# The Nash bashing has got to stop



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Look what the Blazers did last night. They beat a much more experienced Knicks team that was desperate for a win to keep their playoff hopes alive. The Knicks announcers kept saying the game was a "must win" for the Knicks.

Yet the Blazers beat them with most of their best players sitting on the bench (or at home). Theo Ratliff, Derek Anderson, Nick Van Exel and Zach Randolph were all missing. These were all guys we were counting on only a few months ago to be key players this year. Instead, we beat the Knicks with big contributions from players that John Nash drafted or picked up: Telfair, Przybilla, and Outlaw. The Przybilla acquisition itself was a brilliant move by Nash. He could win GM of the Year just for that. But he also drafted Outlaw, who looks like a rising star now, and Telfair, who has all the tools to be a great floor general. Not to mention the two Russians he got in the draft, whom no one had even heard of. I have a feeling Nash may also find a way to get something for Stoudamire, DA, and maybe Rahim in the off-season.

By the start of next season, Portland could be sitting on a motherload of young talent the likes of which the NBA has not seen in a long time. We'll not only have a top 5 pick in the lottery, we'll have our other Russian with us, and perhaps another draft pick or young player or two via trades of some of our veterans. In short, Nash has built the foundation for a great team in only two years.

Nash has taken a lot of grief on this board, and I think it's time we acknowledge the incredible job he has done.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Look what the Blazers did last night. They beat a much more experienced Knicks team that was desperate for a win to keep their playoff hopes alive. The Knicks announcers kept saying the game was a "must win" for the Knicks.
> 
> Yet the Blazers beat them with most of their best players sitting on the bench (or at home). Theo Ratliff, Derek Anderson, Nick Van Exel and Zach Randolph were all missing. These were all guys we were counting on only a few months ago to be key players this year. Instead, we beat the Knicks with big contributions from players that John Nash drafted or picked up: Telfair, Przybilla, and Outlaw. The Przybilla acquisition itself was a brilliant move by Nash. He could win GM of the Year just for that. But he also drafted Outlaw, who looks like a rising star now, and Telfair, who has all the tools to be a great floor general. Not to mention the two Russians he got in the draft, whom no one had even heard of. I have a feeling Nash may also find a way to get something for Stoudamire, DA, and maybe Rahim in the off-season.
> 
> ...



Actually if you want to get really technical about it, Outlaw was Whitsitt's last pick. Bob was still in charge at that point. However Telfair, Khryapa and Monya all appear to be solid picks.


----------



## ODiggity (Feb 23, 2005)

You are correct-- except when it comes to Travis Outlaw. Essentially, TOutlaw was the last gasp of a beaten Bob Whitsitt. But credit Nash for not trading him away this season without giving him some game run. And in the games, he's proving to be a real catch.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Nash has taken a lot of grief on this board, and I think it's time we acknowledge the incredible job he has done.


to go on what MM said, Outlaw wasn't his pick. Nash wasn't with the franchise when Travis was picked. But I do think a lot of people are short-sighted, and expected things to change instantly. 

Thats not necessarily saying that things won't be bad next year (I think they'll be much closed to .500 than this year) but that there's a big picture that a lot of Blazer fans refuse to see. Some of it's because A: they're really front running bandwagoners B: they like griping about the team C: they're still mad that that they got rid of W&W D: they actually don't follow the team much and like to continually associate the "Jail Blazers" with the current team (this is a lot like A) E: they don't know how to read paintings.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

It would be interesting to know how much input either Whitsitt or Nash had on draft picks over the past few years, and how much Warkentein (sp.?) was responsible. We do know that Telfair was Nash's pick, and there's rumor that Warkentein left because of it (he wanted Jefferson). But the Russians? Outlaw? I dunno. Two areas it IS fair to judge a GM on are trades and signings. And so far Nash has only pleased the Wallace-and-Bonzi-bashers, and those who wanted Ratliff, Zach and Miles to get long contracts. 

I don't deny that I'm happy about some players acquired under Nash - the two Russians and Przybilla, and (at the time, but less so now) Miles. But "the Nash bashing has to stop"? I don't think so.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

I hardly think it prudent to acknowledge a "good job" based on one game - regardless of how important it was for the opposing team. 

Even the Charlotte Bobcats win a game here and there.

Play.


----------



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

so forget everything nash has done over a home win against the ny knicks. good thing your not the gm. pay raise for whoever has one good game each year.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I hardly think it prudent to acknowledge a "good job" based on one game - regardless of how important it was for the opposing team.
> 
> Even the Charlotte Bobcats win a game here and there.
> 
> Play.



