# championship team being built...



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

i really like the path the blazers are taking right now, we all knew following the whitsit era there would be a few mediocre seasons and here we are...i really think the blazers are assembling a nice group of players for a future long running success streak possibly contending for multiple titles...i think telfair is gonna be the next John Stockton with his amazing passing skills and overall leadership qualities...the way i see championship teams is established roles like what we will have

pass first floor general PG- telfair
excellent shooting SG- Monia?? TBD
slashing multi talented SF- Miles
low post rebounding machine- Zbo
defensive fiend- Ratliff?? he might retire before our run starts

as you can tell i am a huge telfair fan and supporter...i think he will be the FACE and talent of our team for the next 15+ years, by all accounts he is an excellent pick and roll player and this could set us up for a telfair-randolph combo ala stockton-malone

i see darius as the jerome kersey type but with even more potential...i am hoping monia pans out at SG because if not we are back at square zero (side note- i really would like us to somehow snag JR Giddens in the next draft)...our question marks are at SG and C...i think Khryapa will be consistently contending for 6th man of the year awards throughout his career and will be a fan favorite...and if monia never materializes as a starter he will SURELY be a VERY GOOD backup SG and SF seeing as Khryapa can get some of his PT at backup PF, but by all accounts Monia definitely COULD be our starting SG that can actually shoot that we have all been looking and waiting for

thoughts??? i was bored , just wanted to ramble and maybe help some of you guys realize that not all is bad and lost for the blazers


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I wish I had a tenth of your confidence. I don't see this team having any pieces that will allow us to escape from mediocrity any time soon, and it's possible that we'll be WISHING for mediocrity sometime soon.

Ed O.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

*the thing about basketball that you cant forget is...*

team chemistry and established roles often wins over talent...i think telfair will be a top 3 PG in the league so there is a key piece right there if my and many others mind you predictions are correct...miles is only 22-23 and has the potential and talent to be a very important piece of a championship puzzle...i dont know i just think even this year with little changes made this offseason the team will have already gelled together and could very likely contend for playoff spot this season


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I wish I had a tenth of your confidence. I don't see this team having any pieces that will allow us to escape from mediocrity any time soon, and it's possible that we'll be WISHING for mediocrity sometime soon.
> 
> Ed O.


I don't know why you think this team will be mediocre, unless you are just talking about the lower portion of the playoff contending team.

Even if they kept the team together that started last year, they wouldn't have been all that much better. As much talent as they had (and in some cases, Sheed, they had more talent, and in others, Bonzi, it's easily replaceable) they weren't a good team.

This team isn't nearly as bad as Ed O thinks it is, and it's not nearly as good as the most ardant Blazer fan thinks it will be. It's in the middle of the pool with the like sof the Suns, Jazz, Nuggets and maybe the Rockets too.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I don't see this team having any pieces that will allow us to escape from mediocrity any time soon


if nothing else, you have to admit we have one future all-star in Randolph. that is at least one undeniable piece in the puzzle of escaping mediocrity. 

of course, the Clips/Bulls (Brand) and Hawks/Grizzlies (SAR) can tell you that a 20/10 power forward is no guarantee of success. but at least it's a start.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I honestly think the Blazers have a nice blend of players, at least in their youngsters. You didn't even mention Travis Outlaw, who I still feel will be a very good player soon enough.

I think the Blazers should draft a C in the next draft. If they are in the lottery (sorry I think they will be), if they can grab any one of Bogut, Martynas, Petro, Perovic, Samardziski or Morris, they should be good. 

Like if the Blazers got Bogut, I would love his potential to play next to Zach. Or even Perovic. They should be looking for a Center next year, that is unless Ha Seung-Jin, looks like a surprise.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

*The 2002-03 Clippers*

Pass-first, floor-general PG: Andre Miller
Good-rebounding, outside-shooting SG: Quentin Richardson
Defensive SF who slashes and gets to the line: Corey Maggette
Low-post rebounding machine and scorer: Elton Brand
Franchise center: Michael Olowokandi
Great energy guy off the bench: Marko Jaric

If you've been watching the NBA for long enough, you know that just because you have a nice young player at every position, doesn't mean they're all going to live up to expectations and fit together perfectly.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>riehldeal</b>!
> i really like the path the blazers are taking right now, we all knew following the whitsit era there would be a few mediocre seasons and here we are...i really think the blazers are assembling a nice group of players for a future long running success streak possibly contending for multiple titles...i think telfair is gonna be the next John Stockton with his amazing passing skills and overall leadership qualities...the way i see championship teams is established roles like what we will have
> 
> pass first floor general PG- telfair
> ...


I totally agree. Telfair is going to be a phenom. He could be a Jason Kidd/John Stockton type pg with superior quickness. I love his upside. Like you stated above, I have also said on here numerous times that Darius is to the Blazers of the 00's that Jerome Kersey was to Portland in the early 90's.....with more game though. I am a beleiver in the Zach Darius duo being hte top duo in the league in 3 years when they are both at the prime age of 25 just destroying hte league..right at that time Telfair will be comming into his opwn and we will be a force to be reckoned with. We just need to keep drafting smart. I really want Chandler for Rahim so he can be our Cetner of the future when the other 3 will be hitting their strides. I like what Nash is doing...slow and steady always wins the race. Belive That!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> *The 2002-03 Clippers*
> Pass-first, floor-general PG: Andre Miller
> Good-rebounding, outside-shooting SG: Quentin Richardson
> ...


funny thing is that I really loved the idea of that team right up until the season started. then all those guys who weren't locked in to contracts got really ugly. 

that team didn't fall apart because of bad mix. it fell apart because too many guys were playing for contracts (and Kandi is a chump). 

Portland's in a different boat, though. they've generally signed guys to contracts before they are up, and they've surrounded the youth with a great veteran leader in Ratliff. 

you've got a good point, though. talented youngsters at multiple positions is no guarantee of success. especially if you don't have any veterans to guide them.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> *The 2002-03 Clippers*
> 
> Pass-first, floor-general PG: Andre Miller
> ...


woah woah woah...If you've been watching the NBA for more than 5 minutes, you know that Michael Olowakandi might be the biggest waste of roster space since Brian Martin.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> They should be looking for a Center next year, that is unless Ha Seung-Jin, looks like a surprise...


... or Sinanovic! Reports from training camp were pretty positive on his progress. Hopefully for Blazer fans at least one of their 2 teenage 7'3 guys will become at least a quality rotation player by their early 20s... man would it be nice if both panned out :gopray: 

They do have a big question to address at the 5 next season though... I don't think anyone projects either Ha or Nedzad to be ready by then. I also doubt that next years draft really holds any solutions for 2005-6.

STOMP


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> I also doubt that next years draft really holds any solutions for 2005-6.
> 
> STOMP


At least where the Blazers need help. I guess they could draft another SG, but then that assuredly spells the end of Qyntel Woods, or a back-up PF, for when SAR is gone or a C. They have too many SF's as it is, with Khryapa and Outlaw coming up. 

This is the main difficulty with the Blazers right now. They have vets, who are in their last years and then they have young players. I guess the best thing to do would be if out of the race, to let the young guns play and then let all the vets san Theo, walk and build a team around them with solid vets to help them along the way. Getting someone like Eric Snow to mentor Telfair would be a nice start, even if Snow was the back-up.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Slow down there, riehl.

EVERY team is building a champion.

It's the mistakes they make along the way that keep them from _becoming_ one.

There are some players on this squad who have promising futures. But saying anything more than that at this point is wishful thinking.

PBF
PS: And, yes, I'm a strong proponent of clear deliniation between "starter" and "reserve". I like what the Blazers are doing in that regard, but they still have more work to do there.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> if nothing else, you have to admit we have one future all-star in Randolph. that is at least one undeniable piece in the puzzle of escaping mediocrity.


I'm not sure that Zach is going to be an all-star. He's a good player, and if he takes a step up he can certainly be an all-star, but unless a lot of 4's in the West suddenly go away, it's far from a sure thing he'll make many (if any) all-star teams.



> of course, the Clips/Bulls (Brand) and Hawks/Grizzlies (SAR) can tell you that a 20/10 power forward is no guarantee of success. but at least it's a start.


We definitely have a nice piece or two. I don't think we suck... it's better to be young and not good than old and not good, because the youngsters will probably improve.

Ed O.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> woah woah woah...If you've been watching the NBA for more than 5 minutes, you know that Michael Olowakandi might be the biggest waste of roster space since Brian Martin.


Which is exactly the point. Two years ago a lot of people considered him the second-best center in the league, now look at him. That's why you can't pencil in unproven players as key members of a championship team.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> I don't know why you think this team will be mediocre, unless you are just talking about the lower portion of the playoff contending team.


The Blazers won 41 games last year. That's right at .500 winning percentage and that pretty much defines mediocre.

They didn't add anyone of consequence this summer (I don't expect much out of NVE or Przybila or Telfair this year) and a lot of their competitors got better. 

Calling them "mediocre" might be generous, now that I think of it.



> Even if they kept the team together that started last year, they wouldn't have been all that much better. As much talent as they had (and in some cases, Sheed, they had more talent, and in others, Bonzi, it's easily replaceable) they weren't a good team.


