting the League Pass, just so I can watch these guys build. I'm already proud of what they've done. Now they just need to mature and add through the draft.

:banana: :bbanana: :vbanana: :rbanana: :banana: :bbanana: :vbanana: :rbanana: 

Rebuilding Rainbow banana dance--because they are doing it right!


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> ...Allen's been through a half year of really bad basketball. I'm glad that he's committed to doing it right and not making rash decisions... but I still have serious doubts as to whether he'll remain committed to it..



OK, well, he cited the Kings and Spurs as models he _intends_ on emulating:



> Allen acknowledged that other small-market teams, specifically San Antonio and Sacramento, have achieved success without paying astronomical salaries, saying, "That's definitely the direction we are trying to head toward."


So. it would occur to me that he's leaning more towards the Euros and hopes to get "lucky" in the draft. I'm not exactly sure how else those two teams built/succeeded differently than that.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Over the last few years we have seen several teams go from bottom feeders to competitive or even top dog. Detroit. Chicago. Miami. Denver. What do all these teams have in common? At some point each one of them added a star caliber player or two in order to turn things around, either by draft or trade. Detroit: Showcased Stackhouse until they could trade him for Rip Hamilton. Miami: Drafted Dwayne Wade which allowed them to trade for Shaq, because he was interested in playing with Wade. Chicago: Shrewd drafting in large amounts eventually got them enough players to become competitive. Denver: Drafted Carmello Anthony and got Kiki in to help bring in higher level free agent talent then was available before. 

Portland can do this. The question is, does Portland have a star in the making, or does Portland need to obtain one over the next few years. Right now Miles is as close as it is, and unless somebody springs on to the scene, Portland will have to either draft or trade for at least one star in order turn this ship around.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> Over the last few years we have seen several teams go from bottom feeders to competitive or even top dog. Detroit. Chicago. Miami. Denver. What do all these teams have in common? At some point each one of them added a star caliber player or two in order to turn things around, either by draft or trade. Detroit: Showcased Stackhouse until they could trade him for Rip Hamilton. Miami: Drafted Dwayne Wade which allowed them to trade for Shaq, because he was interested in playing with Wade. Chicago: Shrewd drafting in large amounts eventually got them enough players to become competitive. Denver: Drafted Carmello Anthony and got Kiki in to help bring in higher level free agent talent then was available before.
> 
> Portland can do this. The question is, does Portland have a star in the making, or does Portland need to obtain one over the next few years. Right now Miles is as close as it is, and unless somebody springs on to the scene, Portland will have to either draft or trade for at least one star in order turn this ship around.


is Rip Hamilton really a 'star caliber' player tho?

I think, altho the Pistons didn't draft most of who is on their team (outside of Tayshaun, realistically), they're the kind of team the Blazers should copy. Hard working, defensive minded, and team first.

[ed o] if we only had a player on the team who was like that. Oh we did. [ /ed o]


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> OK, well, he cited the Kings and Spurs as models he _intends_ on emulating


Didn't the Kings spend a BUTTLOAD of money on their successful teams? Not $100m, but a lot?

And the answer (after some research): yes. They spent $70.1m, 4th-highest in the NBA, in 02-03 and $68.0m, 5th-highest in the NBA, in 03-04. San Antonio was 17th and 25th in those two years, respectively.

Sacramento dipped back down to $61.8m last year, when they went back down to a 50 win team.

Not a big deal, but lumping Sacramento and San Antonio together when discussing financial approaches is casting a VERY wide net and I'd love to hear what he thinks they have in common other than their success and not being Dallas.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> [ed o] if we only had a player on the team who was like that. Oh we did. [ /ed o]


Heh. Detroit, of course, wasn't ever really bad. They had a single year (00-01) where they dipped into the lottery in the last 7... and they haven't been as bad as Portland is now since 93-94 and 94-95... and I don't think them being bad THEN had anything to do with them winning a title almost a decade later.

Miami was bad for a couple of years, but even before they added Shaq they were getting better. It seems to me, though, that Allen is saying that the team isn't interested in adding a veteran--even a great one--if it impacts things down the road. 

