# Trader Bob: It wasn't my fault!(???)



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

Found it in the OLive blog and didnt see a thread on it...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=cnnsi-itsabouttime&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns

On the Jail Blazers image:

BW: "Those labels were in Portland before I got there. They had players accused [and later not charged] of raping people in Salt Lake City before I got there, and some of the players I traded were accused of crimes. No question, some of the players there on my watch got into trouble, too. That's never something you feel good about. Once a label gets like that it's hard to change, and it's continued after I've left, with players I didn't bring on.

"The easy thing is to look at my whole track record. The 17 years I was an [NBA] GM I made the playoffs 16 times, and the one time I didn't make it we had a 41-41 record. When [Blazers coach] P.J. Carlesimo had a problem with Rod Strickland, I suspended Strickland for 8-10 games in total support of the coach. By the end of the year I traded Strickland for Rasheed Wallace.

"The good thing is there's zero baggage in my closet in terms of DUIs or arrests or my family or any of that stuff. The only thing I can be accused of is, gee, maybe he brought in a few bad guys -- and even the worst character they'll ever say I brought in (Rasheed Wallace), he's got a championship ring in Detroit. And they want him to be the mayor of Detroit. Isn't that kind of funny?"

On his reputation for overspending on players:

BW: "My last year in Seattle we won 63 games, a franchise-best, we had a lottery pick, we made a ton of money and we had a ton of cap space. My mission in Seattle was to make money and then to win. We made a lot of money and we won a ton of games.

"When I got to Portland we [already] had the second-highest payroll in the NBA. You do what the owner tells you to do: You win, and let him decide the payroll. Even after I left there they've spent quite a bit of money on guys like Zach Randolph and Theo Ratliff and Darius Miles. The first thing you do is what the owner tells you to do."

On his approach to making trades:

BW: "If something doesn't work, I'm going to fix it. I've been a guy who's always been on the aggressive side and found ways to make deals, as opposed to the GMs who like to sit around and say we can't make a deal because we're over the salary cap, and then they're not accountable. They blame the system. I've always taken the position that you work within the system and find a way to get things done. At the end of the year there's one team with the trophy. Everyone else should be trying to figure out ways to get better."


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

> I've been a guy who's always been on the aggressive side and found ways to make deals, as opposed to the GMs who like to sit around and say we can't make a deal because we're over the salary cap, and then they're not accountable. They blame the system. I've always taken the position that you work within the system and find a way to get things done. At the end of the year there's one team with the trophy. Everyone else should be trying to figure out ways to get better."



Bring this guy back, PLEASE!! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

I felt he got a bum rap too. The only players that he new had baggage when he aquired them was Rasheed Wallace(Technicals) and JR Rider. But aquring those players did pay off for the organization...at least for a couple of years.

Whitsett may be remembered for the last few moves he made, where were aquring Shawn Kemp and trading Jermaine O'Neal. But overall, he built some very strong teams through his trading prowess.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I always felt BW was a double edge blade, he'd make some great trades but didn't know when to stop. I felt he could have kept the Blazers going strong if he stayed under the old PA rules, but I bet he was glad to get out when PA decided he wasn't going to spend so much money any more.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

RPCity said:


> Found it in the OLive blog and didnt see a thread on it...
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=cnnsi-itsabouttime&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
> 
> ...


this is one of TB's biggest problems. He could never accept blame for nothing. Yes, the team did something stupid, but it turned out to be a psuedo witch hunt in SLC.

2 of those players (Dave Johnston and Reggie Smith) were off the team that following season. 

It just boggles my mind that he actually thinks that the mild "jail blazers" stuff that happened in 93-94, even compares.



> "The easy thing is to look at my whole track record. The 17 years I was an [NBA] GM I made the playoffs 16 times, and the one time I didn't make it we had a 41-41 record. When [Blazers coach] P.J. Carlesimo had a problem with Rod Strickland, I suspended Strickland for 8-10 games in total support of the coach. By the end of the year I traded Strickland for Rasheed Wallace.
> 
> "The good thing is there's zero baggage in my closet in terms of DUIs or arrests or my family or any of that stuff. The only thing I can be accused of is, gee, maybe he brought in a few bad guys -- and even the worst character they'll ever say I brought in (Rasheed Wallace), he's got a championship ring in Detroit. And they want him to be the mayor of Detroit. Isn't that kind of funny?"


the worst player you brought in wasn't Rasheed, numbskull. It was Ruben. 



> On his reputation for overspending on players:
> 
> BW: "My last year in Seattle we won 63 games, a franchise-best, we had a lottery pick, we made a ton of money and we had a ton of cap space. My mission in Seattle was to make money and then to win. We made a lot of money and we won a ton of games.
> 
> ...


ugh...shut up trader bob.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Yega1979 said:


> I felt he got a bum rap too. The only players that he new had baggage when he aquired them was Rasheed Wallace(Technicals) and JR Rider. But aquring those players did pay off for the organization...at least for a couple of years.
> 
> Whitsett may be remembered for the last few moves he made, where were aquring Shawn Kemp and trading Jermaine O'Neal. But overall, he built some very strong teams through his trading prowess.



Ditto. 

I just want to note that I am harsh on Nash, but I do understand it is not easy putting together a contending team . . . especially in a small market town and having to factor in character. 

Let's go back to the days of being the bad boys of the league that no one wants to play in the playoffs.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Hap said:


> the worst player you brought in wasn't Rasheed, numbskull. It was Ruben.
> 
> 
> 
> ugh...shut up trader bob.


Kemp has to rate near the top. But as long as he was in condition by the time playoffs come around,,


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

Yega1979 said:


> I felt he got a bum rap too. The only players that he new had baggage when he aquired them was Rasheed Wallace(Technicals) and JR Rider. But aquring those players did pay off for the organization...at least for a couple of years.
> 
> .


And Ruben. And Bonzi. And.....


