# Patterson Demands 25 Minutes Or Else.......... [REPORT]



## AUNDRE (Jul 11, 2005)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2241985




damn


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

I guess this is one way for the SF logjam to be worked out. 

I'm about as on edge about Rube's fate as I was with Q's last season...  Him publically demanding 25 minutes a game from management or he'd rather sit seems to have a rather obvious outcome... sitting. I can't imagine management caving to that sort of approach to someone so unimportant to the club's direction or success. Whats best for Rube is well down the list of their concerns.

I sort of wish they'd just buy him out to be done with this nonsense, but whatever...

STOMP


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I listened to an interview with Nate yesterday and he said he would not make any promises about playing time... and that there just wasn't 25 minutes available for Patterson. I say play him whatever and if he won't check into the games.... suspend him. He shouldn't get paid for sitting on his butt.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I hope they don't buy him out, just because I still have a little fantasy that he might be a tradeable asset next year as an expiring deal. 

but after watching Stoudamire, Van Exel and Rahim all walk for nothing, and Derek Anderson being waived, I really don't have any basis for that hope.

maybe you're right, STOMP. just buy him out and be done with it.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

**** Ruben. He's *******!


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Congratulations Ruben. You just went from difficult to trade to impossible. That's using your head. Hope you enjoy sitting on the active list with DNP-Coach's Decisions. I'm sure that'll help your next contract also. Maybe you can get one as good as Spreewell's.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ruben is clearly an idiot.

He's played in 8 games this year. He got 15 or fewer minutes in three of those games. Let's take a loot at his per 48 minute stats for those games.

15 minutes or less:

10.8 pts (22.2% fg,) 2.4 reb, 1.2 ast, 4.8 turnovers.

16 minutes or more:

18.9 pts (39% fg,) 6.7 reb, 1.3 ast, 4.2 turnovers.

Seems pretty simple Rube. Play well and you get minutes. Play like crap and Nate yanks you. The simplest solution would be to play well every game out, instead of crying like a baby because you can't handle getting benched for playing piss poor basketball.


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

Treat him just like Terrell Owens. He's on the same level (but not nearly as valuable in games).


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I would like to echo a previous poster. Ruben is doing a good job of clearing the SF logjam a little bit.

I miss his hustle, but for every lay-up, putback, fast-break dunk or quick steal, he puts up terrible shots, commits turnovers, misses from the line and hurts moer than he helps.

He might have been last year's team MVP, but he's this year's T.O. Let him sit.

We might not get much (if anything) in return, but at this point, just keeping him as far away from the team as possible should be management's primary goal.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Ruben is a LOLLYPOP!


----------



## azsun18 (Aug 12, 2004)

Wow if Ruben spent as much time developing an offensive game besides fast break layups maybe he could play more. The days of having a defensive stopper with no offensive skills (big men excluded) are gone. Even Ben Wallace and Bruce Bowen developed an offensive game so they bring more then just defense to the table. Playing 4 against 5 on offense is too easy to stop unless the 4 are exceptional, and ours are not.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Oregonian said:


> Patterson on Tuesday said he is not willing to continue to get fill-in minutes while the team continues its youth movement.
> 
> "I don't think my role of playing 13 or 15 minutes a game is acceptable," Patterson said from his home in Columbus, Ohio. "I deserve to play 25-plus minutes, but if they want me to play 12 minutes (like he did in his last game against New York), then they can just put me on the inactive list. I mean, those are rookie minutes."


Huh? :whofarted 

Who does he think he should be playing ahead of? Miles? :whatever: 

Does he think he "deserves" to get the SG minutes? :krazy: 

His PT has nothing to do with him taking a back seat to the 'youth movement.' He plays behind Miles and Randolph. He is not an effective shooting guard. The guy is a career backup SF, capable of playing spot minutes at PF and shooting guard ONLY if we need to D-up a big guard on the other team. The roster is :crowded: at his postion, and he is already getting the preferential backup minutes at SF and PF, with a little SG thrown in.

