# Finley and Jamison? NOOOOO



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

So: the deal that is rumoured to be on the table is:
Rasheed and Bonzi for 
Finley and Jamison

No thanks.

Finley was a nice player a couple of years ago, but isn't he getting on in years? And we need shooters, which he isn't. I'd rather have Bonzi, even if he's struggling right now and snarling at fans.

Jamison? What does he do except score at a not-too-exciting %? He's not a natural SF
He's shorter than Rasheed
He's a worse defender than Rasheed
He's not as good a shooter as Rasheed.

Doesn't he play best in the post? Where Zach is about to become a fixture?

Here's hoping this is one of those "make it sound like we're about to make a bad trade so that other teams will give us good offers" deals.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

If it's true, I think I like it.

Finley is 30 years old. He's a career 45% FG, 34% 3pt FG player who's been a outstanding team player.

Jamison is 27. He also is a career 45% FG, 31% 3pt FG player.

The way I see it, if we have the opportunity to get these two players without giving up Z-bo or Qwood, I say go for it. Especially since it sounds like Sheed will not be welcome in PDX after this season anyway.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

A Spurs sideline reporter asked Cuban if the trade was true, and he himself denied it. Cuban supposedly said that if the players were traded, then they wouldn't have even suited up.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rohawk24</b>!
> A Spurs sideline reporter asked Cuban if the trade was true, and he himself denied it. Cuban supposedly said that if the players were traded, then they wouldn't have even suited up.


thats what I figured. This is probably the best we could hope for, for Bonzi and Rasheed.

The thing is, this was KOIN tv reporting the trade...thats like relying on a habitual liar to tell you to the truth. Not exactly the best news station in the state.


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

Do you guys remember in yesterdays game George Karl said "Every time I see Rasheed shoot the ball, I see him in a Mav uniform" ......


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Siouxperior</b>!
> Do you guys remember in yesterdays game George Karl said "Every time I see Rasheed shoot the ball, I see him in a Mav uniform" ......


haha, I was just thinking about that.

And the play by play guy asked, "Do you know something we don't?" and Karl said "I don't know."

Hmmm.

With the Blazers so short handed from injuries, I could actually see this deal being done in principle, but delayed until tomorrow morning. Could be why Wells and Wallace are still in this game. Interesting stuff.


----------



## RoseCity (Sep 27, 2002)

I like it as well.

What more could you expect to get for two overgrown babies in a mans game?

Finley is arguably on the downside of his career but he has at least 5 good years left in him. He has always been one of the leauges most consistent guys. Playing 40+ minutes all those years with Dallas and always playing all 82 games. 

Jamison is entering his prime and he will fit in nicely with Zach at the 3/4.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Wowy wow wow wow! Holy jeeze... I get back from a dull day at work and see that two out of our three best (Randolph being the other) might be traded? This is unbelievable indeed. Talentwise it's pretty even, though I'd miss Sheed a lot, but PR wise this would be spectacualr.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

Dallas would be the winners if this comes true. 

Man, a starting unit of Nash, Bonzi, Walker, Dirk, and Sheed would be amazing. Sheed would be a great defensive addition, and his shooting arsenal fits right in with the Mavs. Bonzi would also benefit because he'd have more operating room in the post (no Z-Bo, and the floor is spread by all the 3-point shooting Mavs).


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> haha, I was just thinking about that.
> ...


Yeah, I was thinking about that. Hey, I'm hoping Karl is good friends with Nelly so possibly he could have slipped up and said something...but I doubt it.....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SLAM</b>!
> Dallas would be the winners if this comes true.
> 
> Man, a starting unit of Nash, Bonzi, Walker, Dirk, and Sheed would be amazing. Sheed would be a great defensive addition, and his shooting arsenal fits right in with the Mavs. Bonzi would also benefit because he'd have more operating room in the post (no Z-Bo, and the floor is spread by all the 3-point shooting Mavs).


actually, with Rasheed just doing the defense, and occasional 3's...he might be a great fit in Dallas, as long as their fans don't go nuts over him not talking to the media (altho who knows..he might in Dallas).


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

lets look at the numbers since it works on RealGM by the other posters.. I am curious


Portland sends 
Bonzi $6.99 mil + Sheed $18 mil = $24.99 mil OUT
Sheed has an expiring contract, Bonzi is contracted to 2006 (3 years)

Dallas sends
Jamison $11.95 mil + Finley $13.28 mil = $25.23 mill
Jamison has 5 years and a max of $17.2 mill
Finley also has 5 years and a max of $18.3 mill


 I do not mind the exchange of players, although Finley is getting older and we loose a bit on defense and over all potential
But those contracts are killer contracts in 5 years...

I see it as a bigger pair of handcuffs on the ole salary cap. We are better off keeping Sheed and letting him walk

plus our defense is going to hurt big time with no Sheed at the 4 against the big name PF


But, we actually save about 3/4 of a million and $1.5 mill with tax considerations. :whoknows: Every little bit helps I guess


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> lets look at the numbers since it works on RealGM by the other posters.. I am curious
> 
> 
> ...


while the salary hits might be big, (and they are) I think the hit of lack of support is even bigger. It's obvious, despite Ed O's support, there are enough people who are tired of the team as is, that Paul Allen might be more worried about the potential loss of the fanbase, than the amount of money he'd be spending on those guys in 5 years.

