# Chad Ford on Portland/TO



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

From Insider? via truehoop.com



> Chad Ford has hundreds of trade scenarios that might mess up your draft board. "The most popular has the Portland Trail Blazers packaging No. 4 and No. 30 along with Travis Outlaw or one of their young point guards to get up to No. 1." Basically, everyone wants to trade up or down, and some teams even want to trade up and down.


I'm not a big Outlaw fan, but I would have to believe one player to be pretty special before I would give up Travis and #30 to move up three spots. If the Blazers believe that one player is that special, then go for it.

I should add that if Portland does go for the number one pick, I don't have a clue who it would be for. My guess is that this is Toronto fishing.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Reep said:


> From Insider? via truehoop.com
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a big Outlaw fan, but I would have to believe one player to be pretty special before I would give up Travis and #30 to move up three spots. If the Blazers believe that one player is that special, then go for it.




I wouldn't be opposed at that. As long as they don't move up to draft Brandon Roy or any player that they could get at number 4 then go for it. If it's Morrison then fine. Aldridge then fine, Bargnani then fine. Heck even Gay then fine.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Reep said:


> From Insider? via truehoop.com
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a big Outlaw fan, but I would have to believe one player to be pretty special before I would give up Travis and #30 to move up three spots. If the Blazers believe that one player is that special, then go for it.


I'd have to be VERY convinced that the guy we wanted wouldn't be there at #4.

If, as rumored, Portland is in love with Morrison, trading up with Toronto would be pretty stupid, in my opinion. 

Toronto: Bargnani 
Chicago: Thomas
Charlotte: Gay
Portland:


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

well said Med


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Giving up Outlaw and the #30 to move up 3 slots would be silly. Better than Telfair or Jack and the #30, but still a waste of assets to get a guy that could be sitting there at #4.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

If it means getting Bargnani then I would be fine with it but anyone else no.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> If it's Morrison then fine. Aldridge then fine, Bargnani then fine. Heck even Gay then fine.


But there's a 100% chance that ONE of those 4 will be available. 95% chance that two are available, since the surest pick in the draft seems to be Thomas to Chicago. I don't see how you can give up THAT much just to get a guy we probably would have gotten anyway.

I'd trade Outlaw in a heartbeat for the right deal, but this is a deal we don't need to make.

You ever notice how the teams that do the best in the NFL draft just sit back, relax and let the draft come to them? They don't go out and trade, trade, trade until they know what deals they have available to them. We should absolutely do the same.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> But there's a 100% chance that ONE of those 4 will be available. 95% chance that two are available, since the surest pick in the draft seems to be Thomas to Chicago. I don't see how you can give up THAT much just to get a guy we probably would have gotten anyway.
> 
> I'd trade Outlaw in a heartbeat for the right deal, but this is a deal we don't need to make.
> 
> You ever notice how the teams that do the best in the NFL draft just sit back, relax and let the draft come to them? They don't go out and trade, trade, trade until they know what deals they have available to them. We should absolutely do the same.



I guess what I mean is that if one of those players wowed the team so much either in their workout or Pritchards mad scientist testing machine then they should trade up to make sure they get that guy. If it is Brandon Roy for whatever reason then they shouldn't trade because he will be there for them at #4


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

It purely comes down to the Blazers staff and if they think the players going #1 will be a star and the people drafted after them will not be. If the Blazers staff is sold on a player becoming a star, and its probably the only player this draft to do so, then pull the trigger and do the trade. The chances of the #1 pick becoming a star compared to Travis Outlaw becoming a star at this point greatly favor the #1 pick.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Giving up Outlaw and the #30 to move up 3 slots would be silly. Better than Telfair or Jack and the #30, but still a waste of assets to get a guy that could be sitting there at #4.
> 
> Ed O.


Totally agree


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Reep said:


> From Insider? via truehoop.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...


absoleutly ridiculous.That is stupid.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

The problem with your theory of TOR not drafting Morrison is this:

POR is not the only team supposedly interested in Morrison at #1. Could be BS, but it seems he is the guy for several teams at #1, thus it is irrelevant who Toronto wants.