The "Trade-Me Stopper" should go get a construction job and use his head for something useful like :banghead: .


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

azsun18 said:


> Someone may pick up TO because he's got game. Patterson is talking and sulking and misbehaving his way onto the list on ESPN of ex-players (anyone have insider? I'd love to see the list but that's a topic for another thread) like Sprewell whom no one wants.


If he was at least a consistent defensive stopper he'd be valuable. But he's not. Sometimes, yeah, but he makes dumb mistakes (like fouling on an inbounds pass), commits way too many fouls in general and frequently ignores routine defense in hopes of getting a spectacular play. His boasting actually inspires opponents to try and score even more than they usually do. He's been burned on defense repeatedly. And the examples you mention, Ben Wallace and Bruce Bowen, always had more of a game than defense; Wallace was and is a rebounder and Bowen always could shoot. Dennis Rodman was a terrific rebounder, the best. Even the big men defenders who couldn't shoot (Chris Dudley comes to mind) were good rebounders/shot blockers even if they had no offensive game. Patterson is limited offensively and inconsistent at best on defense. And unlike Duds he's not going to be on a team because he's a great guy who's smart, sets a good example for everyone and is great in the community. 

Someone may pick up TO because he's got game. Patterson is talking and sulking and misbehaving his way onto the list on ESPN of ex-players (anyone have insider? I'd love to see the list but that's a topic for another thread) like Sprewell whom no one wants.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Sounds like a saavy veteran commited to team and winning if you ask me.


----------



## Chalie Boy (Aug 26, 2002)

he shoots 18% from the three


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

crandc said:


> If he was at least a consistent defensive stopper he'd be valuable. But he's not. Sometimes, yeah, but he makes dumb mistakes (like fouling on an inbounds pass), commits way too many fouls in general and frequently ignores routine defense in hopes of getting a spectacular play. His boasting actually inspires opponents to try and score even more than they usually do. He's been burned on defense repeatedly. And the examples you mention, Ben Wallace and Bruce Bowen, always had more of a game than defense; Wallace was and is a rebounder and Bowen always could shoot. Dennis Rodman was a terrific rebounder, the best. Even the big men defenders who couldn't shoot (Chris Dudley comes to mind) were good rebounders/shot blockers even if they had no offensive game. Patterson is limited offensively and inconsistent at best on defense. And unlike Duds he's not going to be on a team because he's a great guy who's smart, sets a good example for everyone and is great in the community.
> 
> Someone may pick up TO because he's got game. Patterson is talking and sulking and misbehaving his way onto the list on ESPN of ex-players (anyone have insider? I'd love to see the list but that's a topic for another thread) like Sprewell whom no one wants.


 :clap: :clap: :clap: 

You get em Crandc!!!!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I seem to remember Ruben after a game last year saying he could score 20PPG on any given night as long as he got PT, even said it would be easy.


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

siK_sTyLeZz said:


> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2241985
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ugh. What a piece of crap. Imagine many cuss words here. 

Why would ANYONE want someone like this on their team?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

OntheRocks said:


> Ugh. What a piece of crap. Imagine many cuss words here.
> 
> Why would ANYONE want someone like this on their team?


Cause he's so gaul darn exciting on the court!


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Cause he's so gaul darn exciting on the court!


i hear he mixes a hell of a cocktail...
i mean he used to mix a hell of a cocktail, back when Damon didn't know that tinfoil was metal, and D.A. was... wait what was D.A. again?
time to pack it in "Rube".


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

I wonder....

I'm probably dreaming, but I wonder if a scenario might occur where Patterson might have his contract revoked. I'm referring to the Uniform Player Contract, Section (16)(a)(iv). Here's the link if you're so inclined to look it up yourself.

Essentially, Section 16 says there are 4 ways that a team can terminate a player contract:
1) Not living up to standards of good personal conduct
2) A "significant and inexcusable" physical attack against another player, a ref, a team employee or someone attending a game
3) For "lack of skill" - ie, you're just not good enough to play
4) I'll quote this one, if a player should "at any time, fail, refuse, or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this Contract."