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> this is one of TB's biggest problems. He could never accept blame for nothing. Yes, the team did something stupid, but it turned out to be a psuedo witch hunt in SLC.
> 
> 2 of those players (Dave Johnston and Reggie Smith) were off the team that following season.
> 
> It just boggles my mind that he actually thinks that the mild "jail blazers" stuff that happened in 93-94, even compares.


The other 2 players were Jerome Kersey and Tracy Murray, whose services were retained for financial and competitive reasons. Johnston and Smith had no talent and so were gone.

I remember reading the vivid descriptions of the sex acts involved, interview with one of the mothers and Kersey's admission of guilt.

There was no witch hunt. To the contrary. Money flowed into SLC the way the Toutle River flowed when Mt. St. Helens blew. We all know from whence it came. Suddenly the story was a non-story.

Hush hush. Kaching! Kaching!

It boggles my mind that you consider raping 15 year old and 16 year old girls "mild stuff".

No daughters of your own, I take it?

It was by far the darkest hour in Blazers history and nothing even close to that has been perpetrated since.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Ditto.
> 
> I just want to note that I am harsh on Nash, but I do understand it is not easy putting together a contending team . . . especially in a small market town and having to factor in character.
> 
> Let's go back to the days of being the bad boys of the league that no one wants to play in the playoffs.



* CHEERS TO THAT! *


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> The other 2 players were Jerome Kersey and Tracy Murray, whose services were retained for financial and competitive reasons. Johnston and Smith had no talent and so were gone.
> 
> I remember reading the vivid descriptions of the sex acts involved, interview with one of the mothers and Kersey's admission of guilt.
> 
> ...


it doesn't surprise me that you actually don't know what happened, and are taking this stance. Considering one of the girls mentioned that it was Danny Ainge who did it, and he wasn't *on the team* at the time, seems to spell out just guys being idiots and the girls trying to just cover their butts for being with these guys after lying about their ages.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> it doesn't surprise me that you actually don't know what happened, and are taking this stance.


I know Kersey admitted to having oral sex with a 15 year old, which is rape.

I understand you making excuses for your heroes, but if it was your daughter you'd take a different tack.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> I know Kersey admitted to having oral sex with a 15 year old, which is rape.


link?



> I understand you making excuses for your heroes, but if it was your daughter you'd take a different tack.


why is it that whenever someone has a disagreement, it's always "your boy" or "your hero" ****? Thats a lazy way to counter an argument.

here is an interesting article that i was able to find (from a FH thread I believe)



> The investigation centered on a Utah sex law that states anyone between 14 and 17 years old must be ``coerced or enticed'' into having sex before breaking the law. One of the 15-year-olds claimed she was coerced. The other 15-year-old said she also had sex but it was consensual. She and a 16-year-old witness said no one was forced into having sex.


so thats not the same as "stat rape" realistically. Not saying what he did (or didn't do) was ok, but that it's not like they kidnapped these girls, and forced them to do stuff.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> link?
> 
> why is it that whenever someone has a disagreement, it's always "your boy" or "your hero" ****? Thats a lazy way to counter an argument.
> 
> ...


Funny. Neither the OR or SLC papers have internet archives going back that far. If you were a fan at the time there was no way you didn't read about for close to a week straight.

Hero-worship is the #1 motivation behind most revisionist history. Hence my possibly erroneous assumption.

I have no clue what a "FH thread" is.

I do remember that quote however from the Oregonian. I also remember the rest of it where it was pointed out that in Oregon and most of the civilized world it was clearly statutory rape for the 2 who later said it was consensual, and 1st degree rape for the one who said it was not. The definition of statutory rape makes it clear consent by a minor is a non-factor, due to the inability to make those kind of mature decisions. That's the whole point of the law. To protect innocent children from adults who know better.

If force or imprisonment were involved it is simply rape.

You have to remember Utah is where a large portion of the populace thinks polygamy and incest is perfectly fine. Even so, the DA vigorously pushed for prosecution until "persuaded" to just let it go.

Let's just agree *I* consider those players to be the worst kind of scum ever to play the game and move on.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Funny. Neither the OR or SLC papers have internet archives going back that far. If you were a fan at the time there was no way you didn't read about for close to a week straight.


yah, and I remember them talking about Buck Williams was in the room, and how Danny Ainge was, and Rick Adleman was.



> Hero-worship is the #1 motivation behind most revisionist history. Hence my possibly erroneous assumption.


beyond erroneous. It's a tad bit insulting to imply that Im partaking in hero-worshipping, since I'm the one who's been against having moron boy on the team for years, and was quite embarassed at the time of said incident (that we're talking about). but that doesn't change that there were a lot of conflicting stories, and that that crap happens.



> I have no clue what a "FH thread" is.


The old folks home..fan home.



> I do remember that quote however from the Oregonian. I also remember the rest of it where it was pointed out that in Oregon and most of the civilized world it was clearly statutory rape for the 2 who later said it was consensual, and 1st degree rape for the one who said it was not. The definition of statutory rape makes it clear consent by a minor is a non-factor, due to the inability to make those kind of mature decisions. That's the whole point of the law. To protect innocent children from adults who know better.


actually, stat rape doesn't say that. It depends on a lot of things, rather than just consent by a minor being a non factor. It varies state by state (age of consent does too).



> If force or imprisonment were involved it is simply rape.
> 
> You have to remember Utah is where a large portion of the populace thinks polygamy and incest is perfectly fine.


woah woah woah woah...I get the polygamy dig, but whats with the incest shot? That doesn't really make your argument, or you personally, sound credible you know. 



> Even so, the DA vigorously pushed for prosecution until "persuaded" to just let it go.
> 
> Let's just agree *I* consider those players to be the worst kind of scum ever to play the game and move on.


I do think that they were pathetic to do what they did, even if they didn't do the worst of what they were accused of, or the "best" of what they were accused of. I have little tolerance for people doing this kind of thing, but my point was that TB was glossing over history to defend himself. Thats all it was. 