:clap:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tradetheo said:


> so forget everything nash has done over a home win against the ny knicks. good thing your not the gm. pay raise for whoever has one good game each year.


the irony of someone with the words "tradetheo" in their screen name telling someone else it's a good thing they're not the GM is priceless, ain't it? 

btw, it's a good thing none of us are the GM. We'd screw up the team worse than we all want to admit we would.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

The Knicks stink. That we were able to beat them last night at home has precious little to do with what level of job Nash is doing.

Nash has blown up the team, and anyone who acts like he's not responsible for the pitiful wins-loss record is just wrong, IMO. If he has a plan to put things back together again: great. I'll sing his praises when he does. Until then, though, he deserves almost all the criticism he received here, IMO.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> If he has a plan to put things back together again: great. I'll sing his praises when he does. Until then, though, he deserves almost all the criticism he received here, IMO.
> 
> Ed O.


Ed, you're certainly quick to give various players the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps, you'll provide Nash the same courtesy - especially since you can't possibly know for sure if/that John might be under a higher directive? In other words, Nash may not be acting alone during this mass cleanup operation.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Nash has blown up the team, and anyone who acts like he's not responsible for the pitiful wins-loss record is just wrong, IMO.


Duh. It's called "rebuilding," in case you haven't noticed, Ed. The point is not that we have a poor record, it's that we have a great young foundation in place and hope for the future. And that's to Nash's credit.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Look what the Blazers did last night. They beat a much more experienced Knicks team that was desperate for a win to keep their playoff hopes alive. The Knicks announcers kept saying the game was a "must win" for the Knicks.
> 
> Yet the Blazers beat them with most of their best players sitting on the bench (or at home). Theo Ratliff, Derek Anderson, Nick Van Exel and Zach Randolph were all missing. These were all guys we were counting on only a few months ago to be key players this year. Instead, we beat the Knicks with big contributions from players that John Nash drafted or picked up: Telfair, Przybilla, and Outlaw. The Przybilla acquisition itself was a brilliant move by Nash. He could win GM of the Year just for that. But he also drafted Outlaw, who looks like a rising star now, and Telfair, who has all the tools to be a great floor general. Not to mention the two Russians he got in the draft, whom no one had even heard of. I have a feeling Nash may also find a way to get something for Stoudamire, DA, and maybe Rahim in the off-season.
> 
> ...


I do like some of the moves (or non moves) that Nash has made since becomming the Blazers GM. It totally sucks that we're losing so much, and he is partially to blame for that right now, but it isn't fair to judge him quite yet. Let's see what he can do this offseason. I like almost all the young guys we have, and there are at least 2 more quality youngsters to come (Monia & lottery pick). Plus he *might* be able to work a S&T with Nick, Damon or Reef. If he can land a better than avearage SG with a S&T + current youth + future youth (Monia & lottery pick), I'll be very happy with the job Nash has done.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Bashing Mr. Nash is a waste of energy. No one can make any accessment of his JOB until at least Sept 2005 (IMHO). He has had one draft and probably commanded to move Wells and Sheed for little return. 

IF he can draft solid again, sign a contributing player (top 8) with MLE, and make something happen with the expiring deals this summer - he's done his job well considering the circumstances he was given.

IF he cannot add a top 8 player or a new starting SG before next season - he hasn't.

No sweat.....just wait.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Lots of people here said, well, give Nash till the trading deadline, can't judge him before that. Now, some say give Nash till the end of the summer. Next fall, give Nash till the trading deadline. Next spring, give Nash till the end of the summer.

What it looks like to me at this point is that Nash has a good eye for talent but no head for business. 

As for Outlaw, he wasn't a Nash pick, and I think that makes him a likely candidate to be gone this summer. I love Travis and hope we keep him, but he's not Nash's guy, and Miles and Khryapa are. 

barfo


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> As for Outlaw, he wasn't a Nash pick, and I think that makes him a likely candidate to be gone this summer.


Yeah, that's the same reason Nash let Randolph go. Er, wait a minute . . .


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Yeah, that's the same reason Nash let Randolph go. Er, wait a minute . . .


Yep, he kept the Most Improved Player from the previous year. He's also kept DA and Ruben and Damon from the old days. Doesn't mean he isn't cleaning house. 

barfo


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Ed O said:


> The Knicks stink. That we were able to beat them last night at home has precious little to do with what level of job Nash is doing.
> 
> Nash has blown up the team, and anyone who acts like he's not responsible for the pitiful wins-loss record is just wrong, IMO. If he has a plan to put things back together again: great. I'll sing his praises when he does. Until then, though, he deserves almost all the criticism he received here, IMO.
> 
> Ed O.


