# Just curious...



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

...but does anyone here see potential for any kind of major Blazers off-season trade? Wheels is spinning the lack of a deadline trade as a good thing, and saying the Blazers will be in a great position for a "blockbuster" off-season because of it.

Personally, I'm having a hard time seeing it... but then again, my entire world is rather black at the moment.

PBF


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> ...but does anyone here see potential for any kind of major Blazers off-season trade? Wheels is spinning the lack of a deadline trade as a good thing, and saying the Blazers will be in a great position for a "blockbuster" off-season because of it.
> 
> Personally, I'm having a hard time seeing it... but then again, my entire world is rather black at the moment.
> 
> PBF


They have a slim chance of playing ball with Rahim and getting him to go with a sign & trade this Summer, along with Damon (if anyone wants to spend over the MLE for him). There is also NVE contract which might look good to some team looking for cap relief and if NVE decides to call it a career, I think it would be instant cap relief, though I might be wrong on that.

I think that if Portland couldn't get a shooting guard that would instantly help the team, like Redd, Allen, or Pierce. Then it was a good thing to just stand pat and let the season play out.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

NVE's contract is intsant cap relief wether he retires or not, as it is non-guranteed $$$ he can be waaived with no frther cap or financial obligation of the team waiving him.


----------



## rx2web (Jul 27, 2004)

As much as I'm disappointed that we weren't able to take avantage of the trade deadline. Particularly since it seemed we had so many assets to trade. As much as I was shocked that so many teams pulled the trigger on a myraid of trades when prognosticators suggested it would be a quiet deadline. I'm oddly ok with not doing anything. I'm alright with a few losing years and some time spent in the draft. We have sat with a high payroll, players that were someone elses misfits that we took a chance on, lots of projects for a really really long time. And yes we were competative to a degree. Yes we nearly made it to the finals in 2000 when our window was rather large. We didn't make it though. And the fruits of all our short term labor are paying off in debits.

We have players that teams don't want/like. We have HUGE contracts that are expiring and some that are not that we still hold. We have a fan base that has been turned off by the team and the way it's been operated. It's time for a drastic change. Sometimes we can put all out effort into trying to accomplish something and it's only when it fails and fails miserably that we can find another path, one that's going to take care of our needs. 

I would love for us to become competative, pay our players reasonably, get the fans excited, bring the energy and spirit of basketball back to the area. We are well past the point where making a trade or two for that perfect piece will solve the problem. it's time to go in a different direction. For us, that's going to be the draft. Up until last year it had been 19 years since we were in the lottery. that's unbelievable. 2-4 years near the bottom, while not something any fan wants to hear....is going to be like a body purge. It's going to give us time to rebuild our team, purge it of the bad decisions of the past and the contracts of the past and look to a future that has alot of potential. 

In that time, portland can work on it's image. It can work on re-connecting with fans. Can work on making this place a place that free agents want to come to. Sure we are a small city, but when we as fans get behind something this is just the place you want to be. 

So I guess for me I'm not as upset about not bringing in someone elses baggage. I'm ready for the draft and a couple lean years. Who knows. Our youth might just surprise us and put a few extra wins on the board for us. Would that be all that horrible of a thing? To go into an NBa season with semi realistic expectations? To be excited when we exceed those expectations?

Go Blazers!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

NVE's contract gives me hope the Blazers will be able to make something happen this summer. I have very little faith the Blazers will be able to get anything for SAR and zero that they will for Damon.

I didn't think that I'd ever say I wish the Blazers had taken Kittles + a pick for SAR.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

But you do now....

and I do as well


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I still think Portland will move Patterson this summer.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Schilly said:


> I still think Portland will move Patterson this summer.


Which one?

:groucho:

PBF


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> Which one?
> 
> :groucho:
> 
> PBF


The one Canzano gets along with.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

I do not hold out much hope for a "major" trade this summer, but we might see something smaller happen. If we do it will be a bonus. 