Also, Jamison and Finley might be a lot easier to trade in the future, than players with bad reputations.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Trader Bob beat me to it. See his post above^^^.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I think you could trade Finley in a heartbeat

But I have actually admired both of those guys as players. They are good scorers. Not sure about their D.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> I think you could trade Finley in a heartbeat
> 
> But I have actually admired both of those guys as players. They are good scorers. Not sure about their D.


I probably watched 50-60 Golden State Warriors games when I lived in SF. (More than some GS Warriors fans probably) 

I didn't see him play any defense. Ever.

But man that guy can score.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

What a horrible trade for Portland.

Thank goodness it probably isn't true. Jamison is overpaid and not a free agent at the end of the year like Wallace is. Wallace is also a better than Jamison, and Finley, if better than Bonzi, is not superior enough to make up the difference on the Wallace-Jamison downgrade.

It's a great deal for Dallas...makes them a championship contender, as they finally get the big man they need. Short of just trying to help someone beat the Lakers, the deal makes no sense for Portland.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> I didn't see him(Jamison) play any defense. Ever.
> 
> But man that guy can score...


...except in crunch time. I've lived in SF for his whole Warrior career and I can't ever recall him hitting a game winning shot though I have seen him fail many times. Basically his offensive game is about the same as Zach's, as he makes his living on offensive boards and quick flip putbacks. He's probably the worst defensive starting forward in the league and features poor ballhandling and passing skills too. He's also prone to sulking if things don't go his way. But he does have a huge contract with a lot of years on it 

Finley has stunk it up this season and seems to have hit the wall at 30. Remember Bonzi lighting him up in the playoffs last season and how little he did vs Portland? 

If Nash does this completely lopsided deal, he's either a moron or has a gun to his head. From the Blazer's perspective, I don't see the on court reason(s) to go for this at all. Both players would be an upgrade for the Mavs. Hoooooooooorible. 

STOMP


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> ...except in crunch time. I've lived in SF for his whole Warrior career and I can't ever recall him hitting a game winning shot though I have seen him fail many times. Basically his offensive game is about the same as Zach's, as he makes his living on offensive boards and quick flip putbacks. He's probably the worst defensive starting forward in the league and features poor ballhandling and passing skills too. He's also prone to sulking if things don't go his way. But he does have a huge contract with a lot of years on it
> 
> ...
> ...


You're definitely right about Antawn's game. I can tell you've seen him play...you must have been the other guy in the stands at all of those GS Warriors games I was at. It's kind of nice when you have a whole section of the stands to yourself. Plus you can park wherever you want. 

All in all, I still like the Wells for Finley part of the deal, but I'm not too high on the Jamison for Wallace part.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> ...except in crunch time. I've lived in SF for his whole Warrior career and I can't ever recall him hitting a game winning shot though I have seen him fail many times. Basically his offensive game is about the same as Zach's, as he makes his living on offensive boards and quick flip putbacks. He's probably the worst defensive starting forward in the league and features poor ballhandling and passing skills too. He's also prone to sulking if things don't go his way. But he does have a huge contract with a lot of years on it


He just hit a clutch shot today...

http://www.nba.com/games/20031108/DALSAS/recap.html



> Finley has stunk it up this season and seems to have hit the wall at 30. Remember Bonzi lighting him up in the playoffs last season and how little he did vs Portland?
> 
> STOMP


Bonzi has also stunk it up this season. And wasn't Finley just coming back from a hamstring injury in the playoffs last year ? He was probably rusty and not at 100% health.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Getting rid of Wells is a blessing in any capacity. We could certainly do without his 2-15 shooting nights. Rasheed's a postive on the court...but if we dumped him it would be cutting yet another tie to our "stupid/ thug" team. Jamison is a decent SF to go along with Randolph. That would be a good trade!


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> All in all, I still like the Wells for Finley part of the deal, but I'm not too high on the Jamison for Wallace part.


Well I'm with you on noticing Finley may be fading, but if he isn't that part would be fine... but having closely watched Antawn crumble time and again when matched up against Sheed, to say I'm not high on that part is an understatement. Notice how Golden State now has a winning record for the first time since before they drafted Jamison... not a coincidence IMO. This deal is a Dallas pipe dream. They have no quality bigs, and the basketball rumor mongers always seem to have Portland in a fire sale mode and about to solve someone else's problems.

STOMP


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

it would be a horrible deal for portland


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yega1979</b>!
> Rasheed's a postive on the court...but if we dumped him it would be cutting yet another tie to our "stupid/ thug" team.


Then we'd know we're kicking off a new era with stupid/idiots running the team. Oh Boy! Everyone loves and supports a loser. Sign me up for season tickets.

STOMP


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

If they are going to take on those kind of long term expensive contracts... I would rather have had Payton at 4 years $40 mill 

_Dallas sends
Jamison $11.95 mil + Finley $13.28 mil = $25.23 mill
Jamison has 5 years and a max of $17.2 mill
Finley also has 5 years and a max of $18.3 mill_


Dallas should be able to send a contract of about $2.5 mil to $3 mill as well. I think they should or take on Patterson and give us Fortson as well as added depth at F-C


I just do not see Allen or Nash taking on the long term money. Wallace $18 mill can be off the books in 1 year


----------



## BrooklynBaller (Jun 25, 2003)

No way! The only way we give up Sheed and Bonzi is if we're getting Steve Nash back in the trade. Why trade Sheed for players that don't address either of our weakest positions? --- center and/or point guard. The trade that's been reported doesn't make any sense to me and, hopefully, doesn't make any sense to Nash, Patterson, or Allen.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

TB- Are you aware Danny washed out on terrible Nuggets, Celtics, and Warriors clubs? He can board, but he has zero offense or defense. Warriors GM St. Jean gave him a big fat long term deal, but none of their numerous coaches could figure out how to get him any minutes and stay in games. I would be looking into getting a refund on my league pass if this went down... I'd be so disgusted I'd probably give up watching pro hoops. Seriously this deal is the worst I've seen proposed, and I refuse to believe that it's really being bantered about by those that matter. 