A reporter from your big paper was on the FAN590 today with the Raps TV voice, who also has this show. He said in his opinion, that Morisson was the Blazers' first choice and that they would settle for Brandon Roy if they don't get their guy.

But make no mistake, the #1 is definitely in play regardless of who the Raps like.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

blowuptheraptors said:


> The problem with you theory of TOR not drafting Morisson is this:
> 
> POR is not the only team supposedly interested in Morisson at #1. Could be BS, but it seems he is the guy for several teams at #1, thus it is irrelevant who Toronto wants.
> 
> ...


 Who do the Raptors like? Some of us are conviced it is euro dude.

Note: it must be fun being a raptors fan these days. You have nice young prospects, a potential star in Bosh, a strange and unpopular draft pick who has made management look brilliant, pick up the number one pick . . . and now this summer you guys are wheeling and dealing already (two trades that I think help the Raptors). I get the feeling management thinks they are very close to putting together a special team and are trying to lock it all down.

They have come a long way from the turmoil of the Cater and Mcgrady relationship. . . .


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

blowuptheraptors said:


> A reporter from your big paper was on the FAN590 today with the Raps TV voice, who also has this show. He said in his opinion, that Morisson was the Blazers' first choice and that they would settle for Brandon Roy if they don't get their guy.


Do you remember what his name was?


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

I dont think Toronto really likes high up in the draft. What they need is a PG and to solidify their bench. With this trade for Nesterovic, they're pretty much set at their 3 front court positions. They've got Mo Pete who can light it up from the outside. IMO Toronto is trying as hard as they can to get rid of the 1st pick and come out with something more (Reminds me of the Chris Webber/Penny Hardaway trade between GS and Orlando).


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

Fork said:


> Do you remember what his name was?


No I don't, but he was not the guy who reported on seeing Gay dunk over Morrison. He was very critical of the organisation though and thinks that is why Allen is selling, because they can't fix the problems. He also felt bad for McMillan.

For the other question, the Raps like Bargnani for sure. Don't believe the latest Aldridge crap, more smokescreens. It could be someone other than Bargnani, but it certainly is NOT Aldridge IMO. He did a solo workout whereas most of the other players compete against one another and Aldridges combine numbers just firm up how he had any success at Texas. He has some finesse and he's long, but he is not quick, fast, or an explosive leaper.

Odds are it is Bargnani though.

And yeah, good times here now. Most have a lot of faith in BC. Bulletproof until proven otherwise.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

> But make no mistake, the #1 is definitely in play regardless of who the Raps like.




It would be a pretty interesting scenario if we were claim to want Morrison so Toronto drafts him for us, while we draft Bargnani for Toronto, only to keep Bargnani and laugh at Toronto afterwards. Although it would have been better if Nash did it as his final move in Portland, then he could have taken all the heat.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

Verro said:


> It would be a pretty interesting scenario if we were claim to want Morrison so Toronto drafts him for us, while we draft Bargnani for Toronto, only to keep Bargnani and laugh at Toronto afterwards. Although it would have been better if Nash did it as his final move in Portland, then he could have taken all the heat.


Funny. Colangelo was asked about just such a scenario. He said you had to be very trusting of the person you are dealing with because a deal may actually have to be delayed, and anything can happen during that delay.


But if it were to happen, you would essentially blackball yourself for all time.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

blowuptheraptors said:


> No I don't, but he was not the guy who reported on seeing Gay dunk over Morrison. He was very critical of the organisation though and thinks that is why Allen is selling, because they can't fix the problems. He also felt bad for McMillan.


Thanks. That would be Jason Quick. 

Interesting, he doesn't have time to write for our paper anymore, but he's out talking to the Toronto papers. I hope it's all part of the Quickster freshening up his resume.