I think that Nash deserves a fair share of the Blame for our bad record at this point, but I think that Allen and even Whitsitt might deserve more, and I think that some of our fans and our media deserve the most of all. Whitsitt won a good number of games with a team of players that our media convinced some of our fans, the high profile fans in particular, were "troublemakers" and weren't good people to root for. Allen didn't want to lose these fans and their money, so he decided that changes had to be made and Whitsitt and the "troublemakers" had to go. As much as you or I wanted to keep the entire team together, and I did by the way, it just wasn't going to happen, IMO. If we go with that assumption, has Nash really done that bad of a job rebuilding? Yes, I would have liked to have gotten more for Bonzi, but he had just had a big argument with a coach we weren't ready to fire and we were able to use the expiring contract we got for him to get a good deal for Rasheed. I wish we were paying Ratliff about half as much as we are, but I still am happy we have him on the team, Reef is a good player who just doesn't fit that well on our team but I still wouldn't be shocked if we got a team that thinks he's worth more than the MLE to agree to a sign and trade and we didn't keep Dickau but it looks like Nash was right about him being a good piece to get thrown in the trade. Now that the "troublemakers" are gone, I feel that we can get a better sense of how good Nash is as a GM, we have some nice young players who should improve and some nice tradeable assets in NVE's contract and the lottery pick. If we don't show signs of at least SOME improvement next season, then we might think of letting Nash go, but I don't blame him too much for not bringing us a championship yet.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> Ed, you're certainly quick to give various players the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps, you'll provide Nash the same courtesy - especially since you can't possibly know for sure if/that John might be under a higher directive? In other words, Nash may not be acting alone during this mass cleanup operation.


I don't give players the benefit of the doubt on the floor. I give them the benefit on off-the floor stuff (because I don't know them and don't feel like I should judge them).

I don't give Damon the benefit of the doubt. Because he's a consistent weakness, particularly on the defensive side. I don't give Theo the benefit of the doubt because he has a track record of being injury-prone, a poor rebounder, and an offensive nonentity.

Whether Nash was ordered to blow up the team or not: he's the one responsible to me. He's failed to win basketball games which is just about the only thing I will judge the man on.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> The Przybilla acquisition itself was a brilliant move by Nash. He could win GM of the Year just for that.


If Nash had an inkling Przybilla would be any good, he was an idiot not to sign him to a three-year deal, so that the team would have his Bird rights to extend him.

Most likely, he picked Przybilla up as a filler acquisition and was as blind-sided by Przybilla's success as everyone else.

So, either Nash was stupid or lucky. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I'll pick lucky.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Duh. It's called "rebuilding," in case you haven't noticed, Ed. The point is not that we have a poor record, it's that we have a great young foundation in place and hope for the future. And that's to Nash's credit.


(A) I don't see a "great young foundation". I see a Zach, an unproven PG and a bunch of swing men. It's got potential, but no more potential than most of the teams in the NBA.

(B) If "rebuilding" were an excuse, GMs would almost never be fired, and fans would almost never have anything to complain about. Call it what you will, it's losing.

As I said, if Nash turns it around I'll give him all the credit in the world. He has done nothing but make this team worse since he started over and I don't have the glowing optimism over our prospects that so many of you seem to have, so I'm going to speak out that I think Nash has failed in my eyes to date.

I'm not going to post that opinion every time I discuss him, but when someone makes a blanket "stop bashing Nash" post when we're in the middle of the most embarassing run of Blazers basketball in my adult lifetime, I'm going to take exception.

Ed O.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> If Nash had an inkling Przybilla would be any good, he was an idiot not to sign him to a three-year deal, so that the team would have his Bird rights to extend him.
> 
> Most likely, he picked Przybilla up as a filler acquisition and was as blind-sided by Przybilla's success as everyone else.
> 
> So, either Nash was stupid or lucky. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I'll pick lucky.


I was thinking the same thing, until I thought of another possibility. I saw an article the other day saying that Joel had thought that bigger was better but then realized that he was drafted so high because of his quickness, not his size, so he trimmed back down to his former weight. It could be that both he and Nash knew that he was going to improve this season and he wanted to get another contract ASAP so he asked for one year, Nash asked for three and they settled on two.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> If Nash had an inkling Przybilla would be any good, he was an idiot not to sign him to a three-year deal,


Yes, Nash is a total idiot, and you're a total genius. Too bad you're not running the team, so we could all be second-guessing you.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Yes, Nash is a total idiot, and you're a total genius. Too bad you're not running the team, so we could all be second-guessing you.