I do have hope that these "young" kids" we have that really want to develoe and play well, will benifit greatly from more and more time playing together. We can hope that Telfair, Kryhapa, Outlaw, Monia, Miles and even Zack, and Priz will make some significant strides in their games. We saw it a couple of years ago when Zack was the most improved player in the league. These changes alone can get us several more wins next year and might get us in the playoffs. Especially with a lottery pick in the draft that could be traded to someone else along with a player or two to get us another great scorer. We need at least two to develope or get via trade if we are to compete well IMHO opinion.
There is more hope than most seem to think.

gatorpops


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Let's just say that after:


Not trading for a big-name shooting guard in the offseason and instead opting for Richie Frahm;
Not signing Brent Barry;
Holding a press conference saying we'd signed Trenton Hassell, then losing him to Minny;
Missing a chance to sign Wesley Person;
Signing Zach Randolph to a max contract;
Announcing we'd signed a CBA guy, then losing him to Minny;
Passing on a trade that would have netted us Vince Carter;
Passing on a trade that would have landed us Jason Kidd;
Not making a deal before the trading deadline, when we have THREE attractive, expring contracts

... I don't have a lot of faith that anything good is going to get done this offseason.

John Nash is like the short nerdy kid on the playground that all the other GM's pick on and never give him the ball.

-Pop


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Man you just see what you want to see don't you?



SodaPopinski said:


> Let's just say that after:
> 
> 
> Not trading for a big-name shooting guard in the offseason and instead opting for Richie Frahm;




Were any big name SG's traded over the summer? MCGrady? He picked where he wanted to go. Francis? Portland wasn't part of the deal for McGrady.


> [*]Not signing Brent Barry;


Barry turned down more money from the Blazers to pursue a ring in San Antonio, how is that Nashs fault, SA could offer the most precious opportunity to a player in his declining years...a Ring.


> [*]Holding a press conference saying we'd signed Trenton Hassell, then losing him to Minny;


While a silly situation you are painting it as something it was not. They had the Press conferance to annouce that they had signed an offer sheet, of Which Minnesota matched. Silly yes, but condemable? Hardly. My guess is they doubted Minnesota would match the offer.


> [*]Missing a chance to sign Wesley Person;


Specualtion, we have no idea if Wesley was interested in returning at all, I mean he spent a total of what 2 months as a Blazer? WHy not go play in Miami with Shaq?


> [*]Signing Zach Randolph to a max contract;


I agree this was a mistake


> [*]Announcing we'd signed a CBA guy, then losing him to Minny;


Who cares? It's a CBA guy. Are they at fault for announcing it or at fault cause Minnesota signed him? BTW the guy is averageing 1.6ppg and 1.8rpg. WOuld have been the difference maker that I can see.


> [*]Passing on a trade that would have netted us Vince Carter;
> [*]Passing on a trade that would have landed us Jason Kidd;


There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Nash is the one who turned these down. Actually On Kidd there is no evcidence to suggest that a trade was even discussed. Fabrications IMO. Even if Nash turned down the Carter deal, We would have been commiting 30+mil a season over the next 4 years, and what would we have had to send out?


> [*]Not making a deal before the trading deadline, when we have THREE attractive, expring contracts



What deal that was made would be one that you actually froma rational aspect want to have made?

I think Dallas killed the Redd deal for us by jumping in and offering to take KVH for an expiring contract, thereby clearing up the Money for the Bucks to spend on Redd this summer.



> ... I don't have a lot of faith that anything good is going to get done this offseason.
> 
> John Nash is like the short nerdy kid on the playground that all the other GM's pick on and never give him the ball.
> 
> -Pop


I think if you actually think about the logistics of things your expectations may be unreasonable.. It's pretty hard to form opinion based on Chad Ford rumors.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Schilly, if your excuse in a can for Nash not being able to improve this team is "we don't know if there were any deals that made any sense" then there's no sense arguing with you - only Nash and whoever he's talked to about that knows the real answer to that question.

My argument is that Nash has not improved this team in his two years here and has passed on chances to facilitate an improvement. No, we don't know if Nash has just had bad luck. But, assuming he has, then how are we to grade his achievements here? Using the "maybe Nash just hasn't come across any deals that would improve us" logic seems flawed. How long are we supposed to give the guy until he figures something out? Five years? Ten? What if he hasn't made a decent trade by then? Do we still give him the benefit of the doubt that he's just getting screwed on luck?

Just curious.