I'd consider signing a guy who had to registure as a sex offender, and signing him to a contract thats therefore hard to trade, almost a pot calling the kettle black in this case. So for TB to bring it up is kind of like a guy who beats his step kids, to say "Hey, their dad is behind the child-support".


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> actually, stat rape doesn't say that. It depends on a lot of things, rather than just consent by a minor being a non factor. It varies state by state (age of consent does too).


*statutory rape
One entry found for statutory rape.
Main Entry: statutory rape
Function: noun
: sexual intercourse with a person who is below the statutory age of consent *


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

What a load of self serving crap!

Anyone else notice it is always the ones who screw up the worst (can I use that phrase here?) whether GM's or presidents who always insist they NEVER made a mistake and demand that their cult followings sing endless hosannahs to their supposed infallibility?

And of course any problems are the fault of the person who previously held the job.

That people want Whitsitt back just shows how much cult worship can blind people to reality. If Paul Allen tried to bring back Whitsitt he'd be run out of town on a rail, or at least a private jet. And I think he's smart enough to know that.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

crandc said:


> What a load of self serving crap!
> 
> Anyone else notice it is always the ones who screw up the worst (can I use that phrase here?) whether GM's or presidents who always insist they NEVER made a mistake and demand that their cult followings sing endless hosannahs to their supposed infallibility?
> 
> And of course any problems are the fault of the person who previously held the job.


Excellent description of the drivel that has slid out of our GM's mouth ever since he replaced Bob.

You WERE referring to Pash Natterson here, right?

And yes, you can use the phrase "the worst".

I believe it will be our official slogan next year. :curse:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> That people want Whitsitt back just shows how much cult worship can blind people to reality. If Paul Allen tried to bring back Whitsitt he'd be run out of town on a rail, or at least a private jet. And I think he's smart enough to know that.


Maybe, but I don't watch the Blazers hoping they're a popular team. I watch them hoping they'll win games.

Bob Whitsitt gave the Blazers a much better chance of winning games than Nash does. It has nothing to do with whether I think I like either of them personally, and has nothing to do with a cult of personality.

One guy has won consistently as an NBA GM, and the other has consistently lost. That indicates one is substantially better than the other at running a winning ballclub. That's the key to me.

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Maybe, but I don't watch the Blazers hoping they're a popular team. I watch them hoping they'll win games.
> 
> Bob Whitsitt gave the Blazers a much better chance of winning games than Nash does. It has nothing to do with whether I think I like either of them personally, and has nothing to do with a cult of personality.
> 
> ...


So you will take a ballclub full of murderers, rapists, drug addicts, thieves? Hypothetical question obviously but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Whitsitt's problem was he could never draw it. 

Whitsitt was a embarassment to this city, our team and it's fans. Not to mention he lost our team over 100million $ in a single season which is likely the greatest loss of any sports franchise in history. Having worked for the Blazers for 5 years 4 of which where during his tenure I can surely tell you the company that he was supposedly the president of was one of the most disfunctional, poorly run organizations I have ever seen. 

You are foolish to think Whitsitt would be able to "wheel and deal" for players today like he did years ago. The climate of the NBA has changed and teams are no longer trying to "buy" championships like the did in the days of Whitsitt, Mark Cuban etc. See the current Pistons and Spurs. The financial climate and the luxury tax no longer allow for those type of moves to be made. So I ask; how good would "Trader Bob" be if he couldn't make as many trades? 

I won't say Nash is a good GM or even that he is better then Whitsitt, but it's a different era now and IMO Whitsitt's reckless style just wouldn't be effective in this new era of fiscal responsibility. Granted Zeke in NY isn't the greatest example yet what sucess has he had with all his wheelin and dealin? 

Frankly it's time for some fans to realize Paul Allen isn't going to just buy us a championship or even a 40 win season...you can whine and cry about it all you want but those days are over. Buck up and root for what you have instead of whining about what you've lost. 

These days this is a team that I watch for the future not the present...


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> Excellent description of the drivel that has slid out of our GM's mouth ever since he replaced Bob.
> 
> You WERE referring to Pash Natterson here, right?
> 
> ...


Are you that nieve you don't understand the difference? 

When Whitsitt took over as President and GM he had a team of semi-talented players at a decent salary level. The team had a established fan-base and excellent attendance. The ballclub was actually producing revenue. 

When Pater/Nash took the reigns they inherited a semi-talented team at a horrendous salary level. The team's fanbase was declining and attendance was dropping. The Blazers had just set the record for the greatest financial loss (100million+) in sports franchise history. 

Seems to me Pater/nash have the right to point a few fingers...the product they started with clearly was not even close to the product Whitsitt started with.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Funny that Whitless releases this statement when he has been mentioned as a canidate for a few different GM jobs recently. Self promote Bob, and see if anyone is foolish enough to believe you.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

Long Live Bob!


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I don't see Whitsitt as being self-serving, so much as responding to the myths that have grown up around his tenure. Somehow the Blazers under his GM-ing have been portrayed as something like the cast of Oz on a bad day, and it's forgotten that he completely rebuilt the club without missing the playoffs, and brought in people like Sabonis, Pippen, Steve Smith, Brian Grant and even Damon, who at the time was a local hero and pretty much squeaky clean. And he's quite right about Rasheed being demonized as a Blazer.

I didn't like Whitsitt much when he was our GM, but BOY do I miss him now he isn't.