STOMP


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Then we'd know we're kicking off a new era with stupid/idiots running the team. Oh Boy! Everyone loves and supports a loser. Sign me up for season tickets.
> ...


Huh? Finley and Jamison are much better than Wells and Wallace in that department. We still don't have a good point guard, but Wallace and Wells are two tumors that would be gone.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Then we'd know we're kicking off a new era with stupid/idiots running the team. Oh Boy! Everyone loves and supports a loser.


That first line is gold. That second line is true, once you adjust for sarcasm.

Overall, I give you: two and a half thumbs up out of two and a half thumbs.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

I think player wise the trade is fine but I agree that those contracts are too horrible. The blazers are going to be in a good position salary wise soon, so why blow it for two players that arn't going to bring you a championship? Trade wallace and bonzi for a bag of beans but not beans with over 100mil left on their contracts.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Stomp...... yes.. I agree. but I was trying to throw out another player which might help us in some regard. With Sheed gone our defense will be really suspect against the strong front line teams.

Not saying we would want him. just that I think Dallas needs to pony up a bit more. This highly favors them in this talked about fire sale.

Besides we are NOT going to take on that kind of money... remember Gary Payton????


----------



## RetroBlazers (Jun 29, 2003)

they just talked about this trade rumor on the NW sports report, and they were saying how NBAtv was reporting it as well. they made it seem like there was a legitamite possibility that this trade would go down.


----------



## Jacres318 (Jun 8, 2003)

Finley is known for his shooting and driving! Now he can't shoot, great one:laugh: !

I wouldn't give up Jamison fo Sheed straight up, JAmison is an unlefish player, and Sheed is the most selfish player, I'llpass on givig up a all star for a bong who will screw or chemistry away. Finley is tons better than wells, Fin is a better defender, can drve better, has a better sot, and can really rebound better! 

I'm not going to give up my captain and our spirit off the bench for an overacheiver and a crack pipe!

this is bogs, funny how there's 50 rumors a day involving the Blazers.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

I think George Karl and Hoopsworld started this rumor


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Siouxperior</b>!
> Do you guys remember in yesterdays game George Karl said "Every time I see Rasheed shoot the ball, I see him in a Mav uniform" ......


I guess Tom Tolbert said something very similar recently, Sioux. I didn't hear it myself, but read an account about it. He supposedly said something like... "Rasheed just <i>looks</I> like a Maverick, doesn't he?<I>.

I think this thing is ALL OVER within the media, and they're just waiting for the OK to run the headlines.

PBF


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jacres318</b>!
> I wouldn't give up Jamison fo Sheed straight up, JAmison is an unlefish player, and Sheed is the most selfish player, I'llpass on givig up a all star for a bong who will screw or chemistry away. Finley is tons better than wells, Fin is a better defender, can drve better, has a better sot, and can really rebound better!


:laugh: lay down the pipe, clear the smoke and look up how many All Star games Antawn has appeared in. I've read several references on the Mavs board of Jamison having been an AS, but it's never happened because he's a limited talent with huge holes in his game. Over time maybe you'll be able to spot them, because you'll likely have him for a while. I give him plenty of credit for the Warriors never having a winning record while he was there.

BTW, Sheed has actually been an AS twice. He's at least twice the player 
Jamison is, but thats JMHO.

STOMP


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

*...*

as in other thread...I'm just reporting what I heard on the way home from the game on the 5th Quarter show...

this is a rumor...it's dead. Same as the rumor over the summer...


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: ...*



> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> as in other thread...I'm just reporting what I heard on the way home from the game on the 5th Quarter show...
> 
> this is a rumor...it's dead. Same as the rumor over the summer...



good makes no sense for portland


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yega1979</b>!
> 
> 
> Huh? Finley and Jamison are much better than Wells and Wallace in that department.


When STOMP said that such a trade would show that the team is led by "stupid/idiots" (rather than your "stupid/thugs") he was referring to Steve Patterson and John Nash, for making such a crazy deal.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ProudBFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess Tom Tolbert said something very similar recently, Sioux. I didn't hear it myself, but read an account about it. He supposedly said something like... "Rasheed just <i>looks</I> like a Maverick, doesn't he?<I>.
> ...


During the Seattle game on ESPN Tolbert said that he could see Wallace as a Maverick. That he fits the bill of what they were missing from their line up. The other guys asked if he knew something and it died at that. Interesting how Wallace and Wells are now rumored to be going to Dallas for exchangeable parts.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

In case no one's posted it yet:

Cuban denies any trade is in the works with Portland.

Which is good news; this would be a bad deal for Portland... reducing our defense tremendously and anchoring us with a couple of huge contracts for guys that aren't upgrades over what we've currently got.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jacres318</b>!
> Finley is known for his shooting and driving! Now he can't shoot, great one:laugh: !
> 
> I wouldn't give up Jamison fo Sheed straight up, JAmison is an unlefish player, and Sheed is the most selfish player,


intersting..most fans want Sheed to be MORE selfish..and yet, you claim he's the most selfish player..

Now, one could say that he's "selfish" in the sense that he does what he wants to do, but you'd be wrong in that. He doesn't do enough to help us win games, partially because he's not selfish enough, and he's just not that kinda guy (which I guess you could say makes him "selfish"...but i don't recall Jamison doing the little things to help G-State win).