Chicago and Denver are each cases that are closer, but Chicago hasn't done anything of consequence yet, and Denver (a) cleared cap space (adding Miller and Martin), got an excellent player in the lottery (in Anthony) AND was able to parlay their best player into another lottery pick (which was Nene, although it could have been Amare). Portland's in a position to draft high in the upcoming year, but we failed to do parts (a) and (c) when we had the chance.

Ed O.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Of course the rookie contracts will expire. But if you look at the successful franchises, they do spend money but they spend wisely. Let's face it, folks, this team was spening like a drunken sailor on players who did not deserve it. EVERYONE, damn near, got a max deal in the Whitsitt era (Freudian slip, my typing finger started his name with an S by mistake). 
So, you give players time to develop. Avoid a Jermaine O'Neal situation.
You stock up on young talent knowing not all of them will work out. Those who develop, get deals to match. Some won't develop. 
Draft well (they have already done that). Don't trade for the sake of making deals, avoid overpriced aging vets. Don't look for get-rich-quick schemes that seldom if ever work. 
Of course there are no guarantees. We've all seen the much-heralded rookies who flamed out in a year or two. And we've also seen the slow starters who blossom in 2 or 3 years. But it seems absurd to more or less "guarantee", as some here are doing, that neither the players as individuals OR the team as a whole will or even can get better.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> ...Not a big deal, but lumping Sacramento and San Antonio together when discussing financial approaches is casting a VERY wide net and I'd love to hear what he thinks they have in common other than their success and not being Dallas.
> 
> Ed O.


It that super-duper, whiz-bang, empirically-based, top-secret database they've been working from. You know, the same type of resource that Paul is throwing 6-figure salaries at his local propellor-heads to develop and maintain.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O's point is very valid here; Star players are usually not developed, rather they already have "it". Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Garnett, Wade, all had "it" before end of season one playing. We don't have a player like that - that I can see.

Players like McGrady, Rip, Nash, did seem to develop substantially after coming into the NBA.

Good news is - we'll be drafting high for the next few years. This can only help our talent level. Then, when opportunity knocks, trading opportunities will present themselves and we can make moves. Other teams always want others they see and especially as rookie contracts expire and players demand more than avg money - trades can happen (i.e. Joe Johnson, Curry, Jaric, etc.).

For now, we have to _hope _we have players who will _exceed _expectations - we don't have a star now.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Hap said:


> is Rip Hamilton really a 'star caliber' player tho?
> 
> I think, altho the Pistons didn't draft most of who is on their team (outside of Tayshaun, realistically), they're the kind of team the Blazers should copy. Hard working, defensive minded, and team first.
> 
> [ed o] if we only had a player on the team who was like that. Oh we did. [ /ed o]



Did they win a championship with Rip as their primary scorer? What your definition of a star is, and mine might be two different things, but he is a guy who tends to get about 20 points a night, very dependably. Rip has averaged in the high teens to low twenty point range on a team that plays a lower tempo game which has less posessions. On another team with a faster paced game such as Dallas or Phoenix, he could easily be averaging more. He is their go to scorer, and he tends to make the buckets they need to win big games, so yes, I would say Rip Hamilton is a star. Not a touted star or a guy who seeks the limelight, but he is a star never the less.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Ed's negativity just amazes me. The team will probably not improve. 

It already has from pre-season. 

In four games thay have been very competitive in two of them and won one of them. I expected to see at least 15 games go by before they won. 

Monia is better than i hoped at this stage. We haven't even seen Harapa (?) yet. Why would they not improve. 

They are already playing in games on the road comptetitively. They were worse than that at times last year when they played on the road. 

THEY WILL PROBABLY BE BETTER THAN EVEN I THINK soon. I have to go now but this is redicules. 

gatorpops


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

gatorpops said:


> In four games thay have been very competitive in two of them and won one of them. I expected to see at least 15 games go by before they won.


Did you look at the schedule? They play Atlanta both times in the first month. If they'd have gone 0-15 to start the year they would have been on track for the worst season in NBA history.

The team is bad. Probably very bad. But not THAT bad.

Ed O.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

To answer the thread question: yes, I'm prepared. As a Portland fan, I have no choice. It's not like I'm not going to root for the Blazers anymore and root for other teams. Do I feel good about the direction that this team is heading is an entirely different question. I don't like most of the moves Nash has made, and I don't trust that he can do any better. We have some decent young players, but none of them are such great prospects that it would make me think that we will be a good team 2 to 4 years down the road. I feel that if we are going to be better within the next two years, it will be because we made some smart trades. And I feel that Nash' incompetance won't allow this to happen. 