APPENDIX: rating his moves:
THE GOOD:
Signing Sabonis - one of the great signings in the history of the franchise. No, he didn't draft him, but he got him to come over.
Trading for Pippen
Trading for Steve Smith
Signing Brian Grant (although I didn't like it at the time because we already had Rasheed, but Grant was a great player for us)
Trading for Rasheed (a move I HATED - even at the time Rasheed was painted as a complete punk. Well, the punk turned out to be the franchise player of one of the best Blazer squads ever.)
Drafting Jermaine O'Neal
Drafting Alvin Williams
Trading basically nothing for Bonzi Wells

THE BAD:
Trading for JR Rider (BUT: he cost nothing, he played well for us and got us Steve Smith)
Trading Drexler (BUT: it had to be done, and Drexler has no right to complain)
Signing Ruben Patterson
Signing Derek Anderson
Trading for Damon (but I loved it at the time, although not at the cost of Alvin Williams)
Signing Kenny "rich man's Telfair" Anderson (although he played quite well for us, I never liked his game)
Trading Brian Grant for Kemp (although at the time I liked it)
Trading Jermaine for Dale Davis (ditto)

Basically his trades were overall good (and the worst ones were the ones I thought were great at the time), it was more his free agent signings that I didn't like.

One extra thing I miss: although I was wary of Whitsitt, I always knew he'd pull off SOMETHING, and it would always look shockingly in Portland's favour.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

meru said:


> I don't see Whitsitt as being self-serving, so much as responding to the myths that have grown up around his tenure. Somehow the Blazers under his GM-ing have been portrayed as something like the cast of Oz on a bad day, and it's forgotten that he completely rebuilt the club without missing the playoffs, and brought in people like Sabonis, Pippen, Steve Smith, Brian Grant and even Damon, who at the time was a local hero and pretty much squeaky clean. And he's quite right about Rasheed being demonized as a Blazer.
> 
> I didn't like Whitsitt much when he was our GM, but BOY do I miss him now he isn't.
> 
> ...


Great list and generally I agree. You forget he also dug such a huge financial hole that the Blazers lost the most $$ of any team in any sport in history. Not matter how good your trades are, when the company you run sets that type of record and loses $100+million in a season you definetly are not doing a good job IMO.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

meru said:


> One extra thing I miss: although I was wary of Whitsitt, I always knew he'd pull off SOMETHING, and it would always look shockingly in Portland's favour.



That's what I enjoyed. He made some bad moves and given the history I'm not chanting to bring him back, but the man could get deals done and no name was too big. It was like having our own fantasy basketball team here in little Portland and we were on the NBA map as a player in the league.

Anyways I enjoyed your post.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> That's what I enjoyed. He made some bad moves and given the history I'm not chanting to bring him back, but the man could get deals done and no name was too big. It was like having our own fantasy basketball team here in little Portland and we were on the NBA map as a player in the league.
> 
> Anyways I enjoyed your post.


I totally agree guys I loved the fact that Whitsitt always had something up his sleeve..yet with the current financial climate of the NBA today I just don't think that philosophy would work these days. We could have Whittsitt as GM etc. but I am just not convinced he would be able to make trades today like he did in the past.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I bet had TB let sleeping dogs lie (not tinker at every chance) he'd still be here, or at least, not remembered as the evil baby eater that he is remembered as.

Getting DA, and a bad coach in Cheeks, was the start of the end, imho. Had they had a coach with some backbone (waah, they wouldn't suspend the player....well quit then dunleavy/cheeks!) and some moxy, things would've worked out better.

But alas, he got DA, hired cheeks, and was lax with team discipline. Oh well. It's not like we have to re-hash it everytime his name is brought up...


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

On the discipline issue, let us also recall that in the 2000-2001 season when Sheed started really getting out of control, Coach Dunleavy wanted to discipline him but was overruled by Whitsitt and it was Whitsitt who brought back Detlef Schrempf, gave him special privileges, then Schrempf could not even play when Pip was out for a month or so. Then, after Stacy Augmon was the "good soldier" who played when Pip was out, when Pip returns Schrempf suddenly gets healthy and Dunleavy is told to put him ahead of Augmon.
Some more on the negative side of the roster: drafting Qyntel Woods, bringing back Rod Strickland (not Strick's fault, really, he behaved & played well, but it shot Damon's confidence to hell, put Greg Anthony at the end of the bench when he'd earned PT and that plus the Augmon situation sent the team on the skid that they have really not recovered from yet).
Add the fact that damn near anyone with a pulse, well, at least any starter, got a max contract. The idea that a max contract is EARNED was out the window. No one argues with someone like Tim Duncan getting the max, but Kenny Anderson?


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

wow

dont forget that bob was just doing and acting under the direction that Paul Allen gave him

it is not like Bob just decided on his own to spend all that $$$....Paul wanted a title and was willing to buy it


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> On the discipline issue, let us also recall that in the 2000-2001 season when Sheed started really getting out of control, Coach Dunleavy wanted to discipline him but was overruled by Whitsitt and it was Whitsitt who brought back Detlef Schrempf, gave him special privileges, then Schrempf could not even play when Pip was out for a month or so. Then, after Stacy Augmon was the "good soldier" who played when Pip was out, when Pip returns Schrempf suddenly gets healthy and Dunleavy is told to put him ahead of Augmon.
> Some more on the negative side of the roster: drafting Qyntel Woods, bringing back Rod Strickland (not Strick's fault, really, he behaved & played well, but it shot Damon's confidence to hell, put Greg Anthony at the end of the bench when he'd earned PT and that plus the Augmon situation sent the team on the skid that they have really not recovered from yet).
> Add the fact that damn near anyone with a pulse, well, at least any starter, got a max contract. The idea that a max contract is EARNED was out the window. No one argues with someone like Tim Duncan getting the max, but Kenny Anderson?


I had forgotten about all that stuff. Mostly because after the March game when the team gave up, I stopped following the team that year. (Some will rememer my long winded (as was par for my course) rant about how I couldn't care about a team if the team couldn't care about the game).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Great list and generally I agree. You forget he also dug such a huge financial hole that the Blazers lost the most $$ of any team in any sport in history. Not matter how good your trades are, when the company you run sets that type of record and loses $100+million in a season you definetly are not doing a good job IMO.