> I'llpass on givig up a all star for a bong who will screw or chemistry away. Finley is tons better than wells, Fin is a better defender, can drve better, has a better sot, and can really rebound better!


both guys are good rebounders for their position, so to say that Finley is a better rebounder is like saying that Tim Duncan is a much better rebounder because he averages 1 rebound more a game than someone else.


> I'm not going to give up my captain and our spirit off the bench for an overacheiver and a crack pipe!
> 
> this is bogs, funny how there's 50 rumors a day involving the Blazers.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> When STOMP said that such a trade would show that the team is led by "stupid/idiots" (rather than your "stupid/thugs") he was referring to Steve Patterson and John Nash, for making such a crazy deal.


Ahh...well I don't think it would be a dumb trade. Wallace is going to leave for nothing next year, and Bonzi is horrible. You guys are still stuck in the rut of evaluating individual talent and not seeing the big picture. You CAN'T be sucessful with a team that doesn't care about winning, that just cares about picking up paychecks as the Blazers do. Besides, Wells and Wallace on a talent scale with Jamison and Finley...Jamison and Finley win that because of how crappy Bonzi is how how Rasheed won't play hard. It would bring in a whole new attitude and style of play!


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh: lay down the pipe, clear the smoke and look up how many All Star games Antawn has appeared in. I've read several references on the Mavs board of Jamison having been an AS, but it's never happened because he's a limited talent with huge holes in his game. Over time maybe you'll be able to spot them, because you'll likely have him for a while. I give him plenty of credit for the Warriors never having a winning record while he was there.
> ...


Kevin Duckworth has been to the all-star game, Zach Randolph has not...is Duck twice the player? Rasheed is not an all-star calibur player, coasts around and all he cares about is picking up his paycheck.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yega1979</b>!
> Kevin Duckworth has been to the all-star game, Zach Randolph has not...is Duck twice the player? Rasheed is not an all-star calibur player, coasts around and all he cares about is picking up his paycheck.


Dude don't break anything stretching out for that weak comparison. Duck played center, where there is never much depth and limited talents like him get selected on occation. Playing 25 minutes a night Vlade makes it nearly every year, though this season the great talent that is Erick Dampier might unseat him. 

Sheed, Antawn and Zach are in a much more competitive grouping. Randolph has never come close to getting the minutes or opprotunities to garner AS consideration. Antawn Jamison has. He's been the featured guy on a team for 5 years that was never able to come close to a winning record. He's never made it, and largely the W's never won, because he's not very good at anything other then putbacks. Dallas fans continually claiming he has made it are just wrong. Though you're downplaying the accomplishment, Rasheed has made it as a forward twice based on the votes of NBA coaches. This offseason KG and Tim Duncan in an article in SLAM listed him as one of the best 4's in the league. They also listed Dirk and Webber. They didn't list Zach, Antawn, Jermaine, Brand, or Pau. Portland's own GM rated him as the 10th best player in the league.

When you say that this deal would bring a whole new attitude and style of play, are you at all realizing that both of these mediocre talents have 5 escalating years left on their already huge deals? Have you ever seen Jamison hanging his head staring at the floor because night after night the other team and players he's going up against keep getting the better of him? In fantasy leagues he's a pretty decent player, but in actual NBA games, his man bests him more times then not. 

Speaking of ruts and not being able to see the big picture... Portland has won and has been successful (though obviously they haven't been able to win their last game) with these same players you claim don't care about winning and can't be successful. You claim Finley is the greater talent between him and Bonzi, but have you noticed how he faded last season or that he's shooting 33% this year? Your arguments just don't hold water. I also find it disgusting that you are fanning the flames of hate on other threads/boards claiming Portland players are rascist. Based on the limited insight that we have, the evidence is strongly against that. But keep sticking your head in the ground and calling for a mob, they aren't coming.

STOMP


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Have you ever seen Jamison hanging his head staring at the floor


In all fairness to body langauge and what it _really_ means, Tim Duncan does the same thing on a regular basis.

Dan


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

I grew up in Winston NC, and Wake is my fav team in all of sports. The last decade I've lived in SF and I've caught many Warriors games. It seems to me that while both Tim and Jamison can be photographed hanging their heads, Antawn only does it when things are going bad for him. This was widely noted by the local Bay Area press including the guy who's opinion I value the most, HOFer Rick Barry. Rick has worked with the Warrior players in preseason for Warrior coach Musselman, and came away with the opinion that while Antawn is a nice guy who works hard, he's a limited talent who doesn't make his teammates better and is prone to getting down on himself. Because of these limitations, Rick was a big proponent of the trade that sent AJ away.

The way Tim hangs his head reminds me of Drexler after a big dunk. He kills you and then focuses in on his next task. I don't get the feeling he struggles with his confidence at all... but good point none the less.

STOMP


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Antawn only does it when things are going bad for him.


That would be a key difference.

With Tim, I'm reminded of James E. Leohr's _The New Toughness Training for Sports_ (a fabulous book, by the way; I've loaned it out twice and not gotten it back either time  ). Leohr talks about studies of top level athletes, tennis players particularly, and how the very best are separated from the rest by their ability to relax and refocus at key times during competition. Often a glance down at the ground or something similarly inconspicuous, but measurable in things like heart rate, blood pressure, etc.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind seeing half the Blazers roster buy a copy of the book and read it cover to cover.  It was recommended to me by an age group world record holder (Indoor T&F) -- imagine a woman running sub-56 for 400m at nearly 50 years old -- who had overcome more major illness than would seem humanly possible (bedridden for 17 years, diagnosed as nearly blind for a while...). I started reading it while out for a month with an achilles injury which many thought would be the end of my running days. Spiked up after a week back and cut two seconds off my two year old 800m PR, feeling more comfortable and relaxed than ever. I was in no shape to do so, but my mental approach was so much better than ever before, the body followed the mind's lead.