I'm prepared... for the day when Nash is fired and we get a competent GM to run this team.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Ed O's point is very valid here; Star players are usually not developed, rather they already have "it". Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Garnett, Wade, all had "it" before end of season one playing. We don't have a player like that - that I can see.
> 
> Players like McGrady, Rip, Nash, did seem to develop substantially after coming into the NBA.


Actually, I think stars with lots of college experience generally show superstar promise in their first season. ex: Duncan, Shaq, Carter, Carmello, Webber, etc, 

Guys with a year of college or less, and foreigners, are really the mystery meat of the NBA. they got some hype, but I don't think it was clear from the first NBA season that Bryant was going to be a top 10 NBA player. same with McGrady, Jermaine, Garnett, Nowitzki. Even Amare only looked like a potential career borderline All Star his first season (lousy defense, lousy rebounding, no shooting range.) LeBron is the only one I can think of who was an instant superstar from day one in the league. 

That is one of the more encouraging things about our team, and the best argument for not making trades. Just look at our lineup of youngsters: 

Seasoned College players: Jarret Jack, Przybilla

Mystery Meat Limited/No college guys: Randolph, Miles, Outlaw, Telfair, Webster, Monia, Khryapa, Ha

Other than Miles and Randolph, who really should come into their own this year if they're ever going to do it, we've got a ton of guys who statistically are two to four years away from showing their real potential. One of them really could be a superstar in the making, and we just don't know it yet. 

I guess that's why, although I generally agree with Ed, I'm not as glum as he is on our future. It just takes one or two star players to make a massive leap, and I think we've got as many potential stars as all but a few teams in the league. 

I hate that we've gone this route to improve our team, but now that we are in the middle of it I can see that the odds are in our favor we'll get out of this mess in a few years.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

is this the long haul back to being a competitive club or back to championship calibre club?

if its the first , id take it has having at least a .500 season , id think we are at least 3yrs shy of that.

if its the latter , ie div champ and conf finals level - who knows but it'll be a hella long time.

im committed for the longhaul but i cant see this squad getting there with its current core. It'll take some lucky ping pong balls , some good draft selecting , and some lopsided trades to make a squad that can be considered elite. will telfair even want to stay?


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Another thing I wanted to add is that knowing that there are two excellent prospects that will probably come out in the next two drafts (Gay and Oden), and that we have a chance at them, is making it easier to prepare for the long haul. I know our chances at getting either one aren't good, but I think we'll have the best chances out of all the teams. That, and Paul Allen is still a great owner. I think his willingness to spend money will be a factor in the success of this franchise once again.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

BlayZa said:


> will telfair even want to stay?


Telfair who? We've got Jack.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Hap said:


> it's doubtful that the team would be at the same place (record wise) after next year, and the year after..and it's kind of funny that some posters are acting like it's a 100% given that we'll be the worst team in the league (basically) for the next 3 years.


You are saying that we'll get better (record wise) next year and the year after, right? If so, what are you basing this on? Our young players improving? I don't neccessarily disagree because I think there's a fair chance we will get better. I'm just not very optimistic that our young players will improve so much that we'll be a lot better within the next few years. We will definately be bad this year, and chances are we won't be much better the next two years unless we get really lucky in the draft, one of our young players really breakout, and/or made a very lopsided trade. Chances of either of these scenarios happening aren't good, imo.

So yes, we might be better next year and the year after, but we won't be better enough to get out of the lottery, imo. And that is why being a fan of this team isn't as fun as it used to be.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

This thread should really be titled:

*This time I Really Mean It, Really*

So Mr. Allen, we are on our 3rd "plan" in so many years. 

What makes you so confident you will stick with this new plan for a longer period of time than you did the old plans?

Who or what has changed that would change this pattern?

Nothing that I can see.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I think it would be saffe to say that this season probably will be our worst of the upcoming seasons. If we lose Przybilla I suppose next could be a little worse, but honestly Joel isn't impacting much right now, and Splitter might b a better Center than Joel, hard to say.