Is the point of running the Blazers, or rather, *was* the point of running the Blazers to win games or to make money (another side of making money: losing as little as possible)? I would argue that it was the former, almost exclusively. Pro sports are NOT like other businesses.

The Blazers had some very profitable years, as I recall, too. They certainly got hammered a few of the years, but in the Nash era which is allegedly more careful with Allen's money we've seen some pretty significant overpayments for players.

Ed O.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

crandc said:


> On the discipline issue, let us also recall that in the 2000-2001 season when Sheed started really getting out of control, Coach Dunleavy wanted to discipline him but was overruled by Whitsitt


Really? I don't remember this. What kind of discipline did Dunleavy have in mind? I can't really see Whitsitt being that interfering or Dunleavy that cowed.



> and it was Whitsitt who brought back Detlef Schrempf, gave him special privileges, then Schrempf could not even play when Pip was out for a month or so. Then, after Stacy Augmon was the "good soldier" who played when Pip was out, when Pip returns Schrempf suddenly gets healthy and Dunleavy is told to put him ahead of Augmon.


Of course, getting Schrempf the _first_ time was a good move, albeit slightly negated because he immediately got Pippen. I always thought that Dunleavy underused Schrempf, but on the other hand, the team was incredibly stocked.



> Some more on the negative side of the roster: drafting Qyntel Woods


That's totally Paul Allen. I remember him saying he was having "a Woods moment" (which was a little too close to having a woodie for my liking) as Qyntel dropped down the draft. Besides, can you really say you thought it was bad at the time? It's not like anyone knew Woods liked to fight dogs (well, you know what I mean). Actually, I think a worse move was drafting Outlaw, especially with Josh Howard available, and that was seen to be a typical Whitsitt "gambling" move. Funny that Nash, who was supposed to be critical of the Outlaw draft, has turned out to be just as hooked on gambling on teenagers.



> bringing back Rod Strickland (not Strick's fault, really, he behaved & played well, but it shot Damon's confidence to hell, put Greg Anthony at the end of the bench when he'd earned PT


Again, not really Whitsitt's fault - he just brings in players (unless he really was the puppet master you make him out to be) - the coach decides to play them or not.

But that reminds me of another GREAT Whitsitt pickup - *Greg Anthony*. Arguably our second-best performer in a lot of playoff games.



> and that plus the Augmon situation sent the team on the skid that they have really not recovered from yet).


Never liked Augmon as a Blazer (although, if you like him, you've got to remember who it was that acquired him).



> Add the fact that damn near anyone with a pulse, well, at least any starter, got a max contract. The idea that a max contract is EARNED was out the window. No one argues with someone like Tim Duncan getting the max, but Kenny Anderson?


I'm with you on Kenny Anderson, especially as nobody else was interested in him. But that was then, and Whitsitt was using Paul Allen's massive wealth to make Portland a player. It worked - they were taken seriously as a free agent destination all of a sudden.

If what you say about Whitsitt forcing decisions on Dunleavy is true (and I've never heard it before, so I'd want proof) then that would be a major mark against him. Another (perhaps related) bad mark is his bad coach-hiring record - he never landed a top-tier coach to go with the top-tier talent. That's one thing Nash has over Whitsitt: McMillan might be our best coach since Ramsay. (That said: Dunleavy did win CoTY while with the Blazers.)


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

meru said:


> I'm with you on Kenny Anderson, especially as nobody else was interested in him. But that was then, and Whitsitt was using Paul Allen's massive wealth to make Portland a player. It worked - they were taken seriously as a free agent destination all of a sudden.


I was never really an Anderson fan, either. But he was a starting-caliber NBA player, and he was an asset we were able to flip into a big chunk of Damon.

Now, Damon never worked out in Portland, but if we hadn't overpaid for Kenny Anderson we would have saved Paul Allen some money and had to scramble for a PG for several years with one fewer asset to use.



> Another (perhaps related) bad mark is his bad coach-hiring record - he never landed a top-tier coach to go with the top-tier talent. That's one thing Nash has over Whitsitt: McMillan might be our best coach since Ramsay. (That said: Dunleavy did win CoTY while with the Blazers)


I'm far from convinced that Nate's a particularly good coach, but I agree that Whitsitt was never able to get a coach capable of handling the team he put together. Whether it was his fault for getting "too many" good players or the "wrong kind" of players or whether it was his fault for hiring coaches not capable of handling them, Whitsitt has to take some blame there.

Even accounting for that, though, Whitsitt put together some pretty darn good teams.

Ed O.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

I think Trader Bob was neither as bad as his detractors nor as good as his defenders think he was.

He was good at some things, bad at others.

Trading Hollywood Robinson for JR Rider, then flipping Rider for Steve Smith: brilliant.

Landing Pippen for spare parts: brilliant.

Getting Sheed for Rod Strickland: more than brililant; more like highway robbery.

He did build a very talented, very good team. One that -- not that any of us need to be reminded -- was minutes away from winning a championship in 2000.

On the other hand...

He did have a real blind spot for character issues. It's one thing to bring on Sheed, who has a screw loose somewhere but is still a true competitor, good teammate, and incredible talent. But why on earth did he find it necessary to bring in Dontonio Wingfield, who was a sociopathic thug, to fill the 13th spot on the bench/IR? If the guy is never going to play, why not have it be Steve Kerr?

All in all, I would say the Whitsitt experiment worked fine until the great collapse of 2000, when Trader Bob panicked.

The sign-and-trade of the Rasta Monsta for Kemp: disaster.
The Kid for Dale Davis: super disaster.
Bringing back Detlef and Rod midseason, then demanding they move up in the rotation without practicing: disaster.

Morality considerations aside, those were catastrophic personnel mistakes. The result, by the end of the 2000-01 season: A mediocre team with a spectacularly bloated payroll and a lot of unlikeable players.

Then, when the team stopped winning as it had been, all of Whitsitt's reaches on player morality became the perfect excuse for front-running, sanctimonious bandwagon fans like Ron Tonkin to bail on the team (and for certain local sportswriters to fuel their vendetta against Blazers management).