Just imagine what the perennially talented Blazers could do with the right mindset.  

Dan


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Blazers...
PG: Stoudamire
SG: Finley
SF: Jamison
PF: Randolph
C: Davis

Mavericks...
PG: Nash
SG: Wells
SF: Walker
PF: Wallace
C: Nowitzki

Of course, either Walker or Wallace would probably come off of the bench.

Very interesting deal, I'm not sure it really improves either team though, they pretty much stay at the same level. Portland would just do it to get more of a SF, in Jamison, instead of playing Sheed there.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> Blazers...
> PG: Stoudamire
> SG: Finley
> ...


It would be Mavs
PG: Nash
SG: Wells
SF: Dirk
PF: Walker
C: Wallace

But I do agree with the last part of your post. As much as everyone wants to discredit Jamsion as a SF he is better than Wallace as SF. I'm not saying Wallace isn't the better player, he's just not the better player at the 3 IMO.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

It seems that part of this discussion is missing a major point.... the playoffs. The Mavs face major competition in the Lakers, Spurs, and probably the Twolves. Jamison does little to help the defense against these frontlines, while Sheed would help a great deal. Finley and Wells are not the major part of the deal, and while not interchangeable, they are roughly of similar value. The key point is Sheed's defensive ability. With him, Dallas has a much better shot at a championship. I think the downside for Dallas is the issue of whether or not Sheed walks at the end of the year.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bwatcher</b>!
> It seems that part of this discussion is missing a major point.... the playoffs. The Mavs face major competition in the Lakers, Spurs, and probably the Twolves. Jamison does little to help the defense against these frontlines, while Sheed would help a great deal. Finley and Wells are not the major part of the deal, and while not interchangeable, they are roughly of similar value. The key point is Sheed's defensive ability. With him, Dallas has a much better shot at a championship. I think the downside for Dallas is the issue of whether or not Sheed walks at the end of the year.



Sheed will be a MAJOR distraction for Dallas just as he is here in PDX. Dallas will win LESS games if they make this trade.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

There's a trade that doesn't improve the Blazers one bit. It gives Dallas a more legitimate post defender and doesn't hurt their offense at all. Since they've traded for players like Van Exel, Fortson, and Walker, it's clear the management is more concerned about results than reputations. 

For the Blazers, they get two hideous contracts and no better in the wins column, but at least some fans will feel better because guy(s) they don't like aren't there. Frankly, I'd be somewhat less inclined to watch the team after such a trade, but that's their gamble to take.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>baler</b>!
> 
> Sheed will be a MAJOR distraction for Dallas just as he is here in PDX. Dallas will win LESS games if they make this trade.


I've never seen any evidence that Wallace's off the court dealings (which is what, pot-smoking?) distract any of his teammates. And his on court behaviour has markedly improved, evidenced by his greatly falling technical fouls.

If I'm Dallas, and this actually came along, I pull the trigger with the quickness. This gives Dallas the *final* piece of the puzzle for a championship team without losing even a bit of talent.

*And* they shed multi-year financial nastiness.

Gosh, short of giving the Cowboys a top-notch running back, it seems like it can't get any better for Dallas.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Gosh, short of giving the Cowboys a top-notch running back, it seems like it can't get any better for Dallas.


Thats next on the list


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> 
> Thats next on the list


Portland can't help you out there.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>baler</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Sheed will be a MAJOR distraction for Dallas just as he is here in PDX. Dallas will win LESS games if they make this trade.


I doubt that Rasheed would be a big of a distraction in Dallas. He wouldn't be the goto guy and wouldn't need to turn down as many press conferences. My guess he would be the player that gets Dallas to the finals with his presents alone. I think that Dallas would lose a few game while they get Wells and Wallace worked in to the line up, but they would be a much better team in having Wallace then they are now.

The only thing that bothers me about the trade is the length of contracts on Finley and Jamison. Personally, I feel that Portland would be taking a step backwards in talent, but this is by far the best trade that I have seen for moving Wallace and it helps both teams out with a need.

Trust me Dallas fans, if you were to get Wallace you would become fans of his talent on defense.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> Trust me Dallas fans, if you were to get Wallace you would become fans of his talent on defense.


Defense? whats that?


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

The other wat that Dallas would benefit is that although I think that Finely is the better player because of hes outside shot, that shot is not needed in dallas since everyone else on the team can shoot form that outside, and bonzi is not a bad shot. Bonzi on the other hand is great at posting up other players and is a better bruiser and rebounder then fiun. I think that Bonzi would be a super fit in dallas and so would wallace with his D and post moves. 
Portland would benefit from Fin since he has a better outside shot which Portland needs, but Jamison just does not have the D abilities to make up for the loss of sheed. The good news on the D end is that Randolph is learning real quick, and I fully believe that by the end of the year he will be considered an above average Defensive player. He does the one most importasnt thomg fpr D already, which is he plays HARD, and is willing to work on all aspects of his game.