Everyone keeps saying how replaceable those guys are, and we keep losing and the "replaceable" players make their teams better.

Guess we'll see how long it takes for people to be convinced.



> This team isn't nearly as bad as Ed O thinks it is, and it's not nearly as good as the most ardant Blazer fan thinks it will be. It's in the middle of the pool with the like sof the Suns, Jazz, Nuggets and maybe the Rockets too.


The Blazers weren't as good as the Jazz or the Nuggets or the Rockets last year, and each of those teams improved quite a bit. The Suns were 12 games worse than the Blazers last year, but I expect them to finish with a better record than Portland because of the additions of Steve Nash and Quentin Richardson, who are now two of their six best players.

The Blazers are only, IMO, better than the Warriors and the Clippers this year in the West, and a strong case could be made for the Clippers finishing higher than Portland.

I just don't see this team being any BETTER than mediocre, and I see a good chance of them being much worse than that.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Which is exactly the point. Two years ago a lot of people considered him the second-best center in the league, now look at him. That's why you can't pencil in unproven players as key members of a championship team.


people who aren't smart thought that.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> The Blazers weren't as good as the Jazz or the Nuggets or the Rockets last year, and each of those teams improved quite a bit.


on paper they've improved. The Magic improved a lot when they got McGrady and Hill. and we know what happened. McGrady isn't nearly as good as people are making him out to be. 

Detroit was thought to get the worse end of that deal, but they've done much better than the Magic..



> The Suns were 12 games worse than the Blazers last year, but I expect them to finish with a better record than Portland because of the additions of Steve Nash and Quentin Richardson, who are now two of their six best players.


Nash is also old, and doesn't play defense. Richardson is overrated by fans who get all excited because he's so young. They still don't have a C who's anything. 



> The Blazers are only, IMO, better than the Warriors and the Clippers this year in the West, and a strong case could be made for the Clippers finishing higher than Portland.


what about the Sonics? The sonics are better??


> I just don't see this team being any BETTER than mediocre, and I see a good chance of them being much worse than that.
> 
> Ed O.


of couse you don't see them as being any better than mediocre. You're almost always a half empty sorta guy. Bonzi and Sheed were great apparently (altho I think a LOT more of the credit should be given to Pippen and Sabonis than Bonzi and Sheed for the 2002-2003 season). Sometimes you can have a lot of talent (see: Phoenix for many years) and still not be good. Sometimes you can have teams that fit together better, and not be as talented.

Don't try to discount what the Blazers have done because you think they should still have their former GM, or that you think the players they've picked up aren't as good as the saints that left. 

Was this off season great? No, but picking up NVE, and getting rid of a waste of roster in Dale Davis FOR him, is an improvement. Having Darius for the whole season IS an improvement. Not having a dumbass like Bonzi for the whole season IS an improvement. Not having to go through the season with "will they trade Sheed? will they keep Sheed?" all the season, is an improvement. (and no, having the same things said about SAR aren't, because he's not the kind of player that players follow around like sheep like Sheed was).


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> people who aren't smart thought that.


And it's not very smart either to assume that Sergei Monya (or, for that matter, Sebastian Telfair or Darius Miles) will all develop into quality starters and fit together perfectly.

I've never thought much of the Kandi Man, but he had a pretty amazing stretch of games at the end of 2002, so there was at least some reason to believe he was ready to break out. At least he'd proven more at the time than Sergei Monya has proven now -- and I don't see you complaining about the thread starter calling Monya a key player on a future championship team.

You're just being nitpicky.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> And it's not very smart either to assume that Sergei Monya (or, for that matter, Sebastian Telfair or Darius Miles) will all develop into quality starters and fit together perfectly.


that is true, but no one ever thought that Kandi was going to be anything good. It's not like he's shown flashes of brilliance. Good games, yes. But not "woo! he's our centre!" games. The Clippers just fell for the great marketting job his people did.


> I've never thought much of the Kandi Man, but he had a pretty amazing stretch of games at the end of 2002, so there was at least some reason to believe he was ready to break out. At least he'd proven more at the time than Sergei Monya has proven now -- and I don't see you complaining about the thread starter calling Monya a key player on a future championship team.
> 
> You're just being nitpicky.


you notice I didn't agree with it, right?

and furthermore...if you got nothing to argue about, nit pick!

8)


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> Was this off season great? No, but picking up NVE, and getting rid of a waste of roster in Dale Davis FOR him, is an improvement.


Nick is far far from being a sure thing to play much this year. He's recieving the exact same sort of pre-season hype he got down here in the Bay Area last year where appeared in less then half the games and shot under 40%... and his balky knees didn't get any younger. 

I feel its a stretch to call him an improvement over Dale, who just might be recovered from the groin tear he suffered in the Dallas playoff series. I hope you're right though...

STOMP


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> ...... but no one ever thought that Kandi was going to be anything good. It's not like he's shown flashes of brilliance.


Sorry, Hap. Gotta call you on this one. Kandi came out of no where to be the #1 Pick of '98. His "potential" was great. Unfortunately, his work ethic isn't. But every team that year would have selected him ahead of the likes of Bibby, Carter, Nowitzki, and LaFrentz.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> on paper they've improved. The Magic improved a lot when they got McGrady and Hill. and we know what happened. McGrady isn't nearly as good as people are making him out to be.


McGrady is a top-5 player in the NBA. Whether people make him into a top-3 player, and he's therefore overrated, or not doesn't change how dominant he can be.



> Detroit was thought to get the worse end of that deal, but they've done much better than the Magic..


Grant Hill got hurt, otherwise it might be a different story. In any case, though, Ben Wallace was a unique acquisition and he's a unique player. Kelvin Cato is no Ben Wallace.



> Nash is also old, and doesn't play defense. Richardson is overrated by fans who get all excited because he's so young. They still don't have a C who's anything.


Well, Keon Clark's a pretty decent center I think. If he's healthy he'll be nearly as effective as Theo will be for Portland.

Even IF what you're saying is true, though: so what? The Suns gave up nothing to get two pretty good players. I consider that a prett big improvement, and with the Suns plethora of young big guys (Stoudemire, Carbakapa, Lampe, Hunter) I think they'll be in pretty good shape at the 4/5 spot.



> what about the Sonics? The sonics are better??


Absolutely. Ray Allen missed 26 games last year. Collison missed all 82. I expect Luke Ridnour to step up in his second year. Danny Fortson should be a good addition, as well, providing a rebounding presence that they haven't had for a while.

They lost Brent Barry, but he was hurt off and on almost all year and I expect their defense to be improved without him.



> Don't try to discount what the Blazers have done because you think they should still have their former GM, or that you think the players they've picked up aren't as good as the saints that left.


What HAVE they done? Drafted for the future--which is great, but it doesn't help us this year. Acquired an old, constantly injured PG who isn't any better than the younger, more durable pain-in-the-box score that we already have. Added a young center who I actually think was the best move of the summer but is no guarantee to pan out.

Sorry. There's just not much here to discount. And remember that while I've never called any Blazers player a "saint", you've called at least one a "dumbass".

Which of us do you think lets emotion over players get in the way of judging their efficacy?



> Was this off season great? No, but picking up NVE, and getting rid of a waste of roster in Dale Davis FOR him, is an improvement.


Dale Davis is going to be just as good in GS as NVE is in Portland this year. I think there's a pretty good chance he'll be better.



> Having Darius for the whole season IS an improvement.


Hopefully. Ask Cleveland about that, though.



> Not having a dumbass like Bonzi for the whole season IS an improvement.


Yeah. I pity Memphis. They had to struggle along with their 50 wins. Hopefully their fans can stand another year of the playoffs.



> Not having to go through the season with "will they trade Sheed? will they keep Sheed?" all the season, is an improvement. (and no, having the same things said about SAR aren't, because he's not the kind of player that players follow around like sheep like Sheed was).


So you'd rather have an inferior player so you don't have to worry about whether he's going to be traded? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Rasheed produced and won even when there were question marks over him. With Zach around, SAR has not been and probably won't be much of a contributor as a Blazer.

As for players following Rasheed like sheep: did the Pistons follow him? If not, why do you think that the Blazers' players were different. And if so, why is that a bad thing?

Ed O.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Portland is mired in mediocrity for now and I am afraid for some time to come.

I pegged them last year early on as .500 and boy was that painfully correct.

I think they will be fun to watch..but oh my gawd not a championship team.

Heck,as good as the 2000 team was,I don't remember any formidable posters here saying THAT team was a championship team.
I am thinking damn lucky to get into the playoffs would be a nice year.


I am not sad anymore about it either..
Portland has created their own mess with this team.
And quite frankly Paul Allen himself should carry alot of blame here.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> McGrady is a top-5 player in the NBA. Whether people make him into a top-3 player, and he's therefore overrated, or not doesn't change how dominant he can be.


but it also doesn't change the fact that you can put a dominant player on a team and that means that team will be good. See: Paul Pierce. See: the Sonics and Gary Payton.

A lot of it has to do with how well the team co-exists, or handles their (now) lack of depth.



> Well, Keon Clark's a pretty decent center I think. If he's healthy he'll be nearly as effective as Theo will be for Portland.


Ha, thats a good one Ed.