-Pop


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I think the Blazers will make a major move. If teams like Seattle and Phoenix don't win in the playoffs they will see the need for a big body. Theo, SAR might fit. Joe Johnson or Ray Allen might work. Plus we have NVE and his expiring millions.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> Schilly, if your excuse in a can for Nash not being able to improve this team is "we don't know if there were any deals that made any sense" then there's no sense arguing with you - only Nash and whoever he's talked to about that knows the real answer to that question.


Same could be said about someone who conedemns him for that which I give him the benefit of the doubt.

It's definately within both our rights to perceive it differently



> My argument is that Nash has not improved this team in his two years here and has passed on chances to facilitate an improvement. No, we don't know if Nash has just had bad luck. But, assuming he has, then how are we to grade his achievements here? Using the "maybe Nash just hasn't come across any deals that would improve us" logic seems flawed. How long are we supposed to give the guy until he figures something out? Five years? Ten? What if he hasn't made a decent trade by then? Do we still give him the benefit of the doubt that he's just getting screwed on luck?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> -Pop


I don't know, I think based on the scenario he should get 3 full offseasons, 2 drafts and 2 seasons. I say 3 offseasons, because the first offseason up trough whne he dealt Bonzi was spent evaluating the team and where it needed to go. 

One thing I think about is what would Bob have done? If Bob had to stick to the same guidelines that were laid out, to cut costs, build for the future and stay competitive. I think it was indeed Bobs time to move one, bu t I still wonder. He built the team with players that had worn out their welcome, and by overpaying to get players on board. So what would h have been able to do under the same guidelines? As far as getting screwed on luck, I don't think thats the case. I think John is a very patient person, who has to make sure the deal fits what the teams overall goal is, and that's getting a ring.

Sure I'm dissappointed that nothing happened, but not knowing the details of what didn't happen, I won't go on and consider the man a failure by assumption, nor do I consider him a success.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

thats our schilly..a level headed smeg-head!


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Pash Natterson has wasted any chance we had to get anyone with talent or even a few draft picks in return for about 3 solid veterans and/or $45 million of cap space.

Unparalleled incompetence in the annals of NBA GMism.

I don't think it's a stretch to say at least 25 GM's in the league could and would have found or created a way to get something or someone useful for their team, had they had the same set of circumstances.

I doubt that by this point in the season with this record that WeakCheeks would still be working here either.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Pash Natterson has wasted any chance we had to get anyone with talent or even a few draft picks in return for about 3 solid veterans and/or $45 million of cap space.
> 
> Unparalleled incompetence in the annals of NBA GMism.
> 
> ...


Ok, what then? I see plenty of criticism, but that's all I see. Explain what could have been done. I mean specifics, not the generic "get a shooter" or "Change the coach".

What shooter? How would Portland have gona about getting him? Which coach would you have hired.

I don't deny that I owuld have liked to see things shake out differently, but what I don't understand is I have seen many people absolutely tearing into Nash and Patterson for what they have/haven't done, yet I rarely see people actually present a logical explanation of how it could have been done differently.

It's easy enough to say we could have traded our expiring deals, but what would we have gotten for them?

It's easy to say we should trade for Wally Sczcerbiak, but what was the asking price?

What are the actual solutions?


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Ok, what then? I see plenty of criticism, but that's all I see. Explain what could have been done. I mean specifics, not the generic "get a shooter" or "Change the coach".
> 
> What shooter? How would Portland have gona about getting him? Which coach would you have hired.
> 
> ...


I'm no GM but then neither is Nash.

Pretty obvious to me.

Bring back Bob.

Had he been handed this mess a mere 2 months ago we'd be in the top eight in the west right now and finish with 50-55 wins.

My guess is Damon would be signed to a reasonable extension and SAR and Little Nicky would be bye-bye for not one but 2 good shooters and some picks.

Had he never left we wouldn't have Telfair but we'd still have our record playoff streak intact and playoffs to watch.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> What are the actual solutions?


Go back in time and not given away Bonzi?

Not taken SAR and Theo for Rasheed?

Use draft picks on guys that might have played more minutes for us this season?