----------



## Skelton (May 18, 2003)

Please, I love Zach, nevertheless, he's got a long way to go on the defensive end. There are very few players in the league that give you a defensive presence like Rasheed does.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

> Please, I love Zach, nevertheless, he's got a long way to go on the defensive end. There are very few players in the league that give you a defensive presence like Rasheed does.


Yes you are right, but look at where Randolph is now defensivly compared to half way through last season. He is improving really fast, although that does not say that much because a year ago he plain old sucked.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*This would not help*

While this would help the SG position, the forwards on Portland have been carrying the team all year long. The main problem remains, PG. We have big guys that can score, and two short idiots who won't pass them the ball.


----------



## Skelton (May 18, 2003)

What I'd like to see out of Zach is a Brian Grant clone on D. I think he can do it, but he's got a lot work to do.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Skelton</b>!
> What I'd like to see out of Zach is a Brian Grant clone on D. I think he can do it, but he's got a lot work to do.


as long as it's only Brian Grants D he clones.


----------



## Skelton (May 18, 2003)

*Re: This would not help*



> Originally posted by <b>hasoos</b>!
> While this would help the SG position, the forwards on Portland have been carrying the team all year long. The main problem remains, PG. We have big guys that can score, and two short idiots who won't pass them the ball.


Maybe we can get Crawford from Chi. I'm not really sure if he's all that unselfish, but he's tall, quick and can shoot the lights out.


----------



## Skelton (May 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> as long as it's only Brian Grants D he clones.


Well, he could clone his character too, that wouldn't hurt.
Sure would be nice to have a popular player like Grant again.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Skelton</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, he could clone his character too, that wouldn't hurt.
> Sure would be nice to have a popular player like Grant again.


we want Randolph to be a fraud? By fraud, I mean "anyone who hires a PR agent to put out his own press, grows "dredlocks" to get an "identity" and says what the media wants to hear..whines about his playing tme, knocks up a woman who is not his wife (while he IS married)..well then no, I dont want Randolph to clone his character either.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> 
> Defense? whats that?


Something that Dallas is lacking in the front line. Just think if Dallas had Wallace and Dirk in their front line, it would be very interesting to see. :yes:


----------



## Skelton (May 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> we want Randolph to be a fraud? By fraud, I mean "anyone who hires a PR agent to put out his own press, grows "dredlocks" to get an "identity" and says what the media wants to hear..whines about his playing tme, knocks up a woman who is not his wife (while he IS married)..well then no, I dont want Randolph to clone his character either.


Well Hap, I didn't even know about the PR agent thing, nor the dreadlocks for an identity, if that is indeed the case. OK, Brian wasn't perfect, but he certainly was a hard worker with (mostly) a good attitude. Maybe he did say what the media wanted to hear, but what if--just maybe--those things are what positive guys should be saying anyway? Is it so crazy to think that he was a genuinely good guy? Man, what a cynic. 

Calling him a fraud is a bit extreme.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Skelton</b>!
> 
> 
> Well Hap, I didn't even know about the PR agent thing, nor the dreadlocks for an identity, if that is indeed the case. OK, Brian wasn't perfect, but he certainly was a hard worker with (mostly) a good attitude. Maybe he did say what the media wanted to hear, but what if--just maybe--those things are what positive guys should be saying anyway? Is it so crazy to think that he was a genuinely good guy? Man, what a cynic.
> ...


anyone who hires a PR agent to put out your own press releases is a fraud. You don't do good things for the good press you get.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I think Zach is doing just fine as is... he has a lot of heart. 

Brian served his purpose and ws admirabel when he lost his tooth to Malone in the playoffs and stood his ground. But that is behind us now.


----------



## Skelton (May 18, 2003)

btw, please don't misunderstand me...I think Zach's attitude is fine. He's a tough kid and a real talent. It's just been a while since the Blazers had any player who was as likeable (despite all that stuff) and relevant as Grant was. The team really needs a franchise star player, and maybe, just maybe Zach is the one.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> anyone who hires a PR agent to put out your own press releases is a fraud.


That's a very questionable assumption. Might as well write off 99% of the entertainment industry, politicians, and corporations as frauds, too. I bet those evil school teachers have PR agents spinning venomous tales on behalf of their unions. Down with them all.

Dan


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> anyone who hires a PR agent to put out your own press releases is a fraud. You don't do good things for the good press you get.


Uh, Hap...90% of players in the league follow the advice of PR agents. Why do you think Damon Stoudamire donated all that money to Portland Publc Schools last year? PR agent. Much of the 'code of conduct' that the Blazers have implemented has been on advice from PR people. Why do you think Rasheed Wallace has a coat drive every year? Because a PR guy told him to. 

It's ridiculous to single out Brian Grant when EVERY SINGLE FRANCHISE has on staff PR people and most players heed that advice. 

There are press releases on Rasheed Wallace's website. Damon Stoudamire's as well. Vince Carter. Tracy McGrady. In fact, every big name player does press releases. 

Is 90% of the league a fraud?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> That's a very questionable assumption. Might as well write off 99% of the entertainment industry, politicians, and corporations as frauds, too.


I'm not sure what the point of this statement is.

That Politicians, entertainment industy people, and corporations aren't frauds even though they hire PR agents, so therefore, Brian Grant, (who is not in the "entertainment field" in the sense you implied, nor is he a politician or a big corporation) isn't one?

I fail to see what the comparison has to do with each other.

Btw, in a lot of those cases, those people ARE frauds. Also, in a lot of those peoples careers, it is VERY important to do things for good PR. 

Infact, in some of those peoples careers, to survive they have to specifically hire a PR agent. 