Now, if a contract is terminated for lack of skill (#3), the team still has to pay any guaranteed money left on his contract. But for the other 3 provisions....

I think that #1 is so vague that it would be tough to ever make stick after appeals, etc. #2 doesn't apply. But #4....

So Patterson is activated. He's sitting on the bench in uniform. Nate calls his number and Ruben refuses to go in - sticking to his guns about not playing unless he's guaranteed those 25 minutes. And does so again and again for a couple of weeks. I think that under those conditions, the Blazers might have a good case for being able to terminate his contract and not have to pay him the remainder.

Just wondering....


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Storyteller said:


> I wonder....
> 
> I'm probably dreaming, but I wonder if a scenario might occur where Patterson might have his contract revoked. I'm referring to the Uniform Player Contract, Section (16)(a)(iv). Here's the link if you're so inclined to look it up yourself.
> 
> ...




........I'm just wondering why you're not the the Blazers payroll? Have you sent this to John Nash?


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

My fear about this whole situation is that Jerome James will be a Blazer by December 15th... I could really see this happening.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I don't think you have anything to worry about. Ask yourself this question: Since Portland hired John Nash as manager, have the Blazers traded for one bad contract? He has consistently said he will not trade for anything but a short term contract or talent swap that help the team get a player who is willing to comitt to the team youth movement and be a piece of that process. 

The other reason I think it is less likely is that NY seems genuinly interested in Tim Thomas, who they traded to Chicago a while back. Thomas went into the same situation that Ruben is in: He isn't part of the youth movement in Chiacago, and is on the inactive list until something can be done. That could be a buyout or trade, but at this point NY has shown more interest in Tim Thomas then Ruben, and I don't blame them. He is taller, has better shooting range and a better all around game then Ruben except for defense.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

SheedSoNasty said:


> My fear about this whole situation is that Jerome James will be a Blazer by December 15th... I could really see this happening.


Scary thing is he seems readily available...And Portland has a serious need...Big Men.

I'm sure Nate has a better appraisal of Jerome than any of us do, if he gives Nash the go ahead I'll trust Nate on it.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Storyteller said:


> I'm probably dreaming, but...
> 
> So Patterson is activated. He's sitting on the bench in uniform. Nate calls his number and Ruben refuses to go in - sticking to his guns about not playing unless he's guaranteed those 25 minutes. And does so again and again for a couple of weeks. I think that under those conditions, the Blazers might have a good case for being able to terminate his contract and not have to pay him the remainder.


Sounds great. What a perfect way for the club to clear his cap space sooner then later... I'd have to imagine though that his agent would be in his ear pretty quick if he's truely risking his big 2006/7 payday.

STOMP


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Storyteller said:


> I wonder....
> 
> I'm probably dreaming, but I wonder if a scenario might occur where Patterson might have his contract revoked. I'm referring to the Uniform Player Contract, Section (16)(a)(iv). Here's the link if you're so inclined to look it up yourself.
> 
> ...


I can only hope Ruben would be so dumb as to do this...it would be great to make him eats his words and revoke his contract. 

To bad we never traded Damon for that "chair" Ruben might fetch a decent footstool at this point if we are lucky.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

I say "Let's play ball" with Ruben. Challenge him to stick to his word (about not playing). Keep him on active list and ask him to go into games near end of games (garbage time especially). Call his bluff.

Let's see if he's willing to have his contract terminated so that he'll be able to sign with someone else (all those 'winning' teams who want him) and get off our cap.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

I think what we are seeing is the opening act of "My agent has already sought trades and nobody wants me with my current contract" . I think that Ruben wants to both keep his money, and change teams a la Derek Anderson. Therefore, he is not refraining from certain antics. 

My best guest is that since nobody wants him now, he will do something else to cause trouble in the hopes of forcing a buyout. Let us hope he doesn't go to far.


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

Sickening to me that we still actually have to pay him.