Acting like Nash isn't responsible for his inability to make moves at the deadline seems peculiar to me. We as fans don't need to know specifics to look at the long list of moves he's made that have put him--and the team--in the position it's in. And if the team was unable to make ANY moves, as it apparently was not, then he deserves the blame for that.

Of course, if he turns around and gets value this summer for our expiring contracts, then he deserves credit at that point. But that doesn't help us win basketball games now, and he's used up just about all my patience, personally, with the "wait and see" approach.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> I'm no GM but then neither is Nash.
> 
> Pretty obvious to me.
> 
> Bring back Bob.


Paul just fired Bob for the 2nd time in the last 2 years. He is being blamed for what is deemed to be an unsuccesful Seahawks team. 

I'd wager any one of us here has as good of a chance of being the next GM of the Blazers as Bob Whitsitt does.



> Had he been handed this mess a mere 2 months ago we'd be in the top eight in the west right now and finish with 50-55 wins.


We would probably have Latrell Sprewell. Bob for the most part made his reputation bringing inplayers that had worn ou their welcome elsewhere. Remember why Bob was let go? Not for waht the players were able to do on the floor, but his seeming lack of connection to the communiuty on multiple levels. 





> My guess is Damon would be signed to a reasonable extension and SAR and Little Nicky would be bye-bye for not one but 2 good shooters and some picks.


This is the same Damon who we were hopiong would never see the floor as of December? Can you imagine the outcry had a GM extended Damon, and he had come out and played the way he did to start the season? This is the same Damon that was shooting under 30% from the filed to start the season.

Once again no return players named, it's not like you can run down to the corner market and simply pick one up.



> Had he never left we wouldn't have Telfair but we'd still have our record playoff streak intact and playoffs to watch.


But where would the team be going? 1st and out again? Is running in place acceptable?

I know people are frustrated with the team, but remorsing over Bob WHitsitt being fired 2 years ago, isn't going to fix it. 

For the sake of conversation let's keep this dailogue going, I'd like to hear options of what Bob would have done, or any GM, under the criteria that Paul Allen supposedly placed on John Nash. 

BTW this is just an IMO but name calling on the GM and Coach and President doesn't make your argument any stronger.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Go back in time and not given away Bonzi?
> 
> Not taken SAR and Theo for Rasheed?
> 
> Use draft picks on guys that might have played more minutes for us this season?


Yep time travel always the rational solution.



> Acting like Nash isn't responsible for his inability to make moves at the deadline seems peculiar to me. We as fans don't need to know specifics to look at the long list of moves he's made that have put him--and the team--in the position it's in. And if the team was unable to make ANY moves, as it apparently was not, then he deserves the blame for that.


I actually think the moves that he has made look pretty good. But your argument as to my interpretation as being peculiar is really no different than saying that your accusations of him as being a failure are anymore valid, based on knowledge of what goes on in negotiations.

Either way the results were the same, but I choose to assume he's trying and the deals aren't up to his standards, you choose to say he's a failure 



> Of course, if he turns around and gets value this summer for our expiring contracts, then he deserves credit at that point. But that doesn't help us win basketball games now, and he's used up just about all my patience, personally, with the "wait and see" approach.
> 
> Ed O.


COme on Ed you're more rational than that. I knwo that you disagree with the stance the organization has taken, but they have taken it and as fans we either can choose to aknowledge that stance and accpet that it may be mnore difficult to work with than the free reign Bob had. Or, we can be angry that things have changed. I can see both sides. I wnat to see the team win, but I'd rather bear the dip and see them com on stronger than to sit through being 2nd or 3rd tier for the next 10 years.

This team will bounce back up. You have to believe that. Commiserating about a GM firing from 2 years ago just clutters the mind.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Remember why Bob was let go? Not for waht the players were able to do on the floor, but his seeming lack of connection to the communiuty on multiple levels.


Has Nash connected with the community? It's nice that he replies to mixum's emails, but is that a sufficient amount of connecting to the community? 

I'm kind of in the middle on Nash - I wish he would have made Whitsitt type trades with the ending contracts, but maybe he didn't have the go-ahead to do that. I'll cut him some slack (in this post, next one might be different).