> Even IF what you're saying is true, though: so what? The Suns gave up nothing to get two pretty good players. I consider that a prett big improvement, and with the Suns plethora of young big guys (Stoudemire, Carbakapa, Lampe, Hunter) I think they'll be in pretty good shape at the 4/5 spot.


and the Blazers basically gave up nothing for NVE. And outside of Stoudemire, none of their "young big guys" have done **** in this league. That'd be like me getting all excited because we have Woods. 



> Absolutely. Ray Allen missed 26 games last year. Collison missed all 82. I expect Luke Ridnour to step up in his second year. Danny Fortson should be a good addition, as well, providing a rebounding presence that they haven't had for a while.


The Sonics have nothing. They'll be lucky to finish with over 35 games won this year, unless they make a big trade.


> They lost Brent Barry, but he was hurt off and on almost all year and I expect their defense to be improved without him.


he wasn't injured off an on almost all year. He missed a fair amount of games with a freak injury, and the sonics suffered without him. When he came back, they did better irrc. The sonics are a streaky outside shooting team, in a conference where that doesn't win you many games.



> What HAVE they done? Drafted for the future--which is great, but it doesn't help us this year. Acquired an old, constantly injured PG who isn't any better than the younger, more durable pain-in-the-box score that we already have. Added a young center who I actually think was the best move of the summer but is no guarantee to pan out.


constantly injured? Last year was the first year he missed a big portion of any season, since 97-98. He wasn't the best signing in the world..but there's a reason he was in their in important moments and Steve Nash wasn't. 

I think there's something overrated about adding new players. Adding new players doesn't always make a team better. As a Blazer fan, you should know that. Adding several new players improved the team twice. the 99 season, and 99-2000. Every other time they added players, it really didn't help the team. (see: 2000-01, 2001-02).



> Sorry. There's just not much here to discount. And remember that while I've never called any Blazers player a "saint", you've called at least one a "dumbass".


he was also called that by a lot of people who worked within the team, and (get this) actually know Bonzi better than you or I do.



> Which of us do you think lets emotion over players get in the way of judging their efficacy?


Don't you remember that I liked Bonzi? And I still like him? But lets call a spade a spade. He wasn't helping the team, nor was he improving the team.

I also like Sheed, despite his faults, but his time on the team had run out. I don't know why you don't seem to understand that concept. A player might be good, but if his time is up on a team, his time is up on a team. Kinda like how Pat Riley left the Lakers to go to NBC for a while, and then the Knicks. His time was just up.


> Dale Davis is going to be just as good in GS as NVE is in Portland this year. I think there's a pretty good chance he'll be better.


HA! thats a good one Ed. Dale Davis is done. Even if NVE averages under 10 ppg next year, he'll be contributing far more than Dale Davis did. Hell, even as a starter Dale Davis was a waste.



> Hopefully. Ask Cleveland about that, though.


Thats really not something you should use as an argument. Didn't he get injured and they rushed him back? Didn't they also change that his role was soon after they got him (and his position)? Didn't they also get some guy named LeBron who made Darius kind of an extra part?



> Yeah. I pity Memphis. They had to struggle along with their 50 wins. Hopefully their fans can stand another year of the playoffs.


it's not always about making the playoffs Ed. I know thats what drives you as a fan, but it's not the only thing. Sure it's nice, but there will come a time when Bonzi wears out his welcome there. And when he's not getting his minutes like he (thinks he) should, he'll do something stupid. 

And whether or not Memphis 'struggles' to win 50 games, is not contingent on Bonzi being on that team. They'd win that without him. And before you trump out the "well, there were 8-8 before him, and 42-24 with him"..you ever hear of a team starting off slow? 

or just a team that needs a change, but doens't necessarily improve because of the on court activities of the new player? It's not like he was Rasheed in Detroit.


> So you'd rather have an inferior player so you don't have to worry about whether he's going to be traded? That doesn't make much sense to me.


it doesn't make sense to you, because you miss-read what I said.

Where did I say I'd rather have an inferior player so we don't have to wrry about whether or not he's going to be traded? I'm saying that it was a DISTRACTION. The players may deny it, and infact, you may deny it, but it was a distraction. The players on the team aren't as close to SAR as the players on last years team were to Sheed. So if SAR is traded, it won't be a big deal.



> Rasheed produced and won even when there were question marks over him. With Zach around, SAR has not been and probably won't be much of a contributor as a Blazer.


um...so? whats this got to do with team chemistry?


> As for players following Rasheed like sheep: did the Pistons follow him? If not, why do you think that the Blazers' players were different. And if so, why is that a bad thing?


what does the pistons players following or not following Sheed have to do with the situation? Sheed was basically put into the situation where he was made into the leader. Instead of being a great role players on the pistons. I don't see where what you just asked me has **** to do with what is being discussed.


> Ed O.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

No offense HAP, but you seem to be arguing just to be contrary. The Blazers have very little chance of making the play-offs this season, and you are astute enough to know that.

As for building a future champion......I would have a lot more faith if the team had brought Monya over and had committed to giving him, Outlaw, and SeaBass some meaningful minutes.

The Blazer draft strategy just doesn't mesh with their allergy to letting young players go through natural growing pains.


On a (somewhat) related note - what is the over/under on when NVE and Damon have their meltdown? I'll predict they'll be at daggers drawn by XMas.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> No offense HAP, but you seem to be arguing just to be contrary. The Blazers have very little chance of making the play-offs this season, and you are astute enough to know that.


actually no, I'm not just arguing to be argumentative. I rarely do that, and usually it's just with my family.

I just don't think that people are giving the team enough credit, because they aren't spending precious money on getting so and so. Did anyone think that Utah would be as good as they were last year? (and spare me the gripe about the coaching).

I'm not saying the team will be a top 5 team (or that even making a trade for a "Ray Allen" or "vince Carter" type player will put them there). I'm saying this team isn't as bad as people make it out to be, nor are the teams ahead of them that much better.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

IF POR becomes mired in mediocrity, and they are not there yet IMO, then it will be b\c they didn't EMBRACE rebuilding (or in the opposite continue to stockpile vets). This is where IMO, the mistake COULD HAVE occured, as POR future still has yet to be written. SAR will, in all likelyhood be traded, what POR recieves in exchange for him will be a factor (or should) in whether or not POR is improving or treading water. NVE, could also be traded, provided he shows he can effectively play. I think many a playoff team would love to have him. He could net something of value as well.

We have yet to see the impact of Telfair, and unfortunately we will have to wait another year to see anything from either Monya or Khryapa. Travis Outlaw is still a year away, at minimum from contributing, but he could eventually be a factor. Both Miles & Zach are already the bookends at forward. Both are still young (23yrs old), both are legitimate starters, both have room to improve (specifically Miles). They are in essence, youthful veterans. 
Sinanovic & Jinn are LONG term projects, probably where Outlaw was last year, if not a little further behind than that, meaning 3+ years out at minimum form SIGNIFICANT contribution, if any for this team. Actually Pryzbilla, as mocked by many here, could actually turn out to be a decent b\u center for POR. He is WAY ahead of Jinn & Sinanovic on the development curve, and is still young (at 23yrs old I think). Not a savior by any means, but a possible piece to the puzzle, IF (and that is a big IF) he continues to develop. Young big men for the most part take a long time to develop IMO.

I think SOME of the pieces are there. More obviously needs to be added. Personally I think Nash should have traded SAR during the draft for a pick (or picks) and a young player (or two). That 15th pick from UTA would have been nice. How would a Telfair, and a Al Jefferson look right now? or a Luke Jackson and Telfair? or Kirk Snyder? 

I don't think our record would be much different if SAR wasn't here and another rookie was quite frankly. But I am willing to give Nash the benefit of the doubt. I will reserve judgement until I see what happens with SAR, and what the outcome of NEXT offseason is before I decide whether or not POR is on the way up or mired in mediocrity. Right now this is a team in transistion, I think it is too early to pass judgement on a work most definitely in progress.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

but they are better !

Utah is better than they were last year and is quietly building
into a dangerous team.
Phoenix..don't under estimate them.
Memphis..watch out !

Portland..stagnant and weak weak at center.
As much as I love Theo,I don't think of him as a center.
And dog gone it..where is our star shooter???
no where to be found.

Since these were specific weakness spots last year,how could they possibly be better???

I don't want to come off as a crybaby fan..
but I really don't think that Portland has kept up with these
teams.
Therefore..they will be in the playoffs and Portland will struggle to be .500

The other thing..this is not a cerebral team..theyt don't seem like the sharpest players to me in a basketball sense.
Don't laugh,but I have as much hope with Damon and Bassy as anybody on the team.
I would have to say the point has improved..
we will love Nick !!!

But no defined pure shooter.

That's going to hurt.

Baloney, that Richie is the guy.

In spite of everything I just said..
I still love and adore the Portland Trailblazers,and won't miss a single game.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> but it also doesn't change the fact that you can put a dominant player on a team and that means that team will be good. See: Paul Pierce. See: the Sonics and Gary Payton.
> 
> A lot of it has to do with how well the team co-exists, or handles their (now) lack of depth.


Were either of Pierce or Payton playing with Yao Ming? Because McGrady will be.



> and the Blazers basically gave up nothing for NVE. And outside of Stoudemire, none of their "young big guys" have done **** in this league. That'd be like me getting all excited because we have Woods.