Why don't you attack his argument, rather than him? 

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Yes, Nash is a total idiot, and you're a total genius.


It took you a while, but you finally got it right.

I notice your reading skills remain as abysmal as ever. I actually didn't say Nash was stupid. I said he was lucky.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

gambitnut said:


> I was thinking the same thing, until I thought of another possibility. I saw an article the other day saying that Joel had thought that bigger was better but then realized that he was drafted so high because of his quickness, not his size, so he trimmed back down to his former weight. It could be that both he and Nash knew that he was going to improve this season and he wanted to get another contract ASAP so he asked for one year, Nash asked for three and they settled on two.


Yes, that's possible. I'd be surprised, though, if a guy at Przybilla's point in his career (considered a bust, no performance history to speak of) would turn down the security of a three year deal for the slight possibility of a big payday one year earlier.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

gambitnut said:


> It could be that both he and Nash knew that he was going to improve this season and he wanted to get another contract ASAP so he asked for one year, Nash asked for three and they settled on two.


More likely the reverse: Nash wanted a one-year deal, Joel's agent wanted 3, they settled on two. 

barfo


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Yes, that's possible. I'd be surprised, though, if a guy at Przybilla's point in his career (considered a bust, no performance history to speak of) would turn down the security of a three year deal for the slight possibility of a big payday one year earlier.


Would one more year really have given him that much more security? I think he might have deicided that a big payday would have given him MORE security that year. It isn't likely that the move would have backfired and he would have made LESS in his next contract. How much less could he have made?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

gambitnut said:


> Would one more year really have given him that much more security? I think he might have deicided that a big payday would have given him MORE security that year. It isn't likely that the move would have backfired and he would have made LESS in his next contract. How much less could he have made?


Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not sure he benefits from a 2 year rather than a 3 year deal. If he takes a three year deal, he may have to wait an extra year for the big contract, but the contract can be bigger and there are more teams that can take it (via sign-n-trade). After the 2 year deal, all he can get is the MLE, unless he goes to a team under the cap, of which there are precious few. So unless he thinks he has 2 good years in him but not 3, he's smarter to delay the big payday and take the 3 year deal. Assuming one was offered in the first place. Or am I on drugs?

barfo


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

barfo said:


> Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not sure he benefits from a 2 year rather than a 3 year deal. If he takes a three year deal, he may have to wait an extra year for the big contract, but the contract can be bigger and there are more teams that can take it (via sign-n-trade). After the 2 year deal, all he can get is the MLE, unless he goes to a team under the cap, of which there are precious few. So unless he thinks he has 2 good years in him but not 3, he's smarter to delay the big payday and take the 3 year deal. Assuming one was offered in the first place. Or am I on drugs?
> 
> barfo


Good point, but they're always teams willing to overpay for big men. So, while there might not have been many teams able to give him a nice contract, he's probably the kind of player some team will give one to.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I notice your reading skills remain as abysmal as ever. I actually didn't say Nash was stupid. I said he was lucky.


I think you need to read your own posts more carefully. You said, in essence, that Nash was an idiot for not signing Przybilla to a 3-year-deal. That means he was stupid, does it not?

Yes, you threw in the "lucky" business at the end, but it's pretty clear what you think of Nash. Here he makes a great pick-up in Przybilla (a true steal) and all you can do is fault him for not signing the guy to a 3-year deal.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> I think you need to read your own posts more carefully. You said, in essence, that Nash was an idiot for not signing Przybilla to a 3-year-deal. That means he was stupid, does it not?


Are you just pretendng not to understand a pretty simple proposition? I said *either* he was stupid (if he knew Przybilla would be good and didn't sign him to a three year deal) *or* he was lucky (if he didn't know Przybila would be good).

Do you understand the meaning of "or"? Are you confused between the logical OR and XOR, perhaps? This was XOR. Only one of the two can be true, not both simultaneously. As per English.

