# ESPN: Sheed HASN'T turned down the offer (merged)



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*ESPN reports: Wallace turns down extension offer*

Link 



> Portland Trail Blazers forward Rasheed Wallace this week rejected a contract extension proposal from the team believed to be between $35 million and $40 million for four years, a source told ESPN's David Aldridge on Saturday.
> 
> Blazers senior management is expected to meet this week to make a decision on whether to continue attempts to sign Wallace or go forward with trade discussions with several teams, including Golden State and New York.


Apparently, ESPN failed to talk to Jason Quick....


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

Well theres 4 options here


1. Rasheed Doesn't want to resign here

2. Rasheed Thinks he will get more from someone else Which wont happen.

3. The rumor is not true.

4. Sheed wants to test Free agent waters, maybe go to philly for MLE or Knicks.

I think a 4 year 35-40 mil is Fair , i love sheed but if he thinks he is going to get more than 10 mil a year, I hope he likes Utah....


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

Why would Rasheed Wallace reject a 4 year, 45 million dollar deal, then turn around in the summer and sign with the Knicks for the MLE? That really wouldn't make sense.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Kurt Thomas?! (or any Knick player not named Stephon) :hurl:


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KokoTheMonkey</b>!
> Why would Rasheed Wallace reject a 4 year, 45 million dollar deal, then turn around in the summer and sign with the Knicks for the MLE? That really wouldn't make sense.


because if you read earlier stuff sources said he would sign with the Knicks or Philly for the MLE if Portland didnt give him big money.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> because if you read earlier stuff sources said he would sign with the Knicks or Philly for the MLE if Portland didnt give him big money.


10 million a year isn't big money?


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Could it be that Sheed wanted a no-trade clause? Otherwise it doesn't make sense to me. That's more money than Sheed's going to get anyplace else, and it keeps him where he's said he wants to be - in Portland. 

Other thoughts?


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

He's out his mind if he's looking for Duncan type of cash. IMO, $10 mil per year is a little steep for Rasheed Wallace. I hope we can get something good in return for Wallace before the Feb.19th trading deadline!


----------



## Sheed30 (Apr 3, 2003)

*Why are you guys saying turned down?*

The link I read said that Wallace has not decided on whether to accept a contract extension proposal from the team believed to be between $35 million and $40 million for four years.

I didn't read anywhere saying he was going to turn it down except for the quote you posted. But the link says otherwise.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

*Re: Why are you guys saying turned down?*



> Originally posted by <b>Sheed30</b>!
> The link I read said that Wallace has not decided on whether to accept a contract extension proposal from the team believed to be between $35 million and $40 million for four years.
> 
> I didn't read anywhere saying he was going to turn it down except for the quote you posted. But the link says otherwise.


ESPN just changed the title, which originally said that he "turned it down," but is now saying he is "mulling" the offer.

Amazing morally- and ethically-challenged journalistic hooks being employed by the Extra Stupid Sports Network.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> ESPN just changed the title, which originally said that he "turned it down," but is now saying he is "mulling" the offer.



I was beginning to wonder if I was seeing things, because I noticed this too after a second look.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Why are you guys saying turned down?*



> Originally posted by <b>Ron</b>!
> 
> 
> ESPN just changed the title, which originally said that he "turned it down," but is now saying he is "mulling" the offer.
> ...


You _do_ realize that you just insulted ESSN.

Might want to retool your acronyms...


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Why are you guys saying turned down?*



> Originally posted by <b>rawse</b>!
> 
> 
> You _do_ realize that you just insulted ESSN.
> ...


Earth System Scientist Network? What have they done to offend anyone? 

As for ESPN, I fool hoodwinked. 

Think about it Sheed...


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Why are you guys saying turned down?*



> Originally posted by <b>rawse</b>!
> 
> 
> You _do_ realize that you just insulted ESSN.
> ...


I thought ESPN did stand for...