Back to your previous post...true, lots of teams seem to dig Adam Morrison, so Toronto could select for one of those other teams. The problem is, those teams would have to be able to give Toronto what they want as well. If that's Bargnani, they'd better be in the top 6-7 picks. If it's Aldridge, they better be in about that same range. Or, they better have a young, budding all star level player to give up. Preferably a PG or a C prospect. I don't see a lot of teams that could actually pull that off. 

The last time the #1 pick was traded was 12-13 years ago. And that was from the 3rd pick, not the 6-7th pick. I just don't see it happening this year. I think, when all is said and done, the top 4 pick as the sit right now and everyone takes the player they like.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

Fork said:


> Thanks. That would be Jason Quick.
> 
> Interesting, he doesn't have time to write for our paper anymore, but he's out talking to the Toronto papers. I hope it's all part of the Quickster freshening up his resume.
> 
> ...


I would say that it's about 70% that a deal gets done with the 1st. The pick itself is just a part of where BC is going. Chances are a deal is done to 3 or 4. But if they keep it, my money is on Bargnani. IMO Aldridge slips out of the top 5.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

This is not a good year to trade up for the #1 pick. There really aren't any clear-cut franchise-changers on the board (I know some of you really like certain guys in the draft, but admit it... none of them are going to instantly make you contenders). So why do it?

If you're betting the farm on a guy like Greg Oden, I get it. But in this draft? No way. Too much of a risk.

-Pop


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Fork said:


> Thanks. That would be Jason Quick.


Sounds more like Canzano to me. He said it was NOT the guy that saw Gay dunk over Morrison.

I hope we just stay at #4 and pick who ever is available from (in this order) Aldridge, Morrison, Bargnani and Gay. My creme dream is that the first 3 picks are Bargnani, Thomas and Gay so Aldridge and Morrison are available. We take Aldridge at #4 and then find a way to trade for Minnesota's #6 so we can take Morrison there. I don't care who else it would take as long as we had a starting lineup of Telfair, Webster, Morrison, Zach and Aldridge.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

If this rumor is true, then it means Portland is VERY impressed with one of the top players. The question is, who is it?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

ebott said:


> Sounds more like Canzano to me. He said it was NOT the guy that saw Gay dunk over Morrison.
> 
> I hope we just stay at #4 and pick who ever is available from (in this order) Aldridge, Morrison, Bargnani and Gay. My creme dream is that the first 3 picks are Bargnani, Thomas and Gay so Aldridge and Morrison are available. We take Aldridge at #4 and then find a way to trade for Minnesota's #6 so we can take Morrison there. I don't care who else it would take as long as we had a starting lineup of Telfair, Webster, Morrison, Zach and Aldridge.


Oops, I misread it.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

It had to be Canzano. Canzano knows less about basketball than my dog. My dog at least has learned at my feet.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

ebott said:


> My creme dream is that the first 3 picks are Bargnani, Thomas and Gay so Aldridge and Morrison are available. We take Aldridge at #4 and then find a way to trade for Minnesota's #6 so we can take Morrison there. I don't care who else it would take as long as we had a starting lineup of Telfair, Webster, Morrison, Zach and Aldridge.



I like it a lot... I would even take Gay over Morrison.. I think he may be a better defender in teh long run with some ability to score

throw in Jack, Outlaw, Khryapa, Skinner and Theo as backups and that is not bad at all....

add in Oden next year and we are smiling again


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Trader Bob said:


> I like it a lot... I would even take Gay over Morrison.. I think he may be a better defender in teh long run with some ability to score
> 
> throw in Jack, Outlaw, Khryapa, Skinner and Theo as backups and that is not bad at all....
> 
> add in Oden next year and we are smiling again



I still say trading Zach for Atlantas pick is the way to go. 