But I don't see him as part of this community. I see him as a guy from Joisey. I see him as more a fish out of water than Whitsitt here. Whitsitt, at least, had that NW I'm-rich-now feel like, ah, forgot his name. Wilshire/Fog Cutter dude. Not Mendelsohn but the local boy made bad. Apparently the brain has a bad sector and needs reformatting. Anyway. Pardon me while I google... ah, Wiederhorn! 

barfo


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> Has Nash connected with the community? It's nice that he replies to mixum's emails, but is that a sufficient amount of connecting to the community?
> 
> I'm kind of in the middle on Nash - I wish he would have made Whitsitt type trades with the ending contracts, but maybe he didn't have the go-ahead to do that. I'll cut him some slack (in this post, next one might be different).
> 
> ...


I agree about the connection. I think that's more Pattersons job and I think he's been comeptant enough there. 

Everytime I see Nash I want to send him some Rolaids.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

while nash hasnt come thru with any 'blockbusters' that everyone was hoping for - or even mild changes to the roster , its had to damn him without knowing what he had been involved in. 
If he came out and said bluntly
"we arent looking to trade" , well we can rag on him for that
if he said (after not making any trades..)
"we pitched for x,y,z player but lost out due to reasons a,b,c"
at least we know he is trying to get things cracking.

I think the hardest thing for a Blazer fan here at bbb (and in general) is that we have high hopes and expectations , its not a bad thing but its like wearing your heart on your sleeve *ie* you like a girl, you make some calls, you get no play - it hurts and its disappointing. 

Going from a trade happy trader bob to nash has been a rough transition for the avg fan - we used to expect trades & get them, now its a LOT of hopes and wondering wtf something isnt happening.

I , like most people, find it hard that with many millions in expiring contracts we couldnt put something together to address our shooting woes - but hey! what do I know , we could have been ---> <--- close to getting Redd but we'll never know - unless nash fronts up and gives us some insight into whats going on. 

basically i can take lack of end results if i know the dude is out there pushing it and we get filled in at some point in the loop. what i cant take is nothingness and nothing out of management, just makes us ask too many questions and point too many fingers.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I know I'm disagreeing with a lot of people, but it's good to tlak these things out, both for the board and ourselves. WIht out disagreement the board doesn't exist....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Yep time travel always the rational solution.


It's an irrational answer to an irrational question.

Asking what Nash could have done to unbury himself from his poor decisionmaking is like asking what I can do tomorrow to be able to run a marathon on Sunday... the answer is nothing, because I haven't eaten well, trained, or run farther than 50 feet in a row in a decade. The Blazers haven't made any clearly strong moves in several years, and it's catching up to us big-time.

Nash made his bed, and so must he (we) lie in it. Unless we can build a time machine 



> I actually think the moves that he has made look pretty good. But your argument as to my interpretation as being peculiar is really no different than saying that your accusations of him as being a failure are anymore valid, based on knowledge of what goes on in negotiations.


Who IS responsible for the Blazers' failures to make moves at the deadline?

Who IS responsible for the Blazers' failures to make the playoffs last year and this?

Who IS responsible for the team doing precious little to improve the past two years?

Maybe nobody. But if ANYONE is, Nash has to be at the top of the list.



> Either way the results were the same, but I choose to assume he's trying and the deals aren't up to his standards, you choose to say he's a failure


It's his job to win games and/or improve the team. He's doing neither at this point.



> This team will bounce back up. You have to believe that.


Of course they will. The question is how long it will take and whether it will be because of--or in SPITE of--Nash's tenure as GM.



> Commiserating about a GM firing from 2 years ago just clutters the mind.


I'm not speaking about Whitsitt. I'm speaking about how the team has sucked since Nash took over and the Blazers look like they're being run by guys who have been away from the NBA for a decade.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

On the Whitsitt issue. The way I look at it is, he's gone, so trying to guess what he may or may not have done really doesn't matter. 

But for the sake of discussion, I don't doubt that Bob would have pulled a Whitsinian kind of trade by now. But what would he have?

Glenn Robinson?
Latrell Sprewell?

Either I could bear at this point since they expire this summer. 

Baron Davis?
Antoine Walker?

Bob wasn't a miracle working he made his mark by taking guys who were no longer wanted where they were. Sure on our end it looks like we fleeced other teams, but why do you think those teams were open to accepting the deals Bob offered?