And I picked lucky. Therefore, meaning *not* stupid. Look up "or" in the dictionary.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

We all know what you said, Minstrel. Your post is sitting there for everyone to see. I'll leave it to others to decide what the basic tenor of your argument was. Have a good day.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> We all know what you said, Minstrel. Your post is sitting there for everyone to see. I'll leave it to others to decide what the basic tenor of your argument was. Have a good day.


as someone who has been known to misinterpret what others have said, and have others misunderstand what I wrote...let me tackle this one:


minstrel said



> If Nash had an inkling Przybilla would be any good, he was an idiot not to sign him to a three-year deal, so that the team would have his Bird rights to extend him.


to me that sounds like minstrel is trying to say that IF Nash thought that Joel would turn out as good as he is now, he was an idiot for not signing him for 3 years. I don't know if thats really a point one can counter-argue.



> Most likely, he picked Przybilla up as a filler acquisition and was as blind-sided by Przybilla's success as everyone else.
> 
> So, either Nash was stupid or lucky. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I'll pick lucky.


so, it sounds like Minstrels saying that 1: If Nash thought that Joel was as good as he is now, he was an idiot for not signing him for 3 years but that 2: Nash most likely picked up Przybilla as a filler and didn't expect him to be as good as he is, so 3: Nash was not an idiot, but he was lucky (or unlucky in a way) that Joel turned out to be as good as he was since he didn't expect him to (which could by why he wasn't signed for 3 years).

How's that sound Minstrel?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Given the way the vultures usually circle on this board nitpicking over relatively benign player statements and behaviour, I've been somewhat amazed at the *lack* of Nash bashing thats gone on. I personally don't bash him because I don't know what deals he's really been turning down, but I would have rather he just let Wallace walk then do the deal he did or better yet have moved him for the picks and expiring deals Detroit was offering. He sure hasn't come close to achieving his stated franchise goals of fiscal responsibility or rebuilding while remaining competitive... if that was the standard he was to be judged by he's definitely failed. Safe to say I'm not enjoying the worst Blazer club in 20+ years that much.

I am happy for any win, but this is over a badly fading Knicks club that has lost 16 of their last 18 road games... hardly time to pop champaigne bottles and hail a new era IMO. 

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> How's that sound Minstrel?


Sounds like you have a good command of English and logic.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Sounds like you have a good command of English and logic.


So where'd the *real* Hap go?



Ed O.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> The Knicks stink. That we were able to beat them last night at home has precious little to do with what level of job Nash is doing.
> 
> Nash has blown up the team, and anyone who acts like he's not responsible for the pitiful wins-loss record is just wrong, IMO. If he has a plan to put things back together again: great. I'll sing his praises when he does. Until then, though, he deserves almost all the criticism he received here, IMO.
> 
> Ed O.


Do you think that it is possible that John Nash was brought into Portland as an axe man? Someone to come into town just to clean up a team and set the stage for someone else to come in build the team back up? 

I know that a lot of people loved Rasheed Wallace and Bonzi Wells, but don't you find in ironic that Nash could be gone after this season is over, just at the time the team is about to be in position to really rebuild?

I'm not saying that I think John Nash should be fired and I am not saying that he should be retained, but I do belive that he could be the guy brought in to do the dirty work of cleaning up the roster in the first stage of a major rebuilding process.

Eh, what do I know.......I was on the other side of the Wells vs. Stackhouse debate! :biggrin:


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

1. There is a reason the Knicks were desperate to win that game last night. In fact, they are usually desperate to win any game they play, just like Portland is now.

2. Do you call that big fat contract that Nash signed Theo to a braniac masterpiece? What about the fat contract he signed Zach to? Those combined with the Darius contract, make me fathom if you even thought before you posted this thread.

3. The young players haver possiblities, but being a GM is more then drafting. It is making deals, signing contracts, and dealing with the salary cap. With the big contracts signed, above, he has limited our ability to deal with those situations, and possibly dead ended the team for time to come.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Do you call that big fat contract that Nash signed Theo to a braniac masterpiece? What about the fat contract he signed Zach to? Those combined with the Darius contract, make me fathom if you even thought before you posted this thread.


Do you realize that Paul Allen owns the team and can tell the GM what to do? Have you also considered that Allen loved Darius Miles (a well-known fact) and may have wanted him resigned for any amount of money? Have you also considered that Allen wanted a classy, likeable guy like Theo around to help change the team's image? Or that he may also have wanted Zach as the cornerstone of the franchise? These facts make me wonder if you even thought before you made your post.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Do you realize that Paul Allen owns the team and can tell the GM what to do? Have you also considered that Allen loved Darius Miles (a well-known fact) and may have wanted him resigned for any amount of money?


Is that really a well known fact? I can only recall one reported off the cuff comment when Nash told him the McInnis for Miles deal was on the table... something like _"We can get Darius Miles? Cool!"_ What else are you siting?