Woods isn't a 7 footer. 6'8" wings are a dime a dozen, but skilled 7 footers are not.



> The Sonics have nothing. They'll be lucky to finish with over 35 games won this year, unless they make a big trade.


The Sonics finished FOUR games behind the Blazers last year, and they're better than they were. I think that they have a better chance at improving their record than the Blazers do in this upcoming year.



> he wasn't injured off an on almost all year. He missed a fair amount of games with a freak injury, and the sonics suffered without him. When he came back, they did better irrc.


So I was hallucinating when I listened to sports radio on a daily basis and they talked about how dinged up he was?

I doubt it. He was hurt off and on all year. He didn't miss games because of all his injuries, but he wasn't as quick or effective as he has been in the past.



> The sonics are a streaky outside shooting team, in a conference where that doesn't win you many games.


There are no non-streaky outside shooting teams. They are primarily a perimeter team, but with Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis and Vlad Radmanovich they are a top-3 shooting team in the West.



> constantly injured? Last year was the first year he missed a big portion of any season, since 97-98.


He's missed signficant parts of each of the last several years:
03-04: 43 games
02-03: 9 games
01-02: 10 games
00-01: 11 games

That's a pretty consistent injury history.



> He wasn't the best signing in the world..but there's a reason he was in their in important moments and Steve Nash wasn't.


I don't know what you're talking about here. Sorry. NVE wasn't signed by anyone in years.



> I think there's something overrated about adding new players. Adding new players doesn't always make a team better. As a Blazer fan, you should know that. Adding several new players improved the team twice. the 99 season, and 99-2000. Every other time they added players, it really didn't help the team. (see: 2000-01, 2001-02).


I don't think that the Blazers had clear upgrades in either 00-01 or 01-02. We were adding pieces that could have helped, but it's nothing like the moves that Houston (top-5 player in the game), or Utah (starting 4, starting 5), or Phoenix (starting PG) made this summer.



> he was also called that by a lot of people who worked within the team, and (get this) actually know Bonzi better than you or I do.


So what? The people that are running the team appear to be running it into the ground. I'm supposed to care whether they liked Bonzi on a personal level or not?



> HA! thats a good one Ed. Dale Davis is done. Even if NVE averages under 10 ppg next year, he'll be contributing far more than Dale Davis did. Hell, even as a starter Dale Davis was a waste.


Dale Davis was better than NVE last year, and as I said I expect him to be at least as good again this year.



> Thats really not something you should use as an argument. Didn't he get injured and they rushed him back? Didn't they also change that his role was soon after they got him (and his position)? Didn't they also get some guy named LeBron who made Darius kind of an extra part?


LeBron didn't play a whole season with Miles; I think you have your wires crossed a bit.

In fact, Miles played in 67 games in 02-03, and helped lead the Cavs to the pick that got them James. He played the 1 a bit in the preseason, but he played the 3 spot almost the whole year.



> it's not always about making the playoffs Ed. I know thats what drives you as a fan, but it's not the only thing.


Are we talking about mediocrity, or not? If a team can't make the playoffs then they aren't going to be better than mediocre.

And if we're talking about winning championships, a team needs to make the playoffs before it can win a title. No recent championship team has dipped into the playoffs for multiple seasons and then won a ring that I can think of.

The Blazers might luck out and somehow build a championship-level team in the lottery, but if they do they'll be an exception.



> Sure it's nice, but there will come a time when Bonzi wears out his welcome there. And when he's not getting his minutes like he (thinks he) should, he'll do something stupid.


Weren't people saying this immediately after the trade last year? Maybe not you, but I know that people were saying that Wells would show his "true colors" and poison the Grizzlies' chances.

It sounds like wishful thinking much more than a likely scenario.



> And whether or not Memphis 'struggles' to win 50 games, is not contingent on Bonzi being on that team. They'd win that without him. And before you trump out the "well, there were 8-8 before him, and 42-24 with him"..you ever hear of a team starting off slow?


Hehe. You've got your opinions, which is nice, but it's fascinating that in spite of no evidence to the contrary people keep saying that Wells had nothing to do with the Blazers' success OR the Grizzlies' success.



> Where did I say I'd rather have an inferior player so we don't have to wrry about whether or not he's going to be traded? I'm saying that it was a DISTRACTION. The players may deny it, and infact, you may deny it, but it was a distraction. The players on the team aren't as close to SAR as the players on last years team were to Sheed. So if SAR is traded, it won't be a big deal.


I understand what you're saying, but I don't know that it's better to have a guy that no one is close to than a guy that players were close to but who might be traded.



> um...so? whats this got to do with team chemistry?


Nothing. Who cares about team chemistry? Team chemistry is good when you're winning and bad when you're losing.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

I actually agree with Hap on this, I think a lot of fans including Ed O have given too much credit to team acquisitions this off season. Let's start with Phoenix, I think this will be an interesting situation because Steve Nash is literally breaking down, that is why Cuban didn't want to pay him. He would play 20 minutes and have to get his legs all iced up, I would actually be surprised if he didn't miss a significant part of the season. Quentin Richardson is a nice pickup from the outside looking in but in reality it wasn't a good pickup. He is a player who needs many shots to get his points, he's a career 40% shooter from the field, I don't think him, Joe Johnson, Marion, Amare, and Nash will get along well honestly. I think Suns management made a move just to say they made a move this off season, signing Quentin Richardson was irrational since they had Joe Johnson who I think will be a much better player if he isn't already. I actually appreciate our managment for not making any irrational moves like the Suns did with Quenin and Steve Nash. 

I think Utah will be a playoff contender because of their coaching, not talent. 

Ed O bringing up the fact that Darius was with Cleveland for a year is pretty off considering he was injured and they rushed him back, then made him play a good chunk of the season at point guard, not only that but coaching and overall team makeup was suspect. 

It's also hilarious to see Ed O say Keon Clark will be comparable to Theo Ratliff, one of the funniest things I've read in a while, along with Seattle doing anything significant this season.

Also Bonzi being on the Grizz had little to do with their success. Bonzi is not a perennial back up for the rest of his career. He smoked himself dumb and got careless with his game, he is junk. I was a huge Bonzi fan until he just got careless, he was taking this team down, nobody else but him. Ill advised jump shots with 20 seconds left on the clock, turnovers a plenty. He was just really bad for us towards the end. 

I'm not really mad about the Blazers acquisitions or lack of, I think this can be a playoff contending team but with our current coach it will be much tougher. Our coach is the problem, not the talent. Actually I'd say, the coach and our backcourt, Cheeks doesn't seem to instill discipline into his backcourt players and they play stupid, like Bonzi did, and now Derek and Damon.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Nothing. Who cares about team chemistry? Team chemistry is good when you're winning and bad when you're losing.
> ...


Whitsitt said the same thing, now he's out of an NBA job. When you are building an NBA team, team chemistry is probably the most important thing, because of it the Pistons won it all and the Lakers failed miserably even by having 4 Hall of Famers on their team. It's laughable to dismiss chemistry as you did.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> 
> Whitsitt said the same thing, now he's out of an NBA job. When you are building an NBA team, team chemistry is probably the most important thing, because of it the Pistons won it all and the Lakers failed miserably even by having 4 Hall of Famers on their team. It's laughable to dismiss chemistry as you did.


Whitsitt isn't around anymore because the fans didn't like his players off the court, and by extension, him, not because they didn't win often enough.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>gambitnut</b>!
> 
> 
> Whitsitt isn't around anymore because the fans didn't like his players off the court, and by extension, him, not because they didn't win often enough.


Maybe, but at the same time we were the laughing stock of the NBA. We were paying all this money to all these players so we can win the championship. Anything less wasn't doing it, he's not in the league because he didn't win enough when compared to how much he paid for the players and all the player movements. We are talking about rebuilding, Whitsitt doesn't have a job because he didn't allow the team to rebuild or gel, thus no team chemistry, thus no championship no matter the players he brought in.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> I actually agree with Hap on this, I think a lot of fans including Ed O have given too much credit to team acquisitions this off season. Let's start with Phoenix, I think this will be an interesting situation because Steve Nash is literally breaking down, that is why Cuban didn't want to pay him. He would play 20 minutes and have to get his legs all iced up, I would actually be surprised if he didn't miss a significant part of the season. Quentin Richardson is a nice pickup from the outside looking in but in reality it wasn't a good pickup. He is a player who needs many shots to get his points, he's a career 40% shooter from the field, I don't think him, Joe Johnson, Marion, Amare, and Nash will get along well honestly. I think Suns management made a move just to say they made a move this off season, signing Quentin Richardson was irrational since they had Joe Johnson who I think will be a much better player if he isn't already. I actually appreciate our managment for not making any irrational moves like the Suns did with Quenin and Steve Nash.
> 
> I think Utah will be a playoff contender because of their coaching, not talent.
> ...












Great post *****


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

I don't think we'll know whether Ed O got "owned" until we actually see the Blazers play. What if he's right? Maybe you should wait awhile to post that picture, just because you guys say the Blazers will be good, doesn't make it so.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I never said we were "sooo good",but I do think we are a better team then the Sonics.