I'm giving Nash up till training camp of this upcoming season before I really decide to get on the "He sucks" bandwagon. I think he's done a pretty dang good job given what he inherrited, and the criteria the team seemingly is trying to follow.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> It's an irrational answer to an irrational question.
> 
> Asking what Nash could have done to unbury himself from his poor decisionmaking is like asking what I can do tomorrow to be able to run a marathon on Sunday... the answer is nothing, because I haven't eaten well, trained, or run farther than 50 feet in a row in a decade. The Blazers haven't made any clearly strong moves in several years, and it's catching up to us big-time.
> 
> Nash made his bed, and so must he (we) lie in it. Unless we can build a time machine


I agree with most of this, but I'm not entirely convinced on the poor decision making thing quite yet. I Do think that the Zach extension was unwise. I do think he overpaid to keep Theo, but I understand maybe why he did. (fan favorit, clean guy, and no clue what Joel would be playing like)

I thnk if you look at other things, he has placed himself in a pretty good situation, but we truelly won't know till we have a chance to see what the rookies really will be. We'll have a better idea next year.





> Who IS responsible for the Blazers' failures to make moves at the deadline?
> 
> Who IS responsible for the Blazers' failures to make the playoffs last year and this?
> 
> ...


See that's the big unknowns. WE don't know what the offers are. I like to think that if we did, we'd be praising John rather than chastising him. The only player I really would have liked to have seen maybe moved here is Baron (of players that were traded) but I think the franchise has decided that Telfair is the guy, and they are gonna stand behind that. Plus Barons contract IIRC is huge.




> It's his job to win games and/or improve the team. He's doing neither at this point.


I like ABMs cleaning the garage theory in this scenario. Maybe thinking about a colleg coach is better. It usually takes a college couch 2-3 sometimes 4 years to get their system in place, to get their players. Nash doesn't have the luxury of th high turnover rate colleg has, sure trades can be made, but there are 2 parties involved. I think Nash has a vision for this club. Like I said Training Campo this upcoming season.





> Of course they will. The question is how long it will take and whether it will be because of--or in SPITE of--Nash's tenure as GM.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the biggest knock the team has now is Cheeks. I also think that the team is willing to let Mo stand in there and take the lumps for the team while the younger players are being groomed to be the main core starting next season. So does that meant hat hte team is to some extent tanking it this year? Yes I think there is a very good chance that they are. I wonder if maybe all this tim Nash is spending scouting, if he actually is scouting coaches. Witht the yout Portland has bringing in a college coache who is used to working with young guys might not be a bad idea.

BTW who hired mo? :biggrin:


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Patience my fellow blazer fans.....patience.....



> Bring back Bob.


Whitsitt is who got us in this mess to begin with....Sure we made the conference finals and were inches away from the Finals....But that was with an old Pippen, Smith and Sabonis.....and a team image that was the worst in all of sports...

Its nice that we made the playoffs year in and year out with Bob, but what kind of a team did we have to be proud of? A team that had just overpaid for an over weight washed up crack addict? A team that had players throwing towels in each others face....A team that got caught having a group roto on I-5 on their way back from Seattle? A player who called Oregonians racist hillbilly's and got caught smoking weed with a pop can? A player who disses all the fans in Sports Illustrated?.......Seriously what Whitsitt made turned this franchise into was a joke....People were saying, that they didnt care about wins or losses as long as we had a classy bunch...But now that we have cleaned up our image and are reconnecting with our fan base, some of you are complaining about our new management.....

Nash has done about as well as anyone could handling this team...He got thrown into the worst situation in the NBA and is slowly changed the team image...He said when he came here that it wouldnt happen overnight...The few changes he has made were pretty good in my opinion...

People were saying that we shouldnt have signed Joel, because we already have someone who does the same things in Stepania....Nash saw something that we didnt and now we have a 25 year old blossoming center....Putting up double doubles consistantly....

He got a 23 year old with tons of potential for an aging, one dimensional backup point guard in McInnis.....

He traded away a team cancer that stated all he cared about was his check...and brought in some class....