E(something) S(something) Sports Network, and they went with ESPN because it flowed better.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Actually, ESPN stands for "*E*ntertainment and *S*ports *P*rogramming *N*etwork." A lot of people think it's "*E*ntertainment *SP*orts *N*etwork," but I've read it's really the first.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Just curious... assuming this is true, who would benefit by leaking this info to ESPN... or in other words, who would want to tell David Aldridge this info? Sheed's agent? The Blazer management? Those are the only two in the loop as far as I know, so one of them would have had to tell him but I can't come up with a reason why they might... I guess one of Dave's journalistic "sources" inside the organization might have tipped him on this... someone named Jason maybe? I just can't see how it helps either of their bargaining positions to tip the cards being played.

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I HOPE this is true... even if it's the upper level of the range, a $40m deal would probably look something like this:

$8.7m
$9.6m
$10.4m
$11.3m

I don't think that the extension would mean Portland wouldn't trade him before the deadline... it might open up a trade for more value. A team like Detroit that wants additional cap space would be getting a savings for next year AND a guarantee that Rasheed wouldn't walk.

Of course, I'd be more excited because it means Paul Allen is still willing to commit serious money to the Blazers... part of me is worrying he'll just let Rasheed walk this summer.

Ed O.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

*ESPN: Sheed HASN'T turned down the offer!!!*

Check the article again. They changed the wording. Now it says:

Portland Trail Blazers forward Rasheed Wallace has not decided on whether to accept a contract extension proposal from the team believed to be between $35 million and $40 million for four years, a source told ESPN's David Aldridge on Saturday.



Wow, he's re-signing soon!!!


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

*ESPN: Sheed HASN'T turned down the offer.*

Check the article again. They changed the wording. Now it says:

Portland Trail Blazers forward Rasheed Wallace has not decided on whether to accept a contract extension proposal from the team believed to be between $35 million and $40 million for four years, a source told ESPN's David Aldridge on Saturday.



Wow, he's re-signing soon!!!


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Sorry, I just saw someone posted this already in the other thread.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: ESPN: Sheed HASN'T turned down the offer.*



> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> 
> Wow, he's re-signing soon!!!


How exactly do you jump to this conclusion?


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: ESPN: Sheed HASN'T turned down the offer.*



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> How exactly do you jump to this conclusion?


I think he's just hoping that the progression keeps moving in that direction.

You know,

Sheed's not re-signing
becomes
Sheed might be re-signing
becomes
Sheed re-signs


----------



## PetroToZoran (Jul 2, 2003)

I thought the CBA prohibited teams from giving players contract extensions in which their salary goes down.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: ESPN: Sheed HASN'T turned down the offer.*



> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> I think he's just hoping that the progression keeps moving in that direction.
> ...


Ah, I see. That makes sense.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PetroToZoran</b>!
> I thought the CBA prohibited teams from giving players contract extensions in which their salary goes down.


There is evidently no minimum salary (outside the Veteran's Minimum, of course), only a minimum of years and a maximum salary.

Here are the extension rules:



> 49. Can existing contracts be extended?
> 
> A six or seven year contract can be extended when at least four years have passed since the signing of the contract. A four or five year contract can be extended when at least three years have passed since the signing of the contract. Contracts for fewer than four seasons may not be extended. A contract which has already been extended can be extended again after three years.
> 
> ...


http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#49


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Well, it was the top story on NBA Fastbreak. They said that Portland offered the extension, Rasheed didn't take it, but it's still on the table for now.

Stephen A. Smith said that "Rasheed has told everyone that he wants to play for New York." He also said that Allen is meeting with Nash/Patterson on Tuesday to discuss the situation further.

Smith then said that if a trade could not be worked out between the Blazers and the Knicks by Feb. 19th, then Rasheed might sign the extension as a "second choice option" (my phrase not his - I don't remember his exact words) so that he didn't have to take the MLE.

Then here's the funny part - Smith offers two trade ideas for the Knicks to get Rasheed. One is to trade Keith Van Horn and Shandon Anderson. The other is to trade Shandon Anderson, Kurt Thomas and *Al Harrington*. Oh, and ESPN provided a nice graphic with all the names as well, and sure enough, there's Al Harrington's name.

You know, Donnie Walsh MIGHT have something to say about this one....


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> Then here's the funny part - Smith offers two trade ideas for the Knicks to get Rasheed. One is to trade Keith Van Horn and Shandon Anderson. The other is to trade Shandon Anderson, Kurt Thomas and *Al Harrington*. Oh, and ESPN provided a nice graphic with all the names as well, and sure enough, there's Al Harrington's name.
> 
> You know, Donnie Walsh MIGHT have something to say about this one....