----------



## quick (Feb 13, 2004)

Why do some fans show no confidence in the team and continuosly think that they will suck just because we didn't make aquisitions that looked gold? Because we didn't get boozer? martin? mcgrady? nash? If those who don't want to watch the blazers because of what the current roster has and just presumes they suck don't know what they're missing. Just watch, when the team wins and is doing good there will be 10 happy blazer fans on the boards within seconds.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> 
> Whitsitt said the same thing, now he's out of an NBA job. When you are building an NBA team, team chemistry is probably the most important thing, because of it the Pistons won it all and the Lakers failed miserably even by having 4 Hall of Famers on their team. It's laughable to dismiss chemistry as you did.


Ah, the great "team chemistry" debate.

The problem here, is that the term means different things to different people.

First, you have the traditionalist (or Peter Gammons) approach. They can't define it, but they know it when they see it! This is 90% pig doots. As ED correctly points out, this is the by-product of success, not the cause.

Second, you have the case where a team plays hard every game despite having a rough season. People sometimes call this "good chemistry" when it is actually good coaching.

The third definition, is based on how well the players fit together and compliment each other *on the court/field*. This is why the Pistons beat the Lakers......and has nothing to do with the Pistons having superior moral character or something.

Is it "laughable" to dismiss team chemistry? That depends on which definition you are using!


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> actually no, I'm not just arguing to be argumentative. I rarely do that, and usually it's just with my family.
> ...


Ah Hap, and you were doing so well until you got to the part about coaching!  

I would agree that the *average* coach has little impact on team success - but the very good and very bad coaches do. 

Do you really think the gap between Cheeks and Sloan is meaningless? To put it another way - if Cheeks had been coaching Utah last season and Sloan the Blazers, would both teams have wound up with the same record?


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

This is a thread that could be duplicated on every other team board (but of course not as vigorously debated as on the Blazers board).

Every team thinks their building a championship team...if their young power forward becomes the next Maurice Lucas and not the next Gary Trent....if their 18 year old point guard becomes the next John Stockton and not the next Omar Cook....if they win the lottery and draft a Tim Duncan and not a Kwame Brown....if they stay healthy, etc, etc.

Eternal optimism....that's what makes sports fun....there's always next year!

Obviously it's a poker game....but the Blazers have some good cards in their hand....stay tuned.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MAS RipCity</b>!
> I never said we were "sooo good",but I do think we are a better team then the Sonics.


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1410694#post1410694



> Originally posted by <b>MAS RipCity</b>!
> 50-53 wins....Theo and Darius for a full year = :drool:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> 
> Do you really think the gap between Cheeks and Sloan is meaningless? To put it another way - if Cheeks had been coaching Utah last season and Sloan the Blazers, would both teams have wound up with the same record?


I think that since the Jazz and Sloan have historically put up with far less crap than the Blazers have put up with (outside of Stevenson, their problems have all been minor) and have gotten players that do what the coach/team tells em to do, it's a little unfair to compare the situations in this manner.

I think that any coach last year, given the historical problems that the team has had (the players running the team basically) would've had the same problems.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> I actually agree with Hap on this, I think a lot of fans including Ed O have given too much credit to team acquisitions this off season.


I don't have to give ANY credit for acquisitions of other teams to make my primary point: Portland was a .500 team last year, which is mediocre; they have not improved, and therefore they will be mediocre again.

That I (along with almost everyone who follows the NBA) thinks that Utah, Phoenix and Houston improved themselves over the summer might make Portland worse than mediocre, but discounting their improvement altogether doesn't mean Portland will be magically better than they were last year.



> Let's start with Phoenix, I think this will be an interesting situation because Steve Nash is literally breaking down, that is why Cuban didn't want to pay him.


That's incorrect. Dallas was willing to pay him a large sum of money to stay with the Mavs, but they weren't willing to pay as much as Phoenix. The Suns had a relatively low team salary and the Mavs have a massive one... there's no evidence that Dallas was scared off because Nash is "literally breaking down".

In fact, Steve Nash played in 78 regular games last season. Is that breaking down? Relative to the two previous seasons, where he played in all 82 games, it might be, but in any objective examination 78 games plus a full postseason is pretty impressive durability.



> I actually appreciate our managment for not making any irrational moves like the Suns did with Quenin and Steve Nash.


Yeah... acquisition of talent is a terrible idea. Fortunately, the new management is on an austerity plan where we only add has-beens or never-weres.... actually, we sometimes have press conferences for them, irrespective of whether we actually add them or not.

It's some sort of bizarro world where the Suns' moves can be considered "irrational" by some.



> I think Utah will be a playoff contender because of their coaching, not talent.


That was last year. Their talent is much better this year. Boozer, Okur, and the three rookies (who should provide depth, at least).

Throw in a healthier Matt Harpring and the Jazz should finish more than one game ahead of Portland this year.



> Ed O bringing up the fact that Darius was with Cleveland for a year is pretty off considering he was injured and they rushed him back, then made him play a good chunk of the season at point guard, not only that but coaching and overall team makeup was suspect.


Miles was healthy to start the 02-03 season--he led the team in scoring in 4 of their 7 preseason games. He also was healthy enough to play in their first 9 games as they started 2-7.

I'm not saying that we will only win 17 games this season (as the Cavs did when they had Miles for an entire year), but I don't see Darius being around for a full season as that big of a boon for Portland, either.



> It's also hilarious to see Ed O say Keon Clark will be comparable to Theo Ratliff, one of the funniest things I've read in a while, along with Seattle doing anything significant this season.


About Clark: sorry if you need smilies to point out sarcasm to you.

About Seattle: I don't see how people here can ignore how they (a) were only 4 games worse than the Blazers last year, (b) had their best player miss over a quarter of the games, and (c) had their top power forward miss ALL of the games.

That adds up to a good chance of passing Portland in the standings this year.



> Also Bonzi being on the Grizz had little to do with their success. Bonzi is not a perennial back up for the rest of his career. He smoked himself dumb and got careless with his game, he is junk. I was a huge Bonzi fan until he just got careless, he was taking this team down, nobody else but him. Ill advised jump shots with 20 seconds left on the clock, turnovers a plenty. He was just really bad for us towards the end.


I fail to see how people keep whistling in the dark about Bonzi. Maybe it's the fact that some Blazers fans have admitted that there is NO situation where they will admit the Wells trade was a bad one, and now they're trying to justify their position.

Look at how the Blazers team did with him (either over the past several years, or even to start the year) and then without him. Then look at how the Grizzlies team did without him (either over the past several years, or even to start the year) and then with him. 

If he had nothing to do with the dramatic turnarounds at either location, then it's a massive pair of coincidences.

Ed O.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1410694#post1410694


50 wins is nothing, and we will easily get that, we had 41 last year, we could easily get an extra 9 wins with Theo and Darius for a full year. Reconize.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't have to give ANY credit for acquisitions of other teams to make my primary point: Portland was a .500 team last year, which is mediocre; they have not improved, and therefore they will be mediocre again.


Are you being realistic when you say Portland hasn't improved? They added one of the deadliest 4th quarter players in the history of the league, Nick Van Excel for two wasted roster spots in Dale Davis and Dickau. Zach Randolph has worked his butt off this summer, same as Darius Miles. Derek Anderson has gotten a chance to get healthy. Zach has lost weight and worked on his game, D Miles hired a shooting coach. We got another solid shooter in Frahm who had 31 points in a game he was given minutes last season. To say we didn't improve is laughable, if you want to debate how significant the improvement is, that's fine but to say we didn't move in either direction indicates a true bias by you. 



> That I (along with almost everyone who follows the NBA) thinks that Utah, Phoenix and Houston improved themselves over the summer might make Portland worse than mediocre, but discounting their improvement altogether doesn't mean Portland will be magically better than they were last year.


Yea and everyone picked the Blazers to win it all the year they acquired Dale Davis and Shawn Kemp. Everyone who follows the NBA thought the Lakers would win it all last season. Do you see a trend here Ed? It's too early to tell, yea you could flap your gums but I think it would be wiser to stay quiet and see how it goes the first 10 to 20 games of the regular season. 




> That's incorrect. Dallas was willing to pay him a large sum of money to stay with the Mavs, but they weren't willing to pay as much as Phoenix. The Suns had a relatively low team salary and the Mavs have a massive one... there's no evidence that Dallas was scared off because Nash is "literally breaking down".


No, you are incorrect. I saw Mark Cuban on Fox Sports stating how he wasn't willing to give Nash a new contract because he say the dude break down in the middle of games. Mark Cuban stated that it would be surprising to see Nash not miss a significant amount of games this upcoming season. I think we could take Mark Cuban's word over yours. There's plenty of evidence, just look outside the net. 



> In fact, Steve Nash played in 78 regular games last season. Is that breaking down? Relative to the two previous seasons, where he played in all 82 games, it might be, but in any objective examination 78 games plus a full postseason is pretty impressive durability.


As you are outside looking in, yea you can say that but I'd much rather take the owner's word for it than just a fan who just looks at stat sheets. 




> Yeah... acquisition of talent is a terrible idea. Fortunately, the new management is on an austerity plan where we only add has-beens or never-weres.... actually, we sometimes have press conferences for them, irrespective of whether we actually add them or not.
> 
> It's some sort of bizarro world where the Suns' moves can be considered "irrational" by some.