So by the time new management came in, they were inevitably handcuffed with the impossible triple agenda (save money/get moral/win games) that has brought us a lotto team. I suspect that it may only be possible to do two out of those three things at any given time. For now, we're saving money and getting moral... and we suck. (If I was in charge, it would be get moral and win games, and blow as much of Paul's money as necessary... but then I'm not in charge.)

Bob Whitsitt wasn't a great GM. He also wasn't the antichrist.

Stepping Razor


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

meru said:


> I don't see Whitsitt as being self-serving, so much as responding to the myths that have grown up around his tenure. Somehow the Blazers under his GM-ing have been portrayed as something like the cast of Oz on a bad day, and it's forgotten that he completely rebuilt the club without missing the playoffs, and brought in people like Sabonis, Pippen, Steve Smith, Brian Grant and even Damon, who at the time was a local hero and pretty much squeaky clean. And he's quite right about Rasheed being demonized as a Blazer.
> 
> I didn't like Whitsitt much when he was our GM, but BOY do I miss him now he isn't.
> 
> ...


add the acquisition of Dontonio Wingfield on that list of bad....


and I still think we could have gotten more then we did for Clyde.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> add the acquisition of Dontonio Wingfield on that list of bad....


Why's that? He was young (21) and cost us nothing. He wasn't a great addition by any means, but I don't see how he's a negative, either.



> and I still think we could have gotten more then we did for Clyde.


Whitsitt didn't get much for Clyde, that's for sure. He also didn't handle the 1995 draft spectacularly, when we walked away with Gary Trent (although it was better than walking away with Shawn Respert).

Ed O.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Whitsitt didn't get much for Clyde, that's for sure. He also didn't handle the 1995 draft spectacularly, when we walked away with Gary Trent (although it was better than walking away with Shawn Respert).
> 
> Ed O.



I don't know what pick # trent was, but I liked gary.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Why's that? He was young (21) and cost us nothing. He wasn't a great addition by any means, but I don't see how he's a negative, either.


Oh Ed, Ed... Dontonio broke your heart, didn't he?



> Whitsitt didn't get much for Clyde, that's for sure.


Pah! He was lucky to get what he did. Don't people remember the "Clyde the Slide" headlines? Everyone thought Clyde was washed up, and he had a nasty fat contract.



> He also didn't handle the 1995 draft spectacularly, when we walked away with Gary Trent (although it was better than walking away with Shawn Respert).


Hmm... That draft sucked after pick 7. The only really good player picked lower was Michael Finley, and everyone passed on him because they thought he couldn't shoot. Trent looked like he was becoming a monster before injuries did him in. Of course, he was another "suspect character" guy.

(And what GM gave us Trent and change for Shawn Respert? Mike Dunleavy. Maybe Whitsitt hired him later because he owed him one.)


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

I miss Bob.

The greatest thing about having Bob as a GM was all the activity that went on with the team. Every offseason there were major moves. As a fan it made the Blazers a great team to follow.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I don't know what pick # trent was, but I liked gary.


I liked Gary a lot too. He was a hard worker and played well for the talent he had.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

when gary wasn't busy assaulting his girlfriend, hitting people with pool ques, or being an overall thug, he wasn't a bad player.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

meru said:


> Oh Ed, Ed... Dontonio broke your heart, didn't he?


The dude had serious game. Big, young, good handles, a sweet shooting stroke, a good passer.

But it doesn't always add up to a good NBA player.

I'll be the first to admit that Don didn't amount to anything in the NBA, but considering what he cost the Blazers he was an excellent gamble.



> Pah! He was lucky to get what he did. Don't people remember the "Clyde the Slide" headlines? Everyone thought Clyde was washed up, and he had a nasty fat contract.


He could still play, though.

I'm one of the last people to criticize Bob, but he didn't get much for a guy who had a lot of gas left in his tank.

Ed O.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Hap said:


> when gary wasn't busy assaulting his girlfriend, hitting people with pool ques, or being an overall thug, he wasn't a bad player.


Sounds like he was a perfect fit for Portland. :angel:


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> The dude had serious game. Big, young, good handles, a sweet shooting stroke, a good passer.
> 
> But it doesn't always add up to a good NBA player.
> 
> ...


I felt that trade was done for Clyde, probably had PA's stamp all over it, out of respect for him and what he had done for the franshise. He sure didn't show much appreciation about it later.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I still think we should have sent Drexler to the 76ers for Willie Harris.




Wow that was a longass time ago.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

meru said:


> Really? I don't remember this. What kind of discipline did Dunleavy have in mind? I can't really see Whitsitt being that interfering or Dunleavy that cowed.


Dunleavy proposed that when Wallace got T's in the next game he would come off the bench and not start, and that if it continued he would be suspended a game. Whitsitt vetoed it. That was widely reported at the time. It's not that Dunleavy was "cowed" but that he was overruled.



> Of course, getting Schrempf the _first_ time was a good move, albeit slightly negated because he immediately got Pippen. I always thought that Dunleavy underused Schrempf, but on the other hand, the team was incredibly stocked.


I agree. At the time Schrempf signed, no one knew that/if the team would get Pip. Although since Schrempf, after not being re-signed by Seattle, said he'd go to Portland if they wanted him or else retire, he pretty much fell into the Blazers hands. And it's not just that Schrempf was underused; although Seattle behaved without class, no suprise, in fact Schrempf was pretty well done. And even worse the next year.



> That's totally Paul Allen. I remember him saying he was having "a Woods moment" (which was a little too close to having a woodie for my liking) as Qyntel dropped down the draft. Besides, can you really say you thought it was bad at the time?


I can't say I thought it was bad at the time because I knew little about Woods. But then I am not paid a lot of money to find out. No one knew about the dogs; but Woods had fallen in the draft because of drug use and considerations that he was not very coachable and a possible head case. I don't know, maybe Paul Allen really did want him, but a GM should be willing to at least advise the owner that it could be trouble. Whether that happened or not I don't know.