Let's see if we can get Jermaine O'Neal and Ron Artest from New York while we're at it. 

Stephen A. Smith is an idiot.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> There is evidently no minimum salary (outside the Veteran's Minimum, of course), only a minimum of years and a maximum salary.


Right. For example, Kevin Garnett signed an extension this summer (kicks in next season) and took a big paycut.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

The reason that Sheed rejected $10M offer per season and is planning to sign $4.9M from Knicks is easy.

Knicks are the Title Contender, but not Blazers.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Here's my other favorite part of this incredibly educational piece:



> The Blazers could also opt to do nothing with Wallace and allow him to leave this summer via free agency; the motivation would be that by allowing the salaries of several players, including Wallace, to lapse from their team salary, owner Paul Allen would pay a much lower luxury tax than is currently projected.


Let's see, could they be talking about 2004? Well, no, because letting Sheed and Person walk away wouldn't reduce the amount of Allen's tax payment this summer.

So they must be talking about 2005. The problem is that Paul Allen's tax payment in 2005 is projected to be $0.00. I'd like to see them explain how letting Sheed walk reduces that amount....


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ballscientist</b>!
> The reason that Sheed rejected $10M offer per season and is planning to sign $4.9M from Knicks is easy.
> 
> Knicks are the Title Contender, but not Blazers.


:laugh:

Yeah, the Knicks are one player away from going 82-0 next season.....


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I would not offer Sheed a no trade clause. With his slightly volatile charecter, we may need to trade him later on without his direction. Plus other teams may not want him to have a trade no trade cluase

The numbers Ed O stated would be very reasonable. I was hoping to start out at about $7.5 mil but $8.7 is not that much higher.

I hope he can be traded by the deadline after extending his contract. If other teams are now more comfortable with the longevity and stability of his deal, the offers may increase and have substantial more value.

I do not mind trading Sheed or getting contracts back for him, but I want to get equal value or a good deal for the team.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

I can't believe people don't see what's going on here. Obviously Rasheed and his agent are leaking rumors to the press that he will sign with the Knicks for the MLE and will turn this deal down, because he wants to put pressure on the Blazers to extend him at way above what they are offering him right now. Free agents do it all the time, they act like they might want to go somewhere else to ensure that their current teams give them as much as they are willing to. Jermaine O'Neal and Jason Kidd talked about the Spurs, Rasheed Wallace is talking about the Knicks, Marcus Camby is talking about the Suns, etc. It happens all the time, you need to see past what you see in the media.

A good test of Nash's ability as a GM will be how well he calls Rasheed's bluff. Rasheed is not going to sign with the Knicks for the MLE. If Nash badly overpays Rasheed as a result of this stupid talk in the media, it will be a sign that he is a horrible GM. I will be paying close attention and I'm sure Blazers fans will too.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I love having Sheed on the team and I want him back. 

that said, there better be some serious caveats to a $40 mil, 4 year offer (if this is indeed the truth). at least one of those years better be a team option, and to hell with "no trade clauses". 

Portland is the one team in the NBA willing to offer him that kind of cheddar, and he doesn't have to relocate his family to boot. that's probably $7-8 mil (over four years) more than he's getting anywhere else. 

if he wants greater flexibility and more say in where/when he might get traded down the road, we sure as hell shouldn't be offering him that much money.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh:
> ...


:sour:


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I can't believe people don't see what's going on here. Obviously Rasheed and his agent are leaking rumors to the press that he will sign with the Knicks for the MLE and will turn this deal down, because he wants to put pressure on the Blazers to extend him at way above what they are offering him right now. Free agents do it all the time, they act like they might want to go somewhere else to ensure that their current teams give them as much as they are willing to. Jermaine O'Neal and Jason Kidd talked about the Spurs, Rasheed Wallace is talking about the Knicks, Marcus Camby is talking about the Suns, etc. It happens all the time, you need to see past what you see in the media.


That point of view might carry some weight if and when there's a direct quote attributable to either Rasheed or his agent, rather than this quite obviously made up drivel making its way through the NY media.