Selling movies, bills, laws, getting people to buy their products, that doesn't happen on it's own you know. Everyone knows that these people are selling something, as thats part of the gig. 

Let's say that Rosie O'donnell hires a PR agent who puts out PR that says she does X, Y and Z. But it's nothing to do with her career per-say, it's just to make her more likeable.

Thats *post edit* big time phoney.

Brian Grant isn't selling something of his own doing, he's selling an image to market himself. 



> I bet those evil school teachers have PR agents spinning venomous tales on behalf of their unions.


what exactly does this have to do with anything remotely close to the subject? Other than trying to change it, I don't understand why you brought up teachers as a profession. Is this some kind of anecdote that proves that Brian Grant isn't a fraud? Nope, it just you trying to make a mockery of what I'm saying, by comparing it to something that has nothing to do with the original statement I made.



> Down with them all.


Yah, thats what I was saying all along. Down with Brian Grant, for he is evil! 

Your post was so full of fallacies, it's not even funny.

False dilemma, genetic fallacy, appeal to something common...I could go on but there's no point.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Uh, Hap...90% of players in the league follow the advice of PR agents. Why do you think Damon Stoudamire donated all that money to Portland Publc Schools last year? PR agent. Much of the 'code of conduct' that the Blazers have implemented has been on advice from PR people. Why do you think Rasheed Wallace has a coat drive every year? Because a PR guy told him to.


sending out press releases is different than having someone handle some of your stuff.

Ive personally talked to at least 3-4 media guys who didn't care about Brian Grants press releases, because they were so phoney. 

actually, I think Rasheed did the coat drive on his own. If Rasheed had his PR agent sending everyone in the media a press junkit about his coat drive, thats a different story.


> It's ridiculous to single out Brian Grant when EVERY SINGLE FRANCHISE has on staff PR people and most players heed that advice.


How do you figure it's ridiculous? Zach Randolph was being compared to Brian Grant, and one of things I didn't like about Brian was his lack of offense and the fact he was a fraud.



> There are press releases on Rasheed Wallace's website. Damon Stoudamire's as well. Vince Carter. Tracy McGrady. In fact, every big name player does press releases.
> 
> Is 90% of the league a fraud?


actually, yes they are, but thats besides the point. A press release on your web site, saying "hey kids, on sept 8, I'm gonna be at such and such address giving away coats" is not the same as giving KGW, KATU, KOIN, KPTV, KFXX, the Oregonian, a press release saying "Brian Grant is working hard doing this at X hospital. "

you don't do charity for recognition.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Hap, I refuse to believe you cannot understand what the point was. On the basis of your statement, hiring a PR agent makes someone a fraud. You used that to support your belief that Brian Grant is a fraud. Ridiculous. By that reasoning, all the above parties I mentioned must automatically be considered a fraud, as well. Equally ridiculous.



> False dilemma, genetic fallacy, appeal to something common...


Take your head out of Johnny Cochran's autobiography for a minute and consider what you've said, tried to refute, and in the process of so doing highlighted the silliness of your original statement. If there's anything false about my previous reply, it's only because it is directly tied to the baseless statement you laid before us. Hiring a PR agent does not make one a fraud.

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Hap, I refuse to believe you cannot understand what the point was. On the basis of your statement, hiring a PR agent makes someone a fraud. You used that to support your belief that Brian Grant is a fraud. Ridiculous. By that reasoning, all the above parties I mentioned must automatically be considered a fraud, as well. Equally ridiculous.


considering that Brian Grant is not the same as those other people, and that he hired a PR agent to make himself look better, or be more marketable (and yes, people who do that for that reason are phoney) yes, he's phoney.

You are trying to make all those other parties fit under the same criteria that Brian Grant, and NBA star who's basically paid to put a ball into a hoop, has to. They don't, and he doesn't. 



> Take your head out of Johnny Cochran's autobiography for a minute and consider what you've said, tried to refute, and in the process of so doing highlighted the silliness of your original statement.


you didn't say anything to counter what I said. You just said "well, if it doesn't apply to apples, it can't apply to oranges!"

sorry, saying it doesn't apply to businesses, politicians, and entertainers, does not prove that Brian Grant isn't phoney. 

You could even say that the Pope hires a PR agent, and it doesn't prove anything about Brian Grant.

You could say that Mother Theresa, when she was alive, hired a PR agent, and it doesn't prove anything about Brian Grant.

Brian Grant hired a PR agent to make himself more marketable, as a means to make more money, and look better as a person. I'm not saying Brian Grant is a bad person, nor am I saying Brian Grant didn't want to do that stuff. I'm saying that anyone who hires a PR agent who then sends out press releases saying that they've done such and such, comes off as a phoney. 

Brian Grant did such a thing, and to me, thats phoney. It's trying to make people think he's one thing, when he's not. 



> If there's anything false about my previous reply, it's only because it is directly tied to the baseless statement you laid before us. Hiring a PR agent does not make one a fraud.


If I hired a PR agent, for no other purpose than to start sending out press releases glorifying what good deeds I've done, what does that make me?

makes me a phoney. 

You don't need to glorify what you've done good, because thats not the reason why you do good things.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> saying it doesn't apply to businesses, politicians, and entertainers, does not prove that Brian Grant isn't phoney.


Nor did I claim such. I simply stated that your assertation that hiring a PR agent makes one a fraud is baseless. For it to have any substance, the same would have to carry over to the other examples I gave. No legal mumbo jumbo or apples and oranges cliches here, just the simplest of grade school logic.



> I'm not saying Brian Grant is a bad person


Yes you are (or have been), quite clearly.