Well it depends what you want to do. You want to put all your eggs in one basket now then fine, go for it. The Suns didn't address any of their needs besides signing Nash who was given an insane contract. If you want our managment to mimic that then I say good riddens to you Ed O. I'm glad you are not in any position to dictate where this team goes. All that money to a point guard who is basically at the end of his career, along with signing a guy who has absolutely no place on this team when you have both Shawn Marion and Joe Johnson who are both significantly better is a waste. Who's there center? Maybe they should have focused on getting a need rather than acquiring pure talent. That doesn't help, as you see by the Blazers past. 




> That was last year. Their talent is much better this year. Boozer, Okur, and the three rookies (who should provide depth, at least).
> 
> Throw in a healthier Matt Harpring and the Jazz should finish more than one game ahead of Portland this year.


Agreed, there talent IS much better, but if you take Sloan out of there and replace him with anyone, there would be no way they would be in any way contending for the Playoffs. 




> Miles was healthy to start the 02-03 season--he led the team in scoring in 4 of their 7 preseason games. He also was healthy enough to play in their first 9 games as they started 2-7.
> 
> I'm not saying that we will only win 17 games this season (as the Cavs did when they had Miles for an entire year), but I don't see Darius being around for a full season as that big of a boon for Portland, either.


That Cavs team had absolutely nobody else to play for them besides Miles, Davis, and Illgauskas. Nobody to direct the offense and make things happen. Just a bunch of scorers in Davis and Illgauskas looking for their own game. 



> About Clark: sorry if you need smilies to point out sarcasm to you.


This is a serious discussion, we don't expect sarcasm when debating. 



> About Seattle: I don't see how people here can ignore how they (a) were only 4 games worse than the Blazers last year, (b) had their best player miss over a quarter of the games, and (c) had their top power forward miss ALL of the games.
> 
> That adds up to a good chance of passing Portland in the standings this year.


They lost such a large part of their team in Brent Barry. Nobody on that team will replace Barry completely. Had their top power forward miss all of the games? He hasn't even played a regular season game and you are calling him their top power forward? Ed you must be joking. The Sonics aren't the only ones with problems, we had an injured Derek Anderson playing and really screwing this team up. We had to adjust the team's play when three significant trades went down. You are quick to call some guy who's never even played an NBA game the team's top power forward but you are unwilling to see that our very own team had many problems within themselves. 




> I fail to see how people keep whistling in the dark about Bonzi. Maybe it's the fact that some Blazers fans have admitted that there is NO situation where they will admit the Wells trade was a bad one, and now they're trying to justify their position.
> 
> Look at how the Blazers team did with him (either over the past several years, or even to start the year) and then without him. Then look at how the Grizzlies team did without him (either over the past several years, or even to start the year) and then with him.
> 
> ...


It wasn't Bonzi's departure who made this team go downhill, it was Rasheed's. Bonzi was signle handedly screwing this team up as much as I liked him before in the past, and I don't care about his behavior off the court. I'm talking about his on the court player, he was garbage for us towards the end. Rasheed's departure and the adjustment of having Shareef and Theo Ratliff was why we were going downhill.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MAS RipCity</b>!
> 
> 
> 50 wins is nothing, and we will easily get that, we had 41 last year, we could easily get an extra 9 wins with Theo and Darius for a full year. Reconize.


Odds are you lose 10 more games than you win next year. I think you are going to end up disappointed.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MAS RipCity</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LMAO Thanks man, just trying to let people see the light.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> Are you being realistic when you say Portland hasn't improved?


Absolutely.



> They added one of the deadliest 4th quarter players in the history of the league, Nick Van Excel for two wasted roster spots in Dale Davis and Dickau.


NVE is coming off of a major injury and wasn't that good last year even when he was on the floor. Players rarely get better when they're 32 or 33 years of age, and NVE turns 33 in November.



> To say we didn't improve is laughable, if you want to debate how significant the improvement is, that's fine but to say we didn't move in either direction indicates a true bias by you.


That you're pointing to a single Richie Frahm game as an indication of improvement shows how weak your case is.



> Yea and everyone picked the Blazers to win it all the year they acquired Dale Davis and Shawn Kemp. Everyone who follows the NBA thought the Lakers would win it all last season. Do you see a trend here Ed?


Sure. Experts are often wrong. Is that news?



> No, you are incorrect. I saw Mark Cuban on Fox Sports stating how he wasn't willing to give Nash a new contract because he say the dude break down in the middle of games. Mark Cuban stated that it would be surprising to see Nash not miss a significant amount of games this upcoming season. I think we could take Mark Cuban's word over yours. There's plenty of evidence, just look outside the net.


The evidence is a single Mark Cuban interview you saw?

And does NBA League Pass count as outside the net? Cause I've got it, and I watched Nash a lot last year. 



> As you are outside looking in, yea you can say that but I'd much rather take the owner's word for it than just a fan who just looks at stat sheets.


Well, I'd rather trust a fan that just looks at stat sheets than at one who farms pumpkins. Which fan only looks at stat sheets? And what does she have to do with this thread?



> Well it depends what you want to do. You want to put all your eggs in one basket now then fine, go for it. The Suns didn't address any of their needs besides signing Nash who was given an insane contract.


They didn't address ANY of their needs other than getting a starting PG, huh? Boy, that's like saying the US has never used nukes except in World War II... kind renders the original statement irrelevant.



> Maybe they should have focused on getting a need rather than acquiring pure talent. That doesn't help, as you see by the Blazers past.


Yeah. Those Western Conference Finals and constant playoffs were really a drag. Hopefully Portland follows your advice and doesn't add any players of consequence so we can avoid further unpleasantries.



> Agreed, there talent IS much better, but if you take Sloan out of there and replace him with anyone, there would be no way they would be in any way contending for the Playoffs.


The Jazz have plenty of talent now, Sloan or no Sloan. Arroyo, Harpring, AK47, Boozer, and Okur is a nice starting 5. Their bench isn't too bad, either.



> Had their top power forward miss all of the games? He hasn't even played a regular season game and you are calling him their top power forward? Ed you must be joking.


I'm absolutely not. Who's better at the 4 spot for the Sonics? 



> The Sonics aren't the only ones with problems, we had an injured Derek Anderson playing and really screwing this team up. We had to adjust the team's play when three significant trades went down. You are quick to call some guy who's never even played an NBA game the team's top power forward but you are unwilling to see that our very own team had many problems within themselves.


Portland got worse after the Bonzi trade, got an uptick after the McInnis deal, and got worse again after trading Rasheed. The uncertainty surrounding the team and the trades certainly wasn't a good thing, but the team simply isn't as good now as it was this time last year. The same can't be said for the majority of the teams at the Blazers' level.



> It wasn't Bonzi's departure who made this team go downhill, it was Rasheed's.


The team went 17-16 after trading Rasheed. Off from the 8-2 games right before the Atlanta deal, but not particularly terrible considering they were a .500 team throughout the whole season.

The team went 9-16 between the Bonzi and McInnis trades. *That's* when the season was lost.

If Bonzi was single-handedly screwing up the team, I wish the team would have let him keep doing it at least until we had a healthy 2 guard to use after trading him.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Absolutely.


You just lost all credibility you had. 




> NVE is coming off of a major injury and wasn't that good last year even when he was on the floor. Players rarely get better when they're 32 or 33 years of age, and NVE turns 33 in November.


That's fine. It's not like we have him for the next 4 or 5 seasons. He is here for one season to help out for 20 or so minutes a game. There aren't many better options in this league than Van Excel to have as a combo guard off the bench. 




> That you're pointing to a single Richie Frahm game as an indication of improvement shows how weak your case is.


Wrong. I'm pointing out that when Richie Frahm was given significant minutes in games, he has made the most of them. If he can get minutes with our team, I see no reason why he can't make a significant impact as a shooter that we need off the bench. 




> Sure. Experts are often wrong. Is that news?


So do you want to hand your season over to the experts? You just stated that they are often wrong, well if you know that then don't bring up their opinions to begin with. 




> The evidence is a single Mark Cuban interview you saw?
> 
> And does NBA League Pass count as outside the net? Cause I've got it, and I watched Nash a lot last year.


Single Mark Cuban interview > Any Opinion you have concerning his former players. You aren't the only person with NBA League Pass, I think I'd rather go with a former employer about the guy than a guy who watches the guy on TV. There's more that goes on than what you see on TV and as a former employer of Steve Nash, his single interview is much more credible than all of your opinions about the guy. 




> Well, I'd rather trust a fan that just looks at stat sheets than at one who farms pumpkins. Which fan only looks at stat sheets? And what does she have to do with this thread?


We aren't talking about anyone farming pumpkins, we are talking about an owner vs a fan that you are as far as credibility goes concerning his former player. To claim you are some how more credible than Cuban about one of his former players isn't exactly fair. 




> They didn't address ANY of their needs other than getting a starting PG, huh? Boy, that's like saying the US has never used nukes except in World War II... kind renders the original statement irrelevant.


Yea and Nick Van Excel was once a starting point guard in this league, but things done changed haven't they? Your point is invalid, you are for some reason insinuating that Nash will be as effective as he was on the Mavericks last season. It's possible but from all accounts the guy is about to break down and won't have as much reinforcements from his teammates as he did with the Mavs, more work to do. 