Dan


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

IMHO This franchise made a horrible mistake when they where in this situation with Brian Grant. They were afraid they where not going to get anything out of him, so they invented this trade with Cleveland and Miami in which we got Kemp. It was best for Grant $ wise to S&T so he obliged.

Kemp's contract has hindered us with cap flexibility, and will not end until the end of this fiscal year in June. We do not want to get put back into that same scenario again. Letting Grant walk for nothing would have saved this franchise many headaches and lots of money and provided better roster flexibility.

If it gets to the point where contract clauses or if he wants more than about $9 mil a year, I say let him walk. Its for the good of the franchise. Even if he walks for nothing. It would be btter than having an albatross of a contract on the books with a highly volatile but talented player.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Unless they are re-signing him to trade him, this is big mistake by Nash & Co.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> Unless they are re-signing him to trade him, this is big mistake by Nash & Co.


Hmm... why? If he were making $8.7m this year (which is the probable first year salary on a 4 year, $40m deal... it would probably be $7.6m in his first year if it were a 4 year, $35m deal) he would be the 51st-highest paid player in the NBA this year.

From Patricia Bender's site



> 40. Elton Brand (LAC) .......... $10,960,000
> 40. Baron Davis (NO) ........... $10,960,000
> 40. Steve Francis (Hou) ........ $10,960,000
> 40. Shawn Marion (Pho) ......... $10,960,000
> ...


I don't think that a $8.7m salary would be out of whack at all for his production level... $2m less than Elton Brand but $500k more than Raef LaFrentz. At $7.6m, he'd be a bargain.

A four year deal would give Portland all of Rasheed's prime years (age 30-33), which should be before his body starts to break down on him.

I am not opposed to Portland looking to deal Rasheed if they signed him, but I don't see how re-signing him at that amount over that many years would be a big mistake.

Ed O.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

OK, I taped the second showing of NBA Showtime in order to get direct quotes. The show starts with:



> Big news out of Portland as a decision is made about Rasheed Wallace's future. Is he headed East or is he staying put? You need to stay tuned.


Wow! A definitive decision has been made? This is going to be exciting!



> Kevin Frasier: But first, we have breaking news. A source close to the situation has told our David Aldredge that earlier this week, Portland forward Rasheed Wallace was offered but did not accept a contract extension in the $35 to $40 million range for 4 years.


That's a definitive decision? 



> Stephen A Smith: What it comes down to is Rasheed Wallace wants to be in New York City. Basically, he's put word out to everybody else that you know what? He's not really interested in re-signing with anybody but the New York Knicks. At the same time, again, if the Portland Trailblazers, they can put that $35 to $40 million table - offer on the table - but if the trading deadline expires past February 19th, then Rasheed recognizes that he may indeed want to take that offer simply because, you know what? He's going to have to settle for the mid-level exception if they don't work out a sign-and-trade deal.


At this point, the graphic of possible trades for Rasheed comes on the screen. Gym Rat must have contacted somebody to point out the error because - Lo and Behold! - Al Harrington has been replaced with Othella Harrington. I'm wondering if they're going to try to dub Othella's name into Stephen Smith's speech, but sadly there are no impersonators working on a Saturday night, so he still offers the idea that Al could be on his way to the Rose City.

Sean Elliott then offers his ideas about how Rasheed could help the Knicks (no kidding....). Kevin Frasier then asks about Rasheed's reputation for losing his temper. Stephen can't help but chime in.



> Stepen A. Smith: Well, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that he would be where he wants to be. You're talking about being in the Mecca. You have to remember when you're in a city like Portland where you are it because you have absolutely nothing else in Portland, I mean it can get a bit suffocating. [ESPN graphic comes up "On Court Antics Not as Big an Issue"] But if you're in New York City, it is clear nobody is discriminating against you because they're busy taking shots at everybody. So in all actuality, Rasheed Wallace will feel like he's just a part of a big family.


Sean Elliott then talks very reasonably (IMO) about how Rasheed's antics have toned down a lot in recent years. Not wanting to keep the tone of the discussion at "reasonable", Smith chimes in again.