I don't personally think the team can get a whole lot worse as it stands. To me the veterans we have are of little consequence. Ruben...I think we have plenty of players who can fill Rubens shoes as a player and honestly I don't know that he's much of a leader...Theo, well he's just Theo, he is what he is, and a leader he isn't.

Now looking outside the Vets. Personally I think it a bit absurd to assume the team won't get better. Young players get better with experience. Players look better as they get used to a system. That's simply the way it is. Sure Skillsets may be slow to improve but the mental tools should. Example if Telfair isn't making better decisions at the end of the year tan he is now, I'd be surprised. If Websters confidence and feel for the game is the same as it is now....I'd almost find that impossible. 

Then Look at next years team, we will have added (likely) a top 5 pick, and all of a sudden Telfair is in his 3rd year 2nd full season as starter...more confidence. 

Veterans don't just hatch, they all start as rookies. Personally I think a good thing for this team and something that IMO hasn't been done before is that the coaching staff that has been assebled is the Veterans that the Rookies will learn from. Vetts that know the game very well and know about playing hard to win, not about playing for money.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Masbee said:


> This thread should really be titled:*This time I Really Mean It, Really*
> 
> So Mr. Allen, we are on our 3rd "plan" in so many years. What makes you so confident you will stick with this new plan for a longer period of time than you did the old plans?
> 
> Who or what has changed that would change this pattern? Nothing that I can see.


What changed (IMO) is that the first two plans failed as evidenced by them not staying competitive with their ill-concived player moves for mediocre vets. Now he's stating that the club is prepared to fail for the forseeable future for the sake of developing young talent that they've acquired over the same period. 

I guess he'll ditch this latest plan if and when it becomes clear to management that the youngins aren't going to be worth the wait. I would imagine that this will occure at the latest by the time that the rookie deals run out. About that same time the books will be clear of some of the biggest vet deals that keep the club well over the salary cap line. At that point it will be time to either reup the youngins or scrap plan #3 and go after vets through trades and free agency.

STOMP


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

I have come to the opinion that Ed O is probably a Company Spy and is pushing buttons to get Fans/Posters to give opinions so that the Company can know for sure where Fans are as it pertains to Company Policy's on the direction the team is going to make, now and in the future. (wow, now that is a sentence) 

As such he is doing a very good job. In fact he is probably John Nash (the wolf) in sheeps clothing baiting us into rooting for the Blazers in spite of the moves that the Blazers make. 

I however, have already fallen into the trap and because its now public I will continue to hope and expect the team to get better and better game by game. One grain of sand at a time until we have built the Championship Colony in three short years. Be assured that ED believes this also. So lets all get on the wagon and expect the best soon. :mob: 


Mind Reading My Specialty

gatorpops


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Masbee said:


> This thread should really be titled:
> 
> *This time I Really Mean It, Really*
> 
> ...


3rd plan? I count two.

We tried to re-tool with veterans like SAR and Theo. That didn't work out, so we went to plan B, which is get a bunch of young guys and go for the youth movement.

What do you call the 3rd plan?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Steve Patterson was hired summer of 2003 after Whitsitt had resigned after the 02-03 season.

Whitsitt was still very much in charge 3 years ago - November 2002. The Whitsitt plan was very much in effect 3 years ago. That's 1.

Patterson 25 point pledge Summer 2003. That's 2.

Youth Movement Winter 2005. That's 3.

Those are just the main movements. There have been less dramatic changes and shifts within each grand scheme, which speaks to bad management. ie, the extensions to Theo, Zach and Darius, when the 25 point pledge still supposedly applied. They needlessly overpaid low-leverage non-free-agents when they said they were going to keep out of control salaries in control.

So, you could say they went from Whitsitt, to 25 point pledge, to neo-Whitsitt, back to 25 point pledge, to Youth Movement.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

I think im ready for the long haul lots of losses but in the end it should make the team better.If we get rid of Zilla,and alot of our youth for some veterans i don't think i could last.If we did get rid of Ruben,Theo,Blake,Dixon then i would be very happy with all the youth getting time.If ny wants to trade Theo and Ruben do it.Theo doesn't have alot of offensive talent.Ruben was at his peak a few years back.I would like to see picks,cash and a really good 3 shooter like qrich on the team.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

BuckW4GM said:


> Another thing I wanted to add is that knowing that there are two excellent prospects that will probably come out in the next two drafts (Gay and Oden), and that we have a chance at them, is making it easier to prepare for the long haul. I know our chances at getting either one aren't good, but I think we'll have the best chances out of all the teams. That, and Paul Allen is still a great owner. I think his willingness to spend money will be a factor in the success of this franchise once again.