Telfair
Webster
Morrison
Aldridge
Przybilla

Theo
Khryapa
Outlaw
Lenard
Jack

with cap room and a high pick like Oden or Durrant. This team is on it's way back to respectability.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> This is not a good year to trade up for the #1 pick. There really aren't any clear-cut franchise-changers on the board (I know some of you really like certain guys in the draft, but admit it... none of them are going to instantly make you contenders). So why do it?
> 
> If you're betting the farm on a guy like Greg Oden, I get it. But in this draft? No way. Too much of a risk.
> 
> -Pop


Depends on what you have to pay in order to move up. Could you even try to move up to get an Oden or Lebron? No. If there is a guy you rate that much higher than the others, it might be worth a late 1st and a player if you have depth at a certain spot. Certainly the price is less than in other years for the reason you explain,


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> I still say trading Zach for Atlantas pick is the way to go.
> 
> Telfair
> Webster
> ...


What a plan!! 

We suck for another year for a 25% shot at a Franchise center. Durant is no sure thing. 

I'd rather build around: Jack/Telfair Webster and Morrison or Roy, get Zach rebounding and start building a winner now.

The young guys will not be able to take another 15-25 win season, which is what many on this board suggest.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

blowup does that radio station have a webpage?


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Blazers Maven said:


> What a plan!!
> 
> We suck for another year for a 25% shot at a Franchise center. Durant is no sure thing.



We'll suck next year regardless.

Not that I think Atlanta would make that trade anyway.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> I still say trading Zach for Atlantas pick is the way to go.


Yeah.. I think it might be the best shot at another pick...

Boston = maybe... but doubt we have anything they need

Minnesota = maybe.....


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Blazer Maven said:


> What a plan!!
> 
> We suck for another year for a 25% shot at a Franchise center. Durant is no sure thing.
> 
> ...


Telfair
Webster
Morrison
Aldridge
Przybilla

agreed I have no faith in that team at all. Its going to be hard just keeping Przybilla and Atlanta seems pretty set on Williams. Also Randolph is going to be better then Aldridge for at least a few years.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

Utherhimo said:


> blowup does that radio station have a webpage?


www.fan590.com very good, but the jays are on right now, so you'll get some recording.

1-4pm est is when Chuck Swirsky is on, voice of the Raps on TV. He usually has a lot of ball topics and guests on his show, especially now that hockey is done and the draft is coming up and all these deals are happening.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Is it too much to pay to move up to #1?

Yeah it is...but so what? If Mgmt is convinced that Morrison is there guy...and I think they are...then dealing away Outlaw who is 3rd string at best and a #30 pick POR isn't really interested in anyway is not horrible.....

The bottom line is whether or not POR mgmt feels that the guy they will get by trading up to #1 is going to be a big part of their team in the future.....

I think that Morrison os that type of player...and I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep dealing away Outlaw and the #30 to obtain him....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Is it too much to pay to move up to #1?
> 
> Yeah it is...but so what?


You just answered your own question: it's too much to pay.

If you pay too much for something, you end up worse off than if you hadn't bought it at all. That's kinda the definition of paying too much for it.

The Blazers, as the worst team in the NBA, cannot afford to overpay for ANYTHING. They need to accumulate assets, not squander them. 

Ed O.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> then dealing away Outlaw who is 3rd string at best and a #30 pick POR isn't really interested in anyway is not horrible.....


We really don't have many tradeable assets on this team, Outlaw and the #30 are 2 of them. Outlaw isn't worth a lot right now, but he's worth enough to trade are 30 up 8-10 spots. Which would put us in the range of Alexander Johnson. 

I think we'd be a lot better off trying to consolidate our late picks and expendable talent to get a mid 1st, especially when Morrison has a good chance of still being there at number 4 anyway.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> The Blazers, as the worst team in the NBA, cannot afford to overpay for ANYTHING. They need to accumulate assets, not squander them.


It depends on just what quality those assets are...

The bottom line is if mgmt thinks that Morrison (or Aldridge or whomever) will be an All-Star caliber player and as such, he is the clear #1 player on their board...then you trade what you have to...to get that player.....overpay or not...not having a lot of assets or not....