> Stephen A. Smith: Here's the whole thing, here's the biggest thing. The biggest thing, folks, is this: The man would win a few more games. You understand what I'm saying? Playing in the East, he's a big - he ain't goin' against Shaquille O'Neal or Tim Duncan or any of those cats. You understand what I'm saying? He'd be just fine.



Let me summarize Stephen's comments for all of you:

1) Rasheed will only accept Portland's offer as a last option.

2) Rasheed hates playing in po-dunk Portland and only wants to play for New York.

3) Any of his antics would be ignored by the New York fans who would welcome Rasheed into their family with open arms.

4) Zach Randolph and the rest of the Blazers are not as good as Stephon Marbury and the rest of the Knicks.

oh, and

5) Al Harrington plays for the Knicks.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

So why exactly is it that 30-33 will be Rasheed's prime, Ed O? Intelligent fans such as yourself that usually do a great job of backing up their opinions, always seem to slip that one in there, that players are in their prime at 30-33, without explaining it.

I have explained in some other threads why I think that in today's NBA people reach their peak by age 24 and start to decline by the time they are 27 or 28. I feel that Rasheed Wallace is a prime example of this trend. Rasheed led the Blazers to the Western Conference Finals at the age of 24 and almost won them a championship when he was 25. I think those were his best years, but you could argue that he had better years in 00-01 and 01-02 when he was 26 or 27. Since then his FG % has dropped like a stone and he has scored fewer points despite playing for progressively worse teams that had fewer and fewer other guys to share the offensive load. He was an All-Star in 2000 and 2001, but hasn't been one since and wasn't close this year.

Rasheed is still quite a good player now and is very underrated by most NBA fans, however I think he is clearly declining and in two or three years he might not even be that good at all. I would question signing him longterm at MLE money, and the proposed deal here is ludicrous, I think he is clearly trying to sucker the Blazers into overpaying him by pretending that he has interest in the Knicks at MLE money. I hope the Blazers don't fall for it.

Why do you think Rasheed hasn't quite entered his prime yet, when the facts seem to point to a gradual decline since he was around 26?


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

I think that re-signing Rasheed would be PR suicide for John Nash and Paul Allen, because right or wrong, Rasheed has become the icon of everything Portland hates about the Blazers. Pot smoking, inconsistantcy, poor attitude, not playing up to their capabilities(well, that USED to be our problem, now we just aren't very good)

If Portland wants to re-build, they must let rasheed go and save that 17 mil off the cap...otherwise we'll be hang out at around the max and not have enough room to sign a free agent.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yega1979</b>!
> 
> If Portland wants to re-build, they must let rasheed go and save that 17 mil off the cap...otherwise we'll be hang out at around the max and not have enough room to sign a free agent.


What free agent do you suggest that Portland go after that will be worth both:

1) Letting Wallace, Person, Miles, Davis, Stoudamire and Stepania walk away.

2) Not getting back any young talent, draft picks, etc. by trading these expiring contracts to teams who find them attractive.


Just curious who you have in mind....


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> I have explained in some other threads why I think that in today's NBA people reach their peak by age 24 and start to decline by the time they are 27 or 28. I feel that Rasheed Wallace is a prime example of this trend.


I've generally read that athletes improve until about 27, have their primes years from 27 to 32, and then decline from there. Variance, of course, can add or subtract a year from either side and there are always outliers who don't adhere at all to that.

But for the vast majority of athletes, that's the general progression.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I've generally read that athletes improve until about 27, have their primes years from 27 to 32, and then decline from there. Variance, of course, can add or subtract a year from either side and there are always outliers who don't adhere at all to that.
> ...


Minstrel, I am well aware that that is the conventional wisdom, and I'm saying it's WRONG, and that people never justify it. It's a myth that got created somehow, and it's like a creature from Night of the Living Dead, it JUST WON'T DIE.

The average age of this year's All-Stars is 26. There are only FOUR All-Stars who are older than 28. Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, Shaquille O'Neal, and Sam Cassell. O'Neal and Iverson are younger than 32 and are declining already, they are just so good that even in their declining phase they are still All-Stars. And the other two are PG's which seem to last longer than other players.

Other than that, there's no one at all. When I point this out people talk about outliers and say that is because it just so happens that the best players today are around 26 years old, it is just statistical variation. But what are the odds that there would be a couple dozen great players in their mid 20s and only like two or three older than that. To me that is as ridiculous as therealdeal claiming that there are no good players in the NBA today that would be in the league's top 20 fifteen years ago. It flies in the face of overwhelming statistical odds.