> I'm saying that anyone who hires a PR agent who then sends out press releases saying that they've done such and such, *comes off as* a phoney.


I see you're backing off your earlier statement. First they were a fraud, now they _come off as_ phoney. The latter is a matter of your perception; I have no problem with that. Just be honest with your assessment of the situation and don't go vilifying people with statements that cannot be backed up.

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> Nor did I claim such. I simply stated that your assertation that hiring a PR agent makes one a fraud is baseless. For it to have any substance, the same would have to carry over to the other examples I gave.


um..no it doesn't. What I do, and what someone in hollywood does, does not fit under the same criteria.


> No legal mumbo jumbo or apples and oranges cliches here, just the simplest of grade school logic.


actually, they were terms of fallacies of argument I learnt me in a philosophy class.



> Yes you are (or have been), quite clearly.


No, I'm saying I didn't want Zach to be the same "character" that Brian Grant "is". It's a made up character, a fraudulant one. It's a phoney one.


> I see you're backing off your earlier statement. First they were a fraud, now they _come off as_ phoney.


I just got tired of using the term fraud. fraud fraud fraud fraud.



> The latter is a matter of your perception; I have no problem with that. Just be honest with your assessment of the situation and don't go vilifying people with statements that cannot be backed up.


Brian Grant admitted he grew his hair for a "persona". His PR agent sent out press releases to the media outlets to make Brian look a lot better than he was (not that he was a bum). If you're going to do charity, you don't toot your own horn.

thats enough proof for me.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Well, next time you get a new haircut or pair of shoes for a different look, keep in mind what that makes you...

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Well, next time you get a new haircut or pair of shoes for a different look, keep in mind what that makes you...
> 
> Dan


if I were to all the sudden grow my hair really long, and get dredlocks, because that was what was "cool" or something, because I knew that getting that look would get me a lot of stuff I want...people will start liking me more because they see me differently and not as I am..

well, I'm a phoney.

Get off the Brian Grant fan club man.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Sorry, but in your rush to dismiss Brian Grant, you just wrote off nearly every high schooler over the years as a phoney.

Note: Nowhere in this discussion have I made statements about my own feelings for Grant. You seem to have a rather severe dislike for him that is clouding the issue. It's fine to say you don't care for him and leave it at that, but this fraud/phoney argument of yours is spiraling downhill.

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Sorry, but in your rush to dismiss Brian Grant, you just wrote off nearly every high schooler over the years as a phoney.


what do high schoolers have to do with what Brian Grant does? Does change what Brian Grant did? Does it change anything?

no. 

who really cares what a high schooler does in comparison to a man who's taking advantage of a fanbase who was getting all excited over the "good deeds" he did..while glossing over the fact he knocked up some woman in Vancouver who wasn't his wife..

what a high schooler does has little barring on anything here.



> Note: Nowhere in this discussion have I made statements about my own feelings for Grant. You seem to have a rather severe dislike for him that is clouding the issue.


actually, he's one of my favorite players, I just felt he was a cheeseball as a person. 



> It's fine to say you don't care for him and leave it at that, but this fraud/phoney argument of yours is spiraling downhill.


how do you figure? you haven't said anything that counters it, other than anecdotes that have nothing to do with Brian Grant.

If someone makes something out to be something it's not (look! A 3 wheel car! It's safe and cheap!) and it turns out thats not the truth (ooh..I guess it's plexiglass and doesn't run)..thats fraud.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Wow, I'm truly impressed with your ability to take things out of context and miss the point of very simple statements. Congratulations, you win. I'm not interested in talking to myself any longer.

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Wow, I'm truly impressed with your ability to take things out of context and miss the point of very simple statements.


even though you won't partake in the conversation anymore, I know there are others who are reading who either are sick and tired of me always having to "win an argument", or thinking I "know everything". So I submit the following:


I liked Brian Grant, I thought he was a good player. But thats about it. 

To suggest that it would be neat if Zach could "clone" his character is funny to me. To me, its the same as when someone first becomes famous, they're pushed to the hilt. On TV shows, radio shows, interviews, you name it..they're on it.

It's all done to make a "name" for themselves.

Brian Grant manufactored a lot of his "character" (much like most NBA players do, but since Brian Grant was mentioned, I went with him). That doesn't mean Brian was evil, or unusual. Infact, I'd say that Brian was a good hearted man.

He is no different than the dozens (probably hundreds) of other NBA and pro athletes who put forth a plethora of self promotion to make themselves more marketable, and "fan friendly".

If all the sudden Rasheed Wallace started sending out press releases to the media (dwight jaynes, kerry eggers, jason quick, pete vescay, etc) to make himself seem more "friendly", I'd say the same thing about him.

Look at Dennis Rodman. He has or had a PR consultant. He would do things just to get attention, because the media at the time ate it like sugar. So how did the media know where Dennis would be? They were tipped off.. oops! 

Sure, he never did any of the feel good things Brian Grant did, but he still did things for PR, right?

So is he not a phoney for doing that crap? Is it because Brian Grant did "good" and Dennis Rodman did "stupid", that Brian (or any other player) isn't labled the same?

Why is there a distinction between Brian Grant and Dennis Rodman's PR stuff?

I FULLY understand thats how the NBA works. You try to sell yourself so you can take home the most money, in the least amount of time. But that doesn't change my opinion that Brian Grant (in this case) along with a LOT of players, are frauds.



> Congratulations, you win. I'm not interested in talking to myself any longer.
> Dan


yay! I win!


----------