A diamond is worth a heck of a lot more than two cubic zirconias (sp?)...

For a team that doesn't even have an All Star caliber player or "go-to guy" ....If they feel they can get one in this draft, and have to deal Outlaw and the 30th pick to do it...I wouldn't hesitate to make the deal...and hopefully niether will POR mgmt.....

Dealing Outlaw is a lot more palatable for me that dealing Jack or worse...Telfair....and the #30 could just as easily be a bust\waste of a pick...moreso...than a rotation player....


----------



## tobybennett (Jun 12, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I still say trading Zach for Atlantas pick is the way to go.
> 
> Telfair
> Webster
> ...


Please tell me why Atlanta wants ZBO. He's one of the most overpaid players in the league and the length of his contract is huge. I just don't see them having any interest at all, that's why I don't get most of these DMILES and ZBo trade scenarios, I don't think any team has interest in either of these players without the Blazers taking back a similar type contract back, with the exception of the Knicks (until Isiah gets fired).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> It depends on just what quality those assets are...
> 
> The bottom line is if mgmt thinks that Morrison (or Aldridge or whomever) will be an All-Star caliber player and as such, he is the clear #1 player on their board...then you trade what you have to...to get that player.....overpay or not...not having a lot of assets or not....


If you're overpaying, it's too much to pay.

A team that has a lot of assets, or is close to competing for a championship, can arguably afford to overpay. The Blazers cannot.

If the Blazers' management is sure that Morrison or whomever is easily the best player and they simply cannot afford to wait to see if that one guy slips to the fourth spot, then they're not really overpaying because they're getting the value that they need for the assets they're giving up.

Objectively, though, given the lack of special knowledge that the team would have in that situation, giving up a first rounder and a relatively young (if raw) player to move up three spots for a guy that very well might slip to the team at #4 and probably isn't much better of a prospects than at least 3 or 4 other guys is too much to give up.

It's not really inconsistent with what the team has done in the post-Whitsitt era (overpaying on extensions for Zach (because they were "hitching their wagon" to him) and Theo (for God knows what reason) and reaching on Telfair (because Nash knew better than his scouts) and passing on Paul to get a couple of lesser prospects (but at least there they traded down... I will give partial credit for that)... but that approach has driven us to the bottom of the NBA with no salary cap space. It's a bad approach and I hope it's not one that they continue on with.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> If you're overpaying, it's too much to pay.


Way too simplistic...Would you, knowing what you know now...have traded Sheed for the #4 pick? and therby drafting Dwayne Wade? or heck Chris Bosh? Would you have overpaid to get such players if necessary? ie...trading 2 future 1st round picks in addition to Sheed?

Of course you would Ed....

and yes the Blazers CAN afford to overpay if it nets them their "All Star\Franchise" guy...heck, those are the guys you willingly overpay...or SEEM to be overpaying at the time...to get for your franchise....

You act like Outlaw has a lot of trade value...I don't think he does...and I don't think the 30th pick in a draft you yourself have defined as "weak" has much value either...So just how "valuable" are those assets anyway? 

peanuts IMO...I could care less about losing either Outlaw or the pick, if it netted POR a player they thought could be something special...especially since this team is in SORE need of just such a player....



> giving up a first rounder and a relatively young (if raw) player to move up three spots for a guy that very well might slip to the team at #4 and probably isn't *much better of a prospects * than at least 3 or 4 other guys is too much to give up.


according to YOU it is....If POR mgmt feels there is a player that they do not want to risk losing...a player whom THEY clearly rate above the other prospects...then giving up a marginal prospect and a marginal pick is a relatively small price to pay IMO...



> but that approach has driven us to the bottom of the NBA with no salary cap space. It's a bad approach and I hope it's not one that they continue on with.


If you want to blame them for their execution to date fair enough...although I definitely feel the jury is still out on Telfair, Webster & Jack....no need abandoning the marathon after the first few miles....but I would prefer a mgmt group that is willing to take such chances at getting that star player, to a group that is not...if anything I'd argue that Nash was too tentative in grabbing for the brass ring...and it inevitably cost him his job and rightfully so IMO....