The NBA has become a young man's game, that's why players like Rasheed Wallace are past their primes, yet people don't realize it. Teams like the Sixers, the Knicks, and the Heat continue to give huge contracts to geezers and ruin their chances at long-term success. I hope the Blazers don't make the same mistake with Rasheed Wallace.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yega1979</b>!
> I think that re-signing Rasheed would be PR suicide for John Nash and Paul Allen, because right or wrong, Rasheed has become the icon of everything Portland hates about the Blazers.


When did you become Portland? Portland loves a winner, and many Blazerfans profess to love Sheed. I'm sort of intrigued by the idea that Sheed is an icon of the percieved Jailblazer teams, I just don't know if it's really something that matters when faced with putting together the best team you can. I'm sure this management has heard from some disgruntled fans who've made clear their opinions on Wallace. IMO, it's much more important how he's percieved within the organization and on the team. There certainly is a wide gap between the way he is portraited/percieved by pop culture and how his peers, teammates, and coaches past and present speak of him. If the management feels he's worthy of reinvesting in dispite the dicey PR, maybe we could take that as a pretty clear sign he's not quite like the image you're refering to. 

I'd guess Portlanders emotions are split between love, hate, and ambiguous with him for all the reasons we're formiliar with. IMO, most of us would feel a whole lot better about him if he was playing with better guards... I wonder what the RG is going to look like tomorrow? I expect the place to be rocking.

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Minstrel, I am well aware that that is the conventional wisdom, and I'm saying it's WRONG, and that people never justify it. It's a myth that got created somehow, and it's like a creature from Night of the Living Dead, it JUST WON'T DIE.


Hmm? It was "created" through studies, empirical observation. Charting production and athletic ability, where applicable, through various ages, for years.

It wasn't just made up in someone's head and then passed around.



> The average age of this year's All-Stars is 26. There are only FOUR All-Stars who are older than 28. Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, Shaquille O'Neal, and Sam Cassell. O'Neal and Iverson are younger than 32 and are declining already, they are just so good that even in their declining phase they are still All-Stars. And the other two are PG's which seem to last longer than other players.
> 
> Other than that, there's no one at all.


I'd be wary of trying to infer things like athletic primes from such data as average age of All-Stars. That's potentially complicated by human bias, like favouring younger, newer players, or favouring styles younger players play. Dunks and that sort of thing don't necessarily denote the best part of one's career, but it's definitely the most exciting part of one's career. And it's more likely to get you an All-Star selection, in my opinion.

Marbury, for example, most would agree is better today than a few years ago. But I think he was more high-flying and popular a few years ago.

The results of empirical studies are much more likely to be correct that drawing theory from indirect sources like All-Star age.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

You keep indirectly referencing these anonymous "empirical" articles that are out there somewhere but no one knows where, that apparently settle this debate. I'm sorry but that's not very persuasive. And you criticize ME for being indirect! C'mon now, let's see those studies.

You don't like my standard of All-Star age, because it's skewed in favor of younger players? Fine. I just finished reading a bunch of trash on ESPN about how they don't pick young players like LeBron and Carmelo for the All-Star team because they haven't "paid their dues yet," but whatever. Make me a list of the top 30 players in the NBA, or 50, or any number you like, or find someone else's list, and if your list is at all credible I bet the average age on it comes out to be about 26 or 27 like it has in every single list I've looked at.

I have a feeling these "studies" you talk about are from the 1990s, back when the NBA was a completely different game with different rules, back when veterans dominated.


----------



## goldfinger2020 (May 11, 2003)

> The NBA has become a young man's game, that's why players like Rasheed Wallace are past their primes, yet people don't realize it.


I think people started believing guys started going into their prime around 30 is because of one man, Jordan. Jordan didn't win anything until he got close to the age of 30 (probably 28-29, but I don't care). 

Physically players are in their prime from 23-28, but then start declining. Usually the decline isn't that drastic until after 32 would be my opinion. So the age of 28-32 a player's body is on the decline, but he has much more experience, so that's when the veteran savviness comes into play. Jordan started winning championships because he learned what it took to win. He had the experience, & on most nights he would win the game with his head & not his vertical. 