You can add O.J. Mayo and Bill Walker to your list of Rudy Gay and Greg Oden. Wait, now that I think of it, I'm not sure if they'll be old enough to enter the '07 draft. I think they will be, I'm just not positive. Anyways, both are absolutely tremendous prospects (not to mention high school and, soon-to-be, college teammates).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

CanJohno said:


> You can add O.J. Mayo and Bill Walker to your list of Rudy Gay and Greg Oden. Wait, now that I think of it, I'm not sure if they'll be old enough to enter the '07 draft. I think they will be, I'm just not positive. Anyways, both are absolutely tremendous prospects (not to mention high school and, soon-to-be, college teammates).


They are prep juniors this year, so they won't be eligible until 2008. Gay's only 14 months older than Walker, though, which I find interesting.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Oden is the only player that will make the team an instant contender. There *must * be a way to rig the 07 Draft so we get him!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> Oden is the only player that will make the team an instant contender. There *must * be a way to rig the 07 Draft so we get him!


just like lebron made the cavs an instant contender, eh?


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> just like lebron made the cavs an instant contender, eh?


Nope...more like how Duncan made the Spurs an instant contender. This is a big man's league.

I must admit that LeBron immediately made the Cavs a decent team though. They will be a contender next year as well.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> Nope...more like how Duncan made the Spurs an instant contender. This is a big man's league.
> 
> I must admit that LeBron immediately made the Cavs a decent team though. They will be a contender next year as well.


duncan made a team that was already a really good team a contender? wow..like that was..hard.

Duncan surely made that spurs team, that went to the 94 WCF's, and the 95 Semi's, "instantly" better..forgetting that they had tanked the 95-96 season


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> duncan made a team that was already a really good team a contender? wow..like that was..hard.
> 
> Duncan surely made that spurs team, that went to the 94 WCF's, and the 95 Semi's, "instantly" better..forgetting that they had tanked the 95-96 season


Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? I stand by my original statement that Oden will make the Blazers an instant contender if we are lucky enough to draft him.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

tlong said:


> Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? I stand by my original statement that Oden will make the Blazers an instant contender if we are lucky enough to draft him.


To add to Hap's point, the Spurs just had injuries the right year to get Duncan and they were already pretty decent when healthy.

I agree that Oden will make us a contender if we're lucky enough to get him, but I also think we'll be a playoff team by then so we'll have no shot at him.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Oden will be drafted in 2007 (not necessarily by us) put into perspective....

Telfair, Vikotr 3 years experience, Webster, Jack, Monia 2 Years...Miles and Randolph each 26 years old.

Might seem like little experience but there should be a significant difference in what we see now, as we are talking about 2 years more experience than what we see right now.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

gambitnut said:
 

> To add to Hap's point, the Spurs just had injuries the right year to get Duncan and they were already pretty decent when healthy.
> 
> I agree that Oden will make us a contender if we're lucky enough to get him, but I also think we'll be a playoff team by then so we'll have no shot at him.



I have to disagree with your second point. I see no way this team can compete for a playoff spot by next season.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? I stand by my original statement that Oden will make the Blazers an instant contender if we are lucky enough to draft him.


no he won't. either that or you're implying the team is better than you want to admit, because 1 player (no matter who he is) isn't going otmake us an instant contender.

the team isn't old enough, or experienced enough..and a 19 year old kid isn't going to change that.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> no he won't. either that or you're implying the team is better than you want to admit, because 1 player (no matter who he is) isn't going otmake us an instant contender.
> 
> the team isn't old enough, or experienced enough..and a 19 year old kid isn't going to change that.



Baloney. This is basketball, not baseball or football. One great player makes a tremendous difference in the NBA. Do you remember how bad Orlando was before Shaq arrived?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> Baloney. This is basketball, not baseball or football. One great player makes a tremendous difference in the NBA. Do you remember how bad Orlando was before Shaq arrived?



and yet, they weren't "instant" contenders..