> Again, not really Whitsitt's fault - he just brings in players (unless he really was the puppet master you make him out to be) - the coach decides to play them or not.


But Strickland really was not needed. The Blazers had Stoudamire and Anthony plus a bench warmer whose name escapes me at the moment. They had Pip and Smitty capable of playing the point at times. They did not need another point guard. It was Whitsitt playing fantasy league ball with the Blazers, without regards to what it would do to team chemistry. And the move precipitated a 5 game losing streak and and end of season skid that dropped the Blazers from first place to 7th and a first round sweep. Obviously it was not the only factor and as I said Strickland himself was not at fault; but I think it was the straw that broke the team camel's back.



> But that reminds me of another GREAT Whitsitt pickup - *Greg Anthony*. Arguably our second-best performer in a lot of playoff games.
> Never liked Augmon as a Blazer (although, if you like him, you've got to remember who it was that acquired him).


Actually, I think Whitsitt did a pretty good job until 2000. First, he really did overload the 1999-2000 team; second, after the 7th game loss he went into panic mode. I am willing to acknowledge that Whitsitt performed well for a period of time but his last few years were disastrous.



> I'm with you on Kenny Anderson, especially as nobody else was interested in him. But that was then, and Whitsitt was using Paul Allen's massive wealth to make Portland a player. It worked - they were taken seriously as a free agent destination all of a sudden.


Actually, when a team wins, even if tucked away in the Northwest, they are taken seriously as a free agent destination. 

You see, I am willing to acknowledge the positive while at the same time saying that, especially in the last several years of his reign, the negative outweighed the positive. What irritates me is Whitsitt's "I never make mistakes" garbage and the fact that his supporters echo it.

Us ordinary stiffs who do our jobs reasonably well can confess to the occasional bomb, because we know that everyone makes mistakes and we can, hopefully, show that our positives outweigh our negatives. As I said in my first post, it is those who really screw up who have to say that they never make mistakes. It's all the fault of the person who used to hold the job, or the guy who got in the way of my shotgun, or whoever.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

crandc said:


> Dunleavy proposed that when Wallace got T's in the next game he would come off the bench and not start, and that if it continued he would be suspended a game. Whitsitt vetoed it. That was widely reported at the time. It's not that Dunleavy was "cowed" but that he was overruled.


Pure fiction. Anything widely reported at that time about The Blazers by any credible media source could not have possibly escaped my attention.



crandc said:


> Us ordinary stiffs who do our jobs reasonably well can confess to the occasional bomb, because we know that everyone makes mistakes and we can, hopefully, show that our positives outweigh our negatives. As I said in my first post, it is those who really screw up who have to say that they never make mistakes. It's all the fault of the person who used to hold the job, or the guy who got in the way of my shotgun, or whoever.


So, you have posted here about 3 different jobs you have accepted and left in the last year or so. I seem to recall mention that the employers were less than accomadating to certain disabilities or handicaps you face. Might the fault actually be shared just a little by your distraction of posting here while at work, even though you are doing it during your break times?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> You see, I am willing to acknowledge the positive while at the same time saying that, especially in the last several years of his reign, the negative outweighed the positive. What irritates me is Whitsitt's "I never make mistakes" garbage and the fact that his supporters echo it.


Who's said that Whitsitt's never made mistakes? I am one of his biggest fans on the board and I don't think that I've ever said that. You're either misinterpreting things and getting irritated over nothing or you're being disingenuous.

With that being said, not everything that doesn't work our is a mistake. If I can flip a fair coin, put down a buck and win three dollars if it comes up heads... I'm going to do it. If I lose 20 times in a row (assuming again that the coin is fair) and I can afford it I'm going to do it again. The losing 20 times in a row isn't a mistake. It doesn't mean that it was a success, either, of course.

Whitsitt felt that the team had to keep moving forward or else it was going to move backwards. Getting Davis and Kemp to man the 4/5 spots didn't work out (considering Kemp's ineffectiveness and the high cost of acquiring Davis) but I don't know if it was really a mistake or not. The team was in a position to gamble on Kemp, and it totally bombed but if he had come back to the form he'd had a couple of years before the Blazers would have been NBA champions at least once.

Ed O.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> You see, I am willing to acknowledge the positive while at the same time saying that, especially in the last several years of his reign, the negative outweighed the positive. What irritates me is Whitsitt's "I never make mistakes" garbage and the fact that his supporters echo it.


Next to maybe Ed, I may be the biggest fan of Trader Bob on this board. But I've certainly acknowledged more than once that the Davis deal, Kemp, and Stoudamire's contract were cripplingly bad deals. 

I can't think of anyone who has said in the past two years that Dale Davis for Jermaine O'Neal worked out well for us. Anyone who watches even a little of the NBA can plainly see it was a collosal disaster, and Whitsitt clearly is the one responsible.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> So, you have posted here about 3 different jobs you have accepted and left in the last year or so. I seem to recall mention that the employers were less than accomadating to certain disabilities or handicaps you face. Might the fault actually be shared just a little by your distraction of posting here while at work, even though you are doing it during your break times?


Maris, speaking of facts, I left *one * job a year ago because after promising to accommodate a disability they then withdrew the promise and suspended me. My posting on my break time was never a factor. I would appreciate it if you would leave the personal attacks off this board, please.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> So, you have posted here about 3 different jobs you have accepted and left in the last year or so. I seem to recall mention that the employers were less than accomadating to certain disabilities or handicaps you face. Might the fault actually be shared just a little by your distraction of posting here while at work, even though you are doing it during your break times?