So in short, a player in the age range of 28-32 has the most complete game, mentally & physically combined.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 3) Any of his antics would be ignored by the New York fans who would welcome Rasheed into their family with open arms.


It's weird, NY embraced Spree. I think it's actually possible.

-Petey


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Yega1979 has a very good point, most of the non-board Blazer fans I know that are basketball savvy, want Sheed OUT OF HERE. And EVERY causual fan I know does. The Blazers will have to consider this, considering what a small minority of freeks we are.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Paxil</b>!
> Yega1979 has a very good point, most of the non-board Blazer fans I know that are basketball savvy, want Sheed OUT OF HERE. And EVERY causual fan I know does. The Blazers will have to consider this, considering what a small minority of freeks we are.


Remember the overwhelming number of freeks that showed up at last years Blazer protest? How can Sheed supporters hope to counter those sheer numbers?  

I don't think Blazer management should base their basketball decisions on what every casual fan you know thinks they should do... I think they are in a much better position to judge him because they actually interact with him and know what he's like. 

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I think you've got a really interesting point, ArtestFan. I'd always just bought into conventional wisdom about player "prime years" being between 28-32. 

however, you think of the good players in today's game, not including this year's All-Stars, and you still have guys like Randolph, Brand, Bibby, Gasol and Odom. not a lot of 30 year olds there. 

meanwhile, stars like Webber (31) and Hill (32) who are supposedly still in "prime years" are laid up with injuries, and have been since they left your definition of "prime years." 

maybe it has to do with athleticism. so many players now base their game on great quickness and jumping, and a lot of that can leave before 30. guys like Jordan or Pippen are good enough to replace it with other things, but not everybody is Jordan or Pippen. 

or maybe that "prime" window hasn't really moved. maybe it's based on years of playing NBA-level ball, not years of age. as the average age of guys entering the league dropes from 22-23 to 18-19, the years when players reach their prime have just slid forward a little. as the saying goes, it's not the years, it's the mileage. 

whatever the reason, "the prime years" have clearly shifted in the last decade, and conventional wisdom is taking its time in catching up. You convinced me, though.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> What free agent do you suggest that Portland go after that will be worth both:
> ...


 When Person, Davis, Stoudamire and Stephania are off the books it will be a GREAT DAY for Portland, because all those players SUCK. So letting those guys go is just a matter of common sense.

Who would we sign with Wallace's emtpy slot(say 10 mil). Well, in 2005-2006(when the big cap relief is supposed to come) According to RealGM:

Abdur-Rahim
Eddie Curry
Steve Nash
Pau Gasol*
Andre Kirelenko*
Ray Allen
Tony Parker *


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> or maybe that "prime" window hasn't really moved. maybe it's based on years of playing NBA-level ball, not years of age. as the average age of guys entering the league dropes from 22-23 to 18-19, the years when players reach their prime have just slid forward a little. as the saying goes, it's not the years, it's the mileage.
> 
> whatever the reason, "the prime years" have clearly shifted in the last decade, and conventional wisdom is taking its time in catching up. You convinced me, though.


The studies on athletic prime are just that: regarding athleticism. And they are not basketball-specific, they regard all athletes...all humans (well, at least all human males, women may have a different prime). One can improve one's abilities until about 27, you experience your physical peak from 27-32 and then you decline from your physical peak.

This doesn't regard *skills*. It may or may not be true that NBA skills top out earlier before degrading.

Of course, when looking at the best players in a particular era, it *is* succeptible to some variance. Like injuries. More big stars were injured, seriously, in this era than the last era. Grant Hill, Penny Hardaway would be tremendous post-30 players had they not both suffered tough injuries. Antonio McDyess, Vince Carter...McDyess seems done as an elite player, Carter is sketchy.

You could choose to postulate that today's game is just more dangerous to older players. Of course, the problem is that Penny and Hill and McDyess and Carter all hurt themselves while *young*, pre-30s.