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> and yet, they weren't "instant" contenders..


 They finished at .500 his first year after winning only 21 games the previous year. The Magic won 50 games in Shaq's 2nd season.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> They finished at .500 his first year after winning only 21 games the previous year. The Magic won 50 games in Shaq's 2nd season.


and yet, weren't instant contenders..


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> duncan made a team that was already a really good team a contender? wow..like that was..hard.
> 
> Duncan surely made that spurs team, that went to the 94 WCF's, and the 95 Semi's, "instantly" better..forgetting that they had tanked the 95-96 season



The Spurs got "lucky" in that they first got Robinson, followed by Duncan.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> and yet, weren't instant contenders..


A .500 team with a 7-foot monster in the middle is a contender.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

tlong said:


> A .500 team with a 7-foot monster in the middle is a contender.


No, it isn't. A .500 team is a roughly average team, whether they get to .500 with a 7 foot monster in the middle or with really quick midgets on the perimeter.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Shaqs 3rd year in the league Orlando made the finals


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Shaqs 3rd year in the league Orlando made the finals


yah, just happened to be during the time when a guy named Michael Jordan had retired, and when he returned, was a shadow of his former self.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> No, it isn't. A .500 team is a roughly average team, whether they get to .500 with a 7 foot monster in the middle or with really quick midgets on the perimeter.



I remember when Denver had Mutombo and they beat the #1 seed (Seattle) when they were a .500 team. Sounds like a contender to me.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> I remember when Denver had Mutombo and they beat the #1 seed (Seattle) when they were a .500 team. Sounds like a contender to me.


oh, so oden will be like dikembe?

good to know thats your stanceon Oden.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

tlong said:


> I remember when Denver had Mutombo and they beat the #1 seed (Seattle) when they were a .500 team. Sounds like a contender to me.


Doesn't sound like a contender to me, since they had no chance of winning a championship, before or after that series win. Just sounds like a big upset.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

tlong said:


> I remember when Denver had Mutombo and they beat the #1 seed (Seattle) when they were a .500 team. Sounds like a contender to me.


Yep. A dominant big man makes any playoff team a contender.

But Orlando didn't make the playoffs in 1992.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Doesn't sound like a contender to me, since they had no chance of winning a championship, before or after that series win. Just sounds like a big upset.


Then...what's a contender? If you can beat a 60 win team in a series, I think you're probably a contender.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Fork said:


> Then...what's a contender? If you can beat a 60 win team in a series, I think you're probably a contender.


In my opinion, a contender is a team with a legitimate chance at winning the championship.

The Nuggets pulled off a major upset, a historical one. Even at the time, that still didn't cause anyone to believe they had a hope of reaching the Finals or winning them. It was a fluke, of historical porportions. The Nuggets would have lost that series 9 times out of 10. Just because that 1 chance in 10 happened to play out didn't make them championship-caliber.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> oh, so oden will be like dikembe?
> 
> good to know thats your stanceon Oden.


Oden will be much better than Dikembe.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> Oden will be much better than Dikembe.


so he'll be like Kevin Duckworth, I see.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> In my opinion, a contender is a team with a legitimate chance at winning the championship.
> 
> The Nuggets pulled off a major upset, a historical one. Even at the time, that still didn't cause anyone to believe they had a hope of reaching the Finals or winning them. It was a fluke, of historical porportions. The Nuggets would have lost that series 9 times out of 10. Just because that 1 chance in 10 happened to play out didn't make them championship-caliber.


They followed up that 'fluke' series by pushing an excellent Utah team to 7 games. (one of those losses was in overtime and ALL were close games.) I think that qualifies as a contender.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> They followed up that 'fluke' series by pushing an excellent Utah team to 7 games. (one of those losses was in overtime and ALL were close games.) I think that qualifies as a contender.


so..when Dikembe was in Denver, they were a "contender" for 1 year?

big deal.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Fork said:


> They followed up that 'fluke' series by pushing an excellent Utah team to 7 games. (one of those losses was in overtime and ALL were close games.) I think that qualifies as a contender.


Okay, we disagree. I'm not saying they weren't competitive, but their chances of getting through three to four series against elite teams were essentially nil, in my opinion. To me, that doesn't qualify as a contender.


----------