He is about to find himself at Sprewell's status. Players like Ruben have no basis on demanding X amount of minutes, what ever happened to the team player?


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Ruben is a poormans's TO.I wish we would have kept Sar for pf and Van exel to play sg. I wish we could trade Ruben for Tim Thomas or else cut him.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

crandc said:


> Someone may pick up TO because he's got game. Patterson is talking and sulking and misbehaving his way onto the list on ESPN of ex-players (anyone have insider? I'd love to see the list but that's a topic for another thread) like Sprewell whom no one wants.


This thread will do fine for now.

Latrell Sprewell
Rodney Rogers
Wesley Person
George Lynch
Darvin Ham
Dajuan Wagner
Jay Williams
Ron Mercer
Andrew DeClercq
Shawn Kemp
Christian Laettner
Rodney White
Marcus Fizer
Glenn Robinson
Clarence Weatherspoon
Jermaine Jackson
Qyntel Woods
Erick Strickland
Robert Traylor
Travis Best
Vin Baker
Reggie Miller
Keon Clark

With an honorable mention list of players they don't consider likely to have any teams after them.

Dickey Simpkins
Chris Herren
Ben Handlogten
Gary Trent
Chris Morris
Todd Day
Chris Washburn
Jelani McCoy
Rodney Buford
Lenny Cooke
Ronnie Fields
Tim Hardaway
Dennis Rodman


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Since a trade probably isn't going to happen, maybe we can just buyout Ruben and sign CSpoon or someone else who is floating around who won't complain... or someone from the CBA or NBDL.

It would just be good to have one more warm body up front who could put in a few minutes a game without thoroughly embarrassing themselves and the city of Portland... not too much to ask.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

gambitnut said:


> This thread will do fine for now.
> 
> Latrell Sprewell
> Rodney Rogers
> ...



Not to nit-pick, but several of those guys are retired, and have been for awhile.

Traylor had heart surgery, so it isn't really fair to list him as "unwanted".


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

I'm so sick of these prima donna attitudes. It's this kind of crap that has poisioned the league for the last 10 years. Hard working no nonsense players like Khrypa, Monia and Webster are a breath of freash air. 

Bye bye Ruben the monkey boy.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I'm sure their is tons of teams interested in the self-proclaimed "Kobestopper".....  

I'd trade Ruben straight up for Latrell anyday of the week...


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I'm sick of guaranteed contracts. The one thing that would improve the league more than anything is the end to guaranteed contracts.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

mgb said:


> I'm sick of guaranteed contracts. The one thing that would improve the league more than anything is the end to guaranteed contracts.


if every guy were playing every night for his contract for the following year, you'd have to completely re-define the term "selfish basketball." it'd be an entire league that looked like the Clippers did a few years ago when Kandi, Brand, Odom and a couple of other guys all were playing for their next deal. ugh. no thanks. 

guaranteed contracts aren't necessarily a bad thing. Nate McMillan, for example, has a long guaranteed contract, and I think most of us see that as a pretty good deal. 

the problem is that there are just too many guys locked into 4, 5, and 6 year guaranteed deals. seems like there ought to be an opt out clause for both team and player in any contract after 3 seasons. 

or something like that.


----------



## PDXferret (Dec 2, 2005)

"Patterson.....has become known for off-court incidents.

In 2001, Patterson pleaded guilty in the state of Washington to an attempted rape charge for allegedly forcing his children's 24-year-old nanny to perform a sex act. Patterson had to register as a sex offender in Oregon and was suspended for the first five games of the following season by the NBA.

In February 2001, he was convicted of misdemeanor assault for attacking a man who scratched his car outside a Cleveland night club.

In November 2002, he was arrested on felony domestic abuse charges. His wife, Shannon Patterson, later dropped the charges, but the couple divorced."

Get rid of him.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

PDXferret said:


> "Patterson.....has become known for off-court incidents.
> 
> In 2001, Patterson pleaded guilty in the state of Washington to an attempted rape charge for allegedly forcing his children's 24-year-old nanny to perform a sex act. Patterson had to register as a sex offender in Oregon and was suspended for the first five games of the following season by the NBA.
> 
> ...