He drafted a phenom point guard that many people didnt think was going to be much of anything and in the limited time he has played has impressed all the critics...and has solidified himself as the future of the franchise....

He also drafted a couple of question marks in Monia and Khrapya....Which I think are going to pan out to be very serviceable NBA players at the least and possibly key pieces to a future playoff team....


Us Blazer fans are spoiled by going to the playoffs as many years in a row as we have.....

I respect Nash for his patience, when everybody around him is urging him to trade this, trade that......And he didnt succumb to all the pressure and make a trade that we would regret in the long run.....There is some contracts that are expiring at the end of the year and a very big offseason to look forward to...

The only thing that I have to question that Nash has done is hang on to Mo as long as has....Any other situation in the NBA Mo would have been gone...But i can somewhat see his logic in not firing Mo, when this season is pretty much a wash to begin with and not many coaching options out there right now, might as well wait until the offseason....

I you impatient fans have to stick your foot in your mouth when Nash brings this team back to prominence...and we have a respectful, coachable, contending team like the old Blazers that most of you began to love in the early 90's.....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

It's good to be optimistic and all, but I've followed too many teams for too many years to think that everything's going great when the team is losing on the floor.

If I had a nickel for every post I read on the Web by Clippers fans in the last five years, that alone would be enough to keep me playing Gauntlet in a nickel arcade for hours on end.

I am happy that you see light at the end of the tunnel, Zagsfan. I am sure that some of the rosiness you paint will, indeed, come to pass and some of the promise you see will be fulfilled. The odds of them happening enough to turn us around as the team's currently comprised are slim, indeed.

And, meanwhile, the "one dimensional point guard" (who's aging no more rapidly than the rest of us, and is over a year younger than our starting PG) is helping his team to a divisional lead... and the cancer was instrumental in winning Detroit a championship team. In fact, I can't think of a player that Nash has traded as Blazers' GM that's now on a worse team than Portland. 

I'm not giving up hope, and I still don't think that Nash should be canned because I don't think that under two seasons is enough time for a GM to be fairly judged, but my patience is shrinking and the "give him more time... he'll improve things!" and "what COULD he do? he can't force other teams [or players] to help the Blazers improve" lines are growing stale.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> And, meanwhile, the "one dimensional point guard" (who's aging no more rapidly than the rest of us, and is over a year younger than our starting PG) is helping his team to a divisional lead...


He's not the reason that team has a divisional lead...Lebron James and Illgauskas are the reasons they are playing well, McInnis just happens to be the point guard on that team....Kind of like Ron Harper just happened to be the point guard of the Bulls when they one their titles....

He might be a year younger than Damon, but he isnt as efficient an offensive player as Damon is either...And to think even how much worse off we would be if Damon hadnt been shooting the ball like he is....



> and the cancer was instrumental in winning Detroit a championship team.


Sure he helped the Piston win the title....But the point is in a Blazer uniform he was a cancer...He needed a change of scenery and it helped....Should we of hung on to him just so he could keep up his antics and act like the fool that he is/was.....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> And, meanwhile, the "one dimensional point guard" (who's aging no more rapidly than the rest of us, and is over a year younger than our starting PG) is helping his team to a divisional lead... and the cancer was instrumental in winning Detroit a championship team. In fact, I can't think of a player that Nash has traded as Blazers' GM that's now on a worse team than Portland.


Those players being traded ton a teahm that has a better record doesnt really mean anything, really.

can you explain how that really makes a difference? Because that seems to be a bit of a diversionary tactic. when we traded Steve Smith, the team he went on got better...same with Steve Kerr.

The simple fact they had Tim Duncan apparently played a part...



> I'm not giving up hope, and I still don't think that Nash should be canned because I don't think that under two seasons is enough time for a GM to be fairly judged, but my patience is shrinking and the "give him more time... he'll improve things!" and "what COULD he do? he can't force other teams [or players] to help the Blazers improve" lines are growing stale.


think about the trades that DID happen though. 