This has to be the rudest thing I have seen posted here at BBB.net just pathetic. I am mean what the ****? A lame accusation. You should seriously apologize, personal stuff like this has no place here.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

keep it on the (very old, and let it go) subject folks.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

crandc said:


> Some more on the negative side of the roster: drafting Qyntel Woods, bringing back Rod Strickland (not Strick's fault, really, he behaved & played well, but it shot Damon's confidence to hell, put Greg Anthony at the end of the bench when he'd earned PT...


I recall injuries factoring heavily into that situation. I was a big Greg Anthony fan, and remember him being severely limited with bone spurs on his ankles well before that move was made. It wasn't acquiring Rod that kept Greg ineffective and on the bench. If there is any merit to the team acquiring some more competition "shooting Damon's confidence to hell" then that only goes to show what a mental weakling he was. 

Not everything Bob touched turned up roses IMO, but... 

STOMP


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> So, you have posted here about 3 different jobs you have accepted and left in the last year or so. I seem to recall mention that the employers were less than accomadating to certain disabilities or handicaps you face. Might the fault actually be shared just a little by your distraction of posting here while at work, even though you are doing it during your break times?


Uncalled for. Debate the post, not the poster.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

STOMP said:


> I recall injuries factoring heavily into that situation. I was a big Greg Anthony fan, and remember him being severely limited with bone spurs on his ankles well before that move was made. It wasn't acquiring Rod that kept Greg ineffective and on the bench. If there is any merit to the team acquiring some more competition "shooting Damon's confidence to hell" then that only goes to show what a mental weakling he was.
> 
> Not everything Bob touched turned up roses IMO, but...
> 
> STOMP


I was a G. Anthony fan as well and I believe you recall correctly that he did have bone spurs that season. I seem to recall though that he came back for the playoff healthy yet the team still signed and kept Strickland around which created some friction. I could be recollecting it wrong but that's how I remember it.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Along the lines of Bob mistakes, Kemp and Davis tend to be at the top of the list. It can now be said, both were bad moves. But going back to that time period, the problem was the Blazers didn't have the Centers to contend with Shaq. At that time Shaq looked to be the barrier between the Blazers and the title (I remember Grant trying to match up with Shaq with little success). So Bob brought in two big bodies in Kemp and Davis to address the issue. Over the summer national media thought the Blazers had pulled off moves to get them the title. That didn't happen. But there was logic even to Bob's bad moves.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Stomp, you are right that Damon was more than a tad emotionally fragile and that his confidence tended to be shaky. But - you are a team in first place. You are in the running for a title. Under those circumstances, not necessarily under others, I think it would make sense to coddle the starting point guard a bit. Give him some strokes and a dish of cream. Tickle him under the chin. Scratch behind his ears. Brush his hair. Hell, it works for my cats!
Seriously, although now that you mention it I do vaguely recall some injury issues with Anthony I think he was OK by late in the season (?) and they could use Pip or Smitty to back up at the point. My point is don't mess with success. You have the league's best record, smile and enjoy. It's not time to tinker. But TB could not refrain from tinkering and sometimes it really blew up in the team's face. And since it was known that Damon was fragile that should have been predicted.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> I was a G. Anthony fan as well and I believe you recall correctly that he did have bone spurs that season. I seem to recall though that he came back for the playoff healthy yet the team still signed and kept Strickland around which created some friction. I could be recollecting it wrong but that's how I remember it.


I don't think that Greg was ever really healthy or effective like he'd been. Certainly that season didn't work out the way Blazer fans had hoped (really only one has) and the *O* repeatedly scapegoated acquiring Rod (and Detlef) as a reason why... I doubt that things would have turned out much differently if Bob hadn't rolled the dice on them though. 

I wonder which writer it was making excuses for Damon's poor play?

STOMP


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

crandc said:


> Stomp, you are right that Damon was more than a tad emotionally fragile and that his confidence tended to be shaky. But - you are a team in first place. You are in the running for a title. Under those circumstances, not necessarily under others, I think it would make sense to coddle the starting point guard a bit. Give him some strokes and a dish of cream. Tickle him under the chin. Scratch behind his ears. Brush his hair. Hell, it works for my cats!
> Seriously, although now that you mention it I do vaguely recall some injury issues with Anthony I think he was OK by late in the season (?) and they could use Pip or Smitty to back up at the point. My point is don't mess with success. You have the league's best record, smile and enjoy. It's not time to tinker. But TB could not refrain from tinkering and sometimes it really blew up in the team's face. And since it was known that Damon was fragile that should have been predicted.


While I felt Damon positives out weighed is negatives, probably his biggest flaw was mentally in regard to feeling threaten by his back up or any moves to get another PG. His biggest mental melt down came after he was busted with the pound of weed. Once he quit pot he did seem a lot more stable so that probably was a big part of it.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

crandc said:


> I would appreciate it if you would leave the personal attacks off this board, please.


And I would appreciate it if you would stop making up viscious, unfounded lies about my close personal friend Bob Whitsitt.

He's the salt of the earth and The Best GM ever. :banana: 

As I recall, you had that job a very short time after leaving another one, so I was only 1 job off in my estimate.

*There was nothing "personal" about my post, as dead baseball players have no emotions, and I was in no way "attacking" you.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of this part of your post.*

_As I said in my first post, it is those who really screw up who have to say that they never make mistakes. It's all the fault of the person who used to hold the job, or the guy who got in the way of my shotgun, or whoever._

Thanks for confirming it with this little tidbit in your reply to me:

_Maris, speaking of facts, I left one job a year ago because after promising to accommodate a disability they then withdrew the promise and suspended me. My posting on my break time was never a factor._

I have nothing against you crandc, or anyone else here. :angel: 

I enjoy most of your posts, agree with many of your views, find your posts to be well thought out in most cases, and am hopelessly addicted to chocolate!

Alas, because we disagree on the insignificance of the whole "Jailblazers" non-issue, none of your delectable confections will ever pass across my dead, dry, shrivelled lips.  

*If I have offended you, and it's pretty clear I have, I sincerely apologize.

I'm dead serious about that.*


----------