So, what's the answer? I'd say it's very inconclusive to look at today's athletes alone, since a rash of injuries to one generation can throw things out of whack. Now, if you charted the average age of, say, All-NBA players through the years and it came out around 26...I'd be much more convinced, ArtestFan. Hard to argue with something that spans decades.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

*Prime Age?*

In general, I think basketball players are at their peak in the 30-34 year-old range. They have the best combination of savvy and athleticism out there. And there is a lot of longevity for the very savvy players. Think Jordan, Mark Price, even Uncle Cliffy, who is still going posting decent numbers at 37.

There are caveats, of course. IMO, guards tend to go on longer than SFs. Centers mature later than anyone, so they tend to be at their prime long after an athletic slasher has retired. I think it just takes them longer to figure out how to use their bodies.

But for players who rely on athleticism, mileage counts *a lot*. Most atheltic players who leave college early, and *don't* develop a savvy game, are done by the time they hit 30. Think Sean Kemp. Or consider all those other flashes in the pan whose stock rises, then falls. 

Can anyone think of a stupid but gifted player who had a very long career? Any player who was drafted after failing to pass the NCAA minimum to play college ball would qualify as too dumb to play on my team.


----------



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

Preview


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

As Minstrel pointed out, the age of a human body's athletic prime is pretty well established. Do I know the studies that established this? No, but I know it's generally in the 27-to-33 year age range. Do I know how Avogadro's number was established? No, but I know it's 6 times 10 to the twenty-third power.

Is it possible that the NBA is a young man's game and therefore different, but until and unless I see substantial evidence that most players aren't in their prime from age 30 to 33, I'm not going to go against conventional wisdom and my own observations.

As far as Rasheed: his game's not based on strength or athleticism. It's based on defensive positioning and shooting... when he's 33 he might not be able to have the cool-looking slams that he (occasionally) pulls off now, but his three point shooting will probably be even better and he will probably be a bit heavier and at least the defender he is now.

Ed O.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> Knicks are the Title Contender, but not Blazers.



The Knick are not "The Title Contender."


You know Ballscientist, Isiah Thomas doesn't play anymore, because that's basically what it would take for the Knicks to contend for a title.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> or maybe that "prime" window hasn't really moved. maybe it's based on years of playing NBA-level ball, not years of age. as the average age of guys entering the league dropes from 22-23 to 18-19, the years when players reach their prime have just slid forward a little. as the saying goes, it's not the years, it's the mileage.


This is an excellent point, and I agree with it completely. NBA players' bodies take so much abuse from playing 100+ games a year including preseason and the playoffs, that they wear down early. If normal human beings peak at 27-32, but a person takes a huge beating night in and night out, it stands to reason that they will peak earlier.

NFL players take an even bigger beating than NBA players. Many NFL running backs start to decline by the time they are 25.

This is why Minstrel's request is impossible to fulfill, I can't go back at look at NBA players for the past 15 years because people didn't start coming out after one or zero years of high school, until just recently. 15 years ago people didn't take nearly the beatings at an early age, that they are taking now. The rules of the game (such as zone defense) have made NBA ball more physical also.

There is really no way to settle this argument except to wait and see what happens in the next 5 years. I predict that Rasheed Wallace, as well as other guys like Kevin Garnett, Vince Carter, Paul Pierce, Stephon Marbury, and Steve Francis and others will not be close to the players they are now. Rasheed's game may not be completely based on athleticism, but there is a lot of athleticism involved in defense, otherwise guys like Ron Artest, James Posey, Andrei Kirilenko, etc. could not be dominant defenders. Only guys whose games are hardly based on at athleticism AT ALL, like Tim Duncan, will age well. Andre Miller, Brad Miller, and Peja Stojakovic too, I bet those guys age well.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I was going to point out a counter-argument, but ArtestFan already alluded to it:



> There is really no way to settle this argument except to wait and see what happens in the next 5 years. I predict that Rasheed Wallace, as well as other guys like Kevin Garnett, Vince Carter, Paul Pierce, Stephon Marbury, and Steve Francis and others will not be close to the players they are now.


That's _exactly_ why the case you've made for today's youth being a younger prime than previous generations cannot be supported (or refuted). There's no indication that those players are on a downward trend yet, so for all we know, their peaks will still come in their early 30's.

Dan


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KokoTheMonkey</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually I was saying ESPN analysis is not realistic.


----------