> Yeah. Those Western Conference Finals and constant playoffs were really a drag. Hopefully Portland follows your advice and doesn't add any players of consequence so we can avoid further unpleasantries.


We underachieved with all the money we spent. You can't claim otherwise. We are still paying the price for those "runs" 4 years later. Sacrificing the future for the present is fine, just don't competely mess it up for the next 4 or 5 years because you gave lucrative contracts to players that didn't deserve it. You have low expectations fo your team. Ask T-Wolves fans if they are satisfied with the Playoff runs there team has gone through and I think you will see where I'm coming from. 




> The Jazz have plenty of talent now, Sloan or no Sloan. Arroyo, Harpring, AK47, Boozer, and Okur is a nice starting 5. Their bench isn't too bad, either.


They do have nice talent, but so do the Clippers. The thing that differentiates the two teams is coaching. 




> I'm absolutely not. Who's better at the 4 spot for the Sonics?


WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THE GUY HASN'T PLAYED A SINGLE GAME IN HIS CAREER!!! Sweet Baby Jesus! Doesn't matter if you had a 60 year old Kevin Willis on the team, if he guy hasn't played a single NBA game how do you know he is the best power forward on the team buddy? You don't.




> Portland got worse after the Bonzi trade, got an uptick after the McInnis deal, and got worse again after trading Rasheed. The uncertainty surrounding the team and the trades certainly wasn't a good thing, but the team simply isn't as good now as it was this time last year. The same can't be said for the majority of the teams at the Blazers' level.


Rasheed. Rasheed. Rasheed. Bonzi means nothing. Rasheed's trade is what messed up Playoff chances for the team, not Bonzi. 



> If Bonzi was single-handedly screwing up the team, I wish the team would have let him keep doing it at least until we had a healthy 2 guard to use after trading him.


I do agree, we didn't get a starting quality guard out of the deal but in defense I think McInnis helped the Blazers last season more than Bonzi did.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

From Mark Cuban's blog:

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-32844



> The morning of July 1, as I got ready to go to Steves, I had determined that I would offer Steve 9mm dollars a year for 4 years, with a 5th year with half guaranteed, but he could get the 5th year fully guaranteed by playing enough games and minutes the year before. I was guessing we wouldend up doing 60 games and 20 minutes per game to get there. I thought it was very fair.
> 
> About dinner time that night I got a call. Donnie said I had to call Steve. I did. To make a long story short, steve said he got an incredible offer from the Suns. He wouldnt tell me the exact numbers, but every time I said a number, he said it was more. He said they flew down a whole group of people, including Amare Stoudemire to recruit him. He was calling because he felt like he owed me the opportunity to match it. I was stunned. I told him to give me a little bit of time to think it over and I would call him back. He was fine with that.
> 
> I called Donnie and told him the range of numbers that I had given Steve, and that the offer was higher. I think Donnie was as stunned as I was. Based on the ranges I had thrown out to Steve, this might not have been a max out deal, but it sure sounded like it was close. There was no way I was going to match it.


Looks to me like he made Steve Nash an offer.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> That's fine. It's not like we have him for the next 4 or 5 seasons. He is here for one season to help out for 20 or so minutes a game. There aren't many better options in this league than Van Excel to have as a combo guard off the bench.


I disagree. NVE is small, slow and doesn't do anything particularly well. He's a good backup PG, but as a SG he's going to get dominated defensively.



> So do you want to hand your season over to the experts? You just stated that they are often wrong, well if you know that then don't bring up their opinions to begin with.


I find it hard to believe that you don't understand that a single indicator can be wrong most of the time but still a better indicator than anything else.

It's similar to a plurality vs. a majority.



> Single Mark Cuban interview > Any Opinion you have concerning his former players. You aren't the only person with NBA League Pass, I think I'd rather go with a former employer about the guy than a guy who watches the guy on TV. There's more that goes on than what you see on TV and as a former employer of Steve Nash, his single interview is much more credible than all of your opinions about the guy.


Read this and tell me Cuban and the Mavs didn't want Nash. 

I don't think anyone honestly can. The Mavs wanted Nash, and wanted him badly, but weren't willing to go as high as the Suns.



> We aren't talking about anyone farming pumpkins, we are talking about an owner vs a fan that you are as far as credibility goes concerning his former player. To claim you are some how more credible than Cuban about one of his former players isn't exactly fair.


I'm glad that you agree we're not talking about pumpkins. We're also not talking about "a fan that just looks at stat sheets".

It's not about Cuban's "credibility" against mine. In fact, he and I agree. It's YOU who are out of step with reality.

Your misrepresentation of Cuban's position about whether they wanted Nash is either ignorant or disingenuous, and no amount of attacking me as "a fan that just looks at stat sheets" will change that.



> Yea and Nick Van Excel was once a starting point guard in this league, but things done changed haven't they? Your point is invalid, you are for some reason insinuating that Nash will be as effective as he was on the Mavericks last season.


I'm "somehow insinuating" that because it's quite likely. Steve Nash is 30 years old and has missed 4 games in 3 seasons. He MIGHT break down and suddenly be unable to play but that's not likely.



> Ask T-Wolves fans if they are satisfied with the Playoff runs there team has gone through and I think you will see where I'm coming from.


The Timberwolves haven't made it out of the first round. What do they have to do with anything?



> WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THE GUY HASN'T PLAYED A SINGLE GAME IN HIS CAREER!!! Sweet Baby Jesus! Doesn't matter if you had a 60 year old Kevin Willis on the team, if he guy hasn't played a single NBA game how do you know he is the best power forward on the team buddy? You don't.


That's silly. Didn't we know that LeBron James was going to be a starter for the Cavs before he played an NBA game? The Sonics had no one at the 4 spot last year of any significance. Collison was an experienced rookie who would have helped them quite a bit.

And the fact is, though, that Collison HAS played in NBA games. Not NBA regular-season games, but he was solid as a rookie in Summer League.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I disagree. NVE is small, slow and doesn't do anything particularly well. He's a good backup PG, but as a SG he's going to get dominated defensively.


He can score in bunches and can become a nice punch off the bench, also he is one of the very few clutch players left in the NBA. 




> I find it hard to believe that you don't understand that a single indicator can be wrong most of the time but still a better indicator than anything else.
> 
> It's similar to a plurality vs. a majority.


I just don't put all my stock into something that's too premature to determine. I don't flap my gums when comparing and contrasting issues is premature. 




> Read this and tell me Cuban and the Mavs didn't want Nash.
> 
> I don't think anyone honestly can. The Mavs wanted Nash, and wanted him badly, but weren't willing to go as high as the Suns.


Of course if they could have gotten Nash for cheap and short term then they would have, but what the Suns paid him was lucrative and I'm glad our management didn't make an insane move like that. You want to make moves, just to say you made moves. They don't make sense. 




> I'm glad that you agree we're not talking about pumpkins. We're also not talking about "a fan that just looks at stat sheets".


We pretty much are. I don't think you have seen significant amount of Nash's game last season. Just my theory. 

[/QUOTE]
It's not about Cuban's "credibility" against mine. In fact, he and I agree. It's YOU who are out of step with reality.

Your misrepresentation of Cuban's position about whether they wanted Nash is either ignorant or disingenuous, and no amount of attacking me as "a fan that just looks at stat sheets" will change that.[/QUOTE]

You STILL haven't seen the interview Fox Sports had with Cuban, so you STILL can't talk about Cuban's position in that specific time frame. I wasn't misrepresenting Cuban's position. I accurately portrayed it. Don't flatter yourself, nobody is attacking you, you are just overly sensitive.



> I'm "somehow insinuating" that because it's quite likely. Steve Nash is 30 years old and has missed 4 games in 3 seasons. He MIGHT break down and suddenly be unable to play but that's not likely.


It's a nice hypothesis Ed O. but like I said, things happen behind scenes and just because you went to nba.com to see how many games Nash has missed in the last 3 seasons I think Mark Cuban most notably knows more on Nash's health than me or you. 


[/QUOTE]
The Timberwolves haven't made it out of the first round. What do they have to do with anything?

I would have thought NBA TV taught you that they got to the 3rd round of the NBA Playoffs last season but I guess not. Check your facts again. 


That's silly. Didn't we know that LeBron James was going to be a starter for the Cavs before he played an NBA game? The Sonics had no one at the 4 spot last year of any significance. Collison was an experienced rookie who would have helped them quite a bit.

Lebron James is also the most hailed basketball player coming out of high school..... of all time. Comparing him and Collison is silly. If Collison was healthy last season he still wouldn't have started, Radmonovic would have still started for the majority of games. He averaged 12 points 5 rebounds last season and puts up more than decent numbers for being a 4th or 5th option. This upcoming season you may see Collison start but I think he will perhaps come off the bench for Fortson who is a very good rebounder. 

[/QUOTE]
And the fact is, though, that Collison HAS played in NBA games. Not NBA regular-season games, but he was solid as a rookie in Summer League.

Ed O. [/QUOTE]

Cough....cough.... Qyntel Woods... cough. Nobody considers the summer league NBA games, NOBODY. NBA pre-season games, sure but not summer league. I can give you a long long list of players who were impressive in summer league but didn't amount to anything in an NBA game.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> He can score in bunches and can become a nice punch off the bench, also he is one of the very few clutch players left in the NBA.