> Have you also considered that Allen wanted a classy, likeable guy like Theo around to help change the team's image? Or that he may also have wanted Zach as the cornerstone of the franchise? These facts make me wonder if you even thought before you made your post.


It sure seems like you know who's to blame and who doesn't deserve any of it, but I fail to see where you're coming up with your evidence. The team sucks, thats a fact. Nash has been the guy at the helm whose been hired for millions of dollars per who put together this mess, thats a fact too. Speculation that PA is hanging over his shoulder pulling the strings is just that.

STOMP


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

You can't even get Paul Allen to show up to all the games, let alone get interested enough in the team again to pull strings. He definitly is no Mark Cuban.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> You can't even get Paul Allen to show up to all the games, let alone get interested enough in the team again to pull strings. He definitly is no Mark Cuban.


Yeah, he's a Mark Cuban wannabe!


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Hap said:


> btw, it's a good thing none of us are the GM. We'd screw up the team worse than we all want to admit we would.


What are you talking about?!

I'd make a mandatory - Reef shoots the ball 20+ times a game ... what's wrong with that? That's championship calibre GMing, baby!

:biggrin: 

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> It sure seems like you know who's to blame and who doesn't deserve any of it, but I fail to see where you're coming up with your evidence. The team sucks, thats a fact. Nash has been the guy at the helm whose been hired for millions of dollars per who put together this mess, thats a fact too. Speculation that PA is hanging over his shoulder pulling the strings is just that.


It was widely reported that Paul Allen liked Darius Miles, and thought he was a real find. All I know is what I read, just like anybody else here. And yes, I was speculating that Paul Allen MAY have pressured Nash into resigning Zach, Theo, and Miles. But I think you have to consider that possibility before you "blame" Nash, as Hasoos was doing.

I don't know what this "mess" is you're talking about. Yes, we have a lousy record this year, but so what? It's the future that counts, and our future is very bright. The Blazers have some of the best young players in the NBA, and that's largely a credit to Nash.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> But it's also clear to me that the Blazers have one of the best young bunch of players in the NBA and the future is bright. I don't consider that a "mess." I consider it a very good thing.


What makes you say that? Their fabulous won-loss record over the past month?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> It was widely reported that Paul Allen liked Darius Miles, and thought he was a real find. All I know is what I read, just like anybody else here. And yes, I was speculating that Paul Allen MAY have pressured Nash into resigning Zach, Theo, and Miles. But I think you have to consider that possibility before you "blame" Nash, as Hasoos was doing.


I read all I can on my fav team, and I've only read one flippant quote relayed from Allen... it seems that you've heard/read nothing else or I'm sure you would have relayed it... has anyone? I doubt it, my memory is pretty decent on these sorts of things, but maybe... anyways hasoos doesn't have to consider any other possibilities to hold an opinion that Nash is to blame for signing players to those bloated contracts. That is Nash's job after all. It sure seems more reasonable then speculating that the owner might be secretly pulling the strings.

Nash's contract is up after this year, we'll see soon enough if the organization feels he's been doing a good job.

STOMP


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Nash has done some positives and some negatives. The problem is that not only do I think that the positives should outway the negatives, but I think that the positives should drastically outway the negatives and I just don't see it.

Positives include - drafting telfair and the russians; signing Przybilla; trading for SAR and Rattliff

Negatives include many things that are not as tangible because in many cases they are things that were not done. By all accounts, last summer SAR could have been traded for either Joe Johnson or Rashard Lewis. Considering what Carter went for, I fault Nash for Not getting Carter. I fault Nash for not looking into the future enough to sign a young player(przybilla) to a 3 year deal. I fault Nash for not being able to find at least one good use for our expiring contracts before the trade deadline. I am fault Nash for Rattliffs big contract. And, I fault Nash for out poor record. 

As far as the talent that Nash has drafted, I think telfair will be above average when all is said. I think VK will be looked at as a great roll player, which is all you can hope for with the 22nd pick. Monia I have not seen play. Outlaw is who I am most excited about, but that is a traderbob pick. I have not given up hope on the blazers future and am more then ready to recant and praise Nash should the blazers become a .500 team next year, but at this moment I think that nash is flop.

And as far as this thread, there has not been that much Nash bashing overall, and if I remember, you have bashed certain players you did not like. There is nothing wrong with us blazer fans debating and even bashing our guys as long as we continue to support and root for the blazers. Part of being a fan is to feel the teams pain, and one thing is for sure, Nash has made me feel the blazers pain.


----------