Welcome aboard!

But none of that is exactly news, is it? In a month it will be 2006.

barfo


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

He who lives in Glass House...

Main Entry: 1*fer·ret * 
Pronunciation: 'fer-&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English furet, ferret, from Middle French furet, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin furittus, literally, *little thief*, diminutive of Latin fur thief


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

mgb said:


> I'm sick of guaranteed contracts. The one thing that would improve the league more than anything is the end to guaranteed contracts.


Agreed.

PBF


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

gambitnut said:


> This thread will do fine for now.
> 
> Latrell Sprewell
> Rodney Rogers
> ...



Tony Dumas, Dontonio Wingfield and Chris Mills can all be added to that list...


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

theWanker said:


> if every guy were playing every night for his contract for the following year, you'd have to completely re-define the term "selfish basketball." it'd be an entire league that looked like the Clippers did a few years ago when Kandi, Brand, Odom and a couple of other guys all were playing for their next deal. ugh. no thanks.
> 
> guaranteed contracts aren't necessarily a bad thing. Nate McMillan, for example, has a long guaranteed contract, and I think most of us see that as a pretty good deal.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying only one year contracts. There is quite a bit of difference between having a five year contract that is guaranteed and one that isn't. If Portland could cut Ruben without having to pay him do you think we'd see this BS from him? No way, he knows he can't get this type of cash from anyone else and he'd be doing everything the Blazers want to keep getting paid the cash he's being paid.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

PDXferret said:


> In 2001, Patterson pleaded guilty in the state of Washington to an attempted rape charge for allegedly forcing his children's 24-year-old nanny to perform a sex act.


I'm not sure where you copied this quote, but I'm pretty sure it's incorrect. If memory serves me (a rare event these days), I believe he entered an 'alford plea,' which mean that he did NOT admit guilt, but agreed that a jury would probably convict him. 



Wikipedia said:


> In the law of the United States, an Alford plea is a plea in criminal court. In this plea, the defendant does not admit the act and asserts innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty.


Welcome to the site! The more the Blazers-er.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Tony Dumas, Dontonio Wingfield and Chris Mills can all be added to that list...


Why on earth would Dumas or Wingfield be on that list? 

Dumas is 36 years old and hasn't played in the NBA in a decade. Dontonio is only 31 but hasn't played in the NBA in 8 years... and last I heard couldn't walk without a cane.

Mills is a pretty legit addition, assuming he is interested in making a comeback.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Why on earth would Dumas or Wingfield be on that list?
> 
> Dumas is 36 years old and hasn't played in the NBA in a decade. Dontonio is only 31 but hasn't played in the NBA in 8 years... and last I heard couldn't walk without a cane.
> 
> ...


Same reason Chris Morris, Todd Day, Chris Washburn, Chris Herren and Rodney Buford are on that list.....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Same reason Chris Morris, Todd Day, Chris Washburn, Chris Herren and Rodney Buford are on that list.....


That's silly. Each of those players is playing professionally and are trying to make it back to the NBA. Wingfield can barely walk.

Ed O.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

What we really want is a list of guys that are actively trying prove their basketball worth else where to get back into the NBA but nobody will sign them. I don't know that Spreewell really counts. I want guys that were such *******es that they now have to play in the Phillipines and every year try to make it on a summer league team just to be told "No, you were a ******* the last time you were hear and you're no less of a ******* now. Go back to the Phillipines."


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> That's silly. Each of those players is playing professionally and are trying to make it back to the NBA. Wingfield can barely walk.
> 
> Ed O.


This is a list of ex-players that no one wants.....

Don't you think they haven't been in the NBA for years because no one wants them.....

Chris Washburn hasn't been in the league since 1988...and Chris Morris since 99' and neither of them are making attempts at coming back, I think they guys I mentioned are just as capable being on the list as those other guys...

Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf is another guy to add to that list


----------