He sure was "clutch" for Denver, huh? And the for the Warriors? Funny how all these teams are so willing to move him if he's so valuable.



> Of course if they could have gotten Nash for cheap and short term then they would have, but what the Suns paid him was lucrative and I'm glad our management didn't make an insane move like that. You want to make moves, just to say you made moves. They don't make sense.


That's bull. Please point out to me where I thought Portland should have made moves to make moves. You might be getting a tad confused. Here's what I think that might have you mixed up:

-- Portland's moves have been inconsequential or worse, with the exception of the Miles move.

-- Portland's competition, in the division and in the conference, have made several moves that have strengthened their teams.

Both of these things, along with our .500 record last year, point towards mediocrity. 



> We pretty much are. I don't think you have seen significant amount of Nash's game last season. Just my theory.


You VASTLY underestimate the amount of basketball I watch. You've either got a short memory or you haven't been in this community very long if you think I don't watch a ton of non-Blazers NBA basketball. I had Nash on a fantasy team last year, so I paid especial attention to him.



> You STILL haven't seen the interview Fox Sports had with Cuban, so you STILL can't talk about Cuban's position in that specific time frame. I wasn't misrepresenting Cuban's position. I accurately portrayed it. Don't flatter yourself, nobody is attacking you, you are just overly sensitive.


If you're not attacking me by calling me a fan that just watches the stat sheets, then you're a sloppier writer than I thought.



> It's a nice hypothesis Ed O. but like I said, things happen behind scenes and just because you went to nba.com to see how many games Nash has missed in the last 3 seasons I think Mark Cuban most notably knows more on Nash's health than me or you.


Well if YOU think you know what HE thinks, then the stats must be wrong.



> I would have thought NBA TV taught you that they got to the 3rd round of the NBA Playoffs last season but I guess not. Check your facts again.


You are absolutely correct. My apologies. 



> Lebron James is also the most hailed basketball player coming out of high school..... of all time. Comparing him and Collison is silly. If Collison was healthy last season he still wouldn't have started, Radmonovic would have still started for the majority of games. He averaged 12 points 5 rebounds last season and puts up more than decent numbers for being a 4th or 5th option. This upcoming season you may see Collison start but I think he will perhaps come off the bench for Fortson who is a very good rebounder.


Radmanovich didn't even start HALF the Sonics' games last year. Why? Because he's not a power forward in skill set or temperment.

If Collison had been healthy last year, he would have definitely been the starter at the 4 for most of the year.



> Cough....cough.... Qyntel Woods... cough. Nobody considers the summer league NBA games, NOBODY. NBA pre-season games, sure but not summer league. I can give you a long long list of players who were impressive in summer league but didn't amount to anything in an NBA game.


First of all: I don't believe that you can give me a "long long list" of players that were impressive in summer league but didn't amount to anything in an NBA game.

Secondly, Woods HAS amounted to something in an NBA game: he won the game against Miami last year by hitting free throws at the end of the game as part of an 11 point, 6 rebound performance in 18 minutes.

Finally: it's not true that NOBODY considers the summer league NBA games. I do. I might be the only person on the planet, but I find it hard to believe.

The Sonics saw enough of Collison in summer league to really like him and bemoan his loss last year. Living in Seattle I heard it quite a bit from team officials.

If you don't believe them: that's cool. But don't act like I'm the only one that thinks it.

Ed O.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

I can understand wanting to be optimistic about the home team, but let's be sensible here.

Other teams in the West made moves to improve their team, and the Blazers did not. Get over it!

As for the Nash situation - I have no doubt that the Suns inked him to too long a deal. That has ZERO to do with the fact that he will make them a better team for the next 2-3 seasons. (and spare me the nonsense about Cuban's spin-doctoring)

Seattle is a tougher call. The loss of Barry obviously hurts. OTOH, it is "premature" to argue that having Ridnour and Collison healthy won't have a positive impact. 

Utah? I don't think anyone is debating the fact that they added talent to an already well-coached team.

It would take several of the play-off teams from last season going in the tank to give the Blazers a real shot. Even a .500 record will be tough.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> I can understand wanting to be optimistic about the home team, but let's be sensible here.
> 
> Other teams in the West made moves to improve their team, and the Blazers did not. Get over it!
> ...


I'm with you, "Old Man". I think you cut to the chase quite nicely. I've got all sorts of hope for the future and, presuming there aren't mid-season trades this next year of the same scale as the last (how many starters did we have over the season?), I could see them squeaking out a couple more wins than last year's 41. I'll be amazed, though, if they manage even 45 given the strength of the other teams. And honestly, given the relative youth of guys like Kobe, KG, T-mac, Ming, and even Duncan, I think something nearly magical will have to happen here in Portland for this team to be a serious contender in the next five or six years.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> He sure was "clutch" for Denver, huh? And the for the Warriors? Funny how all these teams are so willing to move him if he's so valuable.


He actually was pretty clutch in Denver but maybe you didn't have NBA TV then. They are willing to move him because he is an attitude and his career is declining, also his contract is valuable to teams looking to free up cap space. 




> That's bull. Please point out to me where I thought Portland should have made moves to make moves. You might be getting a tad confused. Here's what I think that might have you mixed up:
> 
> -- Portland's moves have been inconsequential or worse, with the exception of the Miles move.
> 
> ...


Portland's moves have improved this team I believe and I don't think mangament should be in a rush to pay players on long term contracts when there careers are declining. I didn't see many players that would have made us a significant improvement this off season. Name some players that we could have gone after this off-season without locking ourselves into long term contracts like we do with DA and Ruben. I don't think talent level is the problem, I think it is coaching as I stated before. 




> You VASTLY underestimate the amount of basketball I watch. You've either got a short memory or you haven't been in this community very long if you think I don't watch a ton of non-Blazers NBA basketball. I had Nash on a fantasy team last year, so I paid especial attention to him.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not attacking me by calling me a fan that just watches the stat sheets, then you're a sloppier writer than I thought.


You may have thought I was calling you out when I said fans who only look at stat sheets but I was actually calling out most fans who hit message boards talking about a player who they don't see much nationally.




> Well if YOU think you know what HE thinks, then the stats must be wrong.


I'm not trying to determine what Mark Cuban thinks, I only stated what I heard him say on Fox Sports. 



> You are absolutely correct. My apologies.


Okay.



> Radmanovich didn't even start HALF the Sonics' games last year. Why? Because he's not a power forward in skill set or temperment.


Agreed, though Radmonovic is a skilled player. If Seattle truely wanted to bring in a solid power forward, they could have with the log jam at every wing position they have. They have an assortment of SGs and SFs and they chose not to make any moves. 



> If Collison had been healthy last year, he would have definitely been the starter at the 4 for most of the year.


Hard to say, we'll see what happens this year and we will see if he can beat Fortson out for the starting position. 




> First of all: I don't believe that you can give me a "long long list" of players that were impressive in summer league but didn't amount to anything in an NBA game.
> 
> 
> Secondly, Woods HAS amounted to something in an NBA game: he won the game against Miami last year by hitting free throws at the end of the game as part of an 11 point, 6 rebound performance in 18 minutes.


No, as much as I would like to say Qyntel Woods has improved much and might break out I doubt it. He has been an underachiever and he hasn't amounted to anything. Going from being compared to Tracy McGrady to nearly falling out of the first round and may be facing falling out of the league. He hasn't amounted to what he should have and I don't think anyone can say he has amounted to anything signficant in this league when he has all the skills in the world to become at the very least a very good player. 



> Finally: it's not true that NOBODY considers the summer league NBA games. I do. I might be the only person on the planet, but I find it hard to believe.


If the teams don't even put the box scores or recaps of the summer league games on their OWN team websites then I don't consider it an NBA game. They at least show box scores to pre-season games on their sites. 



> The Sonics saw enough of Collison in summer league to really like him and bemoan his loss last year. Living in Seattle I heard it quite a bit from team officials.
> 
> If you don't believe them: that's cool. But don't act like I'm the only one that thinks it.


I have also heard good things from Collison but it really doesn't mean anything until he actually plays. I have heard much better news about Curry and Chandler time and time again, along with our very own Qyntel Woods. I don't doubt that Collison can be a good player but to say he would have started for the Sonics is premature, he wasn't a very strong guy coming into this league and even if he started I wouldn't see him getting more than 20 minutes a game last season. This season should be different for the guy.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Well the bottom line IMO is WE DON"T KNOW how good\bad POR will be. SO this talk of POR not making the playoffs is BS IMO. I would say it doesn't look promising as POR would have to beat out one of the following teams, all of whom SHOULD make the playoffs.

SA, MIN, SAC, DEN, MEM, HOU, LAL, DAL 

and if one or even two of those teams slipped (always a possibility), POR would have to beat out

UTA, PHX, NO, SEA, GS & LAC for that spot. Not an easy task, but certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

Just b\c a team makes moves, or signs players of note, doesn't guarantee they will be better, and vice versa. I think POR has the potential to surprise some people this year, they could be better than many people think they will. I would say POR is 50%\50% to make the playoffs. Of course, we won't really know more until we see them play some games.


----------