I won't blame mgmt for being aggressive and trying to get that "franchise" guy...but ultimately they must be judged on their ability to correctly analyze\project and most importantly PICK the right player....and I am not willing to write off Webster or pass judgement on mgmt after one year....

Frankly, I am curious to see what Pritchard does....


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Verro said:


> We really don't have many tradeable assets on this team, Outlaw and the #30 are 2 of them. Outlaw isn't worth a lot right now, but he's worth enough to trade are 30 up 8-10 spots. Which would put us in the range of Alexander Johnson.
> 
> I think we'd be a lot better off trying to consolidate our late picks and expendable talent to get a mid 1st, especially when Morrison has a good chance of still being there at number 4 anyway.


Good point, Verro. We would get a much better value moving up from the 30th spot rather than moving up at the 4th spot. At 4 we are going to get about the same player as we could at 1 while we should be able to get a better player at 16 or so compared to 30. Of course you never know who might drop to 30 but it's more likely a good player will drop to 16 rather than all the way to the 30th.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> Way too simplistic...Would you, knowing what you know now...have traded Sheed for the #4 pick? and therby drafting Dwayne Wade? or heck Chris Bosh? Would you have overpaid to get such players if necessary? ie...trading 2 future 1st round picks in addition to Sheed?
> 
> Of course you would Ed....


Knowing what I know now, I would have gone to work for Microsoft in 1980. 

But that's not relevant. We don't know now what we'll know in the future, so we have to make decisions based on what we do know now. How now, brown cow? 

Overpaying is overpaying, unless you have crystal balls.

barfo


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

more from C.Ford:



> 4./30. Portland Trail Blazers
> 
> 
> The Blazers might be happy at No. 4, but they'd be happier if they could move up to No. 1. Adam Morrison is the top guy on their draft board not only because of his talent but also because of his popularity in Portland.
> ...


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

barfo said:


> Knowing what I know now, I would have gone to work for Microsoft in 1980.



I would of bought all the Apple and Microsoft and Intel stock I could of... and not had to work now 

Its all relative.. I could not afford it then.. but knew it would be a hit. In fact when Microsoft first hit.. you could not get it for a while realistically.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

If those Toronto offers are true.... I do not blame Portland for upping the ante at all

Offering Travis, and the #30 to move up 3 spots seems more than fair. Maybe even too much.... there is not that much gain in 3 spots. And if we really are targeting Adam, he may be there at #4


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> But that's not relevant. We don't know now what we'll know in the future, so we have to make decisions based on what we do know now. How now, brown cow?


Your completely missing the point.....

IF you feel that by moving up...the player you pick will be (or has a very good chance to be) a cornerstone player\All-Star for your franchise...then trading away a player whose value is mediocre at best and a #30 pick in a weak draft...is a GOOD CALL.

I'll give you another example...Amare Stoudamire...Do you think Whitsitt was kicking himself for not being more aggressive in trying to trade up for him? Absolutely he did...

Look, If POR mgmt has a strong conviction that there is a key player for this franchise...then they should do it...whether it APPEARS they are overpaying now or not...IF they make the right call...everyone will be calling that deal a steal later on....funny how that works...


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> I'll give you another example...Amare Stoudamire...Do you think Whitsitt was kicking himself for not being more aggressive in trying to trade up for him? Absolutely he did...
> 
> Look, If POR mgmt has a strong conviction that there is a key player for this franchise...then they should do it...whether it APPEARS they are overpaying now or not...IF they make the right call...everyone will be calling that deal a steal later on....funny how that works...


Yes.. and he was trying hard to get someone by the name of Dwyane Wade as well..  :banghead:

I doubt anyone would of said now.. that we blew it for Jarrett Jack.. they did a masterful job of acquiring him for next to nothing last year


----------