Mostly, they were scrub players, or players that wouldn't help Portland. 

outside of Vince Carter, who was traded that *really* could've helped the team anymore than the youngin's we have now? (meaning: they're a young prospect that everyone thinks has tons more potential than the young guys on our team)


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> outside of Vince Carter, who was traded that *really* could've helped the team anymore than the youngin's we have now? (meaning: they're a young prospect that everyone thinks has tons more potential than the young guys on our team)


you mean "outside of the superstar swing man who could fill our glaring shooting hole", what else was available? 

in the NBA, one or two players can make a team sink or vault it several stages above where it is now. trading Jermaine was a monumental disaster. Phoenix adding Steve Nash made them a contender. Carter was that level of a difference maker. 

Carter was the best opportunity we had all season that we know about, and we couldn't get it done. if Trader Bob were running this team, Carter would probably be on it now. 

look, I'd have some sympathy for Nash and Patterson if they were volunteers doing a job nobody wants to do. if somebody who cleans bedpans in a hospital for $9/hour misses some crud in a couple of the bowls, well, that's life. 

but these guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars of our fan money and live in much nicer houses than most of us, and they have the dream job of building an NBA team. all we ask in return is that they build a good one. so far, they haven't. we've gone from a team that made the playoffs 23 years in a row to wondering if we'll get the fifth or sixth lotto pick. 

for managers in the kind of position Patterson and Nash are in, results are the bottom line. like Ed, I just don't see those results, and I'm not optimistic that I will next year either.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> Those players being traded ton a teahm that has a better record doesnt really mean anything, really.
> 
> can you explain how that really makes a difference? Because that seems to be a bit of a diversionary tactic. when we traded Steve Smith, the team he went on got better...same with Steve Kerr.


 the facts don't follow your example. In the 2000-1 season the Spurs went 65-17. After trading for Steve Smith, the Spurs went 61-21 in 2001-2... so they got worse with him. The following season (2002-3), the Spurs added Steve Kerr from Portland and went 59-23... again worse with him.

I really doubt any Cavs fans are upset about the trade for McInnis... I bet they are mostly concerned with efforts to resign him. He has been a very solid starter for them. 

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> He's not the reason that team has a divisional lead...Lebron James and Illgauskas are the reasons they are playing well, McInnis just happens to be the point guard on that team....Kind of like Ron Harper just happened to be the point guard of the Bulls when they one their titles....
> 
> He might be a year younger than Damon, but he isnt as efficient an offensive player as Damon is either...And to think even how much worse off we would be if Damon hadnt been shooting the ball like he is....


I've a hard time seeing the logic in your derision of McInnis either... if Damon is the _"more efficient offensive player"_ how come the stats that are the standards of efficiency don't reflect that?

Asst/TO- JM 3.44 DS 3.11
FG%- JM 43% DS 40% 

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jeff_mcinnis/?nav=page
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/damon_stoudamire/?nav=page

I'm not sure why you have problems crediting JM for having a solid season on a winning club. Dude is playing 38 minutes a night because he is getting the job done.

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> the facts don't follow your example. In the 2000-1 season the Spurs went 65-17. After trading for Steve Smith, the Spurs went 61-21 in 2001-2... so they got worse with him. The following season (2002-3), the Spurs added Steve Kerr from Portland and went 59-23... again worse with him.
> 
> I really doubt any Cavs fans are upset about the trade for McInnis... I bet they are mostly concerned with efforts to resign him. He has been a very solid starter for them.
> 
> STOMP


better than Portland I thought was Ed's point.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Patience my fellow blazer fans.....patience.....


I agree with that.



> Nash has done about as well as anyone could handling this team...


Woah doggie... thats very much up for debate. While I'd guess we're privy to less then 10% of the facts that Nash considers, I find it impossible to believe that the Blazers situation couldn't have been handled better over the past 2 years. I think the team is in worse shape now than when he took over and I'm sure that many fans share that opinion. I hold out hope that he's able to right the mess that he in part has created, and that some of his longterm moves will start to show returns. I think it's fair to start judging him on the team he's assembled next season... I'd imagine PA will think so as well.



> He got thrown into the worst situation in the NBA and is slowly changed the team image...


I wasn't aware that the team's image has changed in a positive way, though I do take solace that many fans seem to be joining me in viewing the media coverage as a large part of the problem. I also don't think the Blazers ever came close to rivaling the Hawks, Clippers, or Hornets for the worst situation in the league.. anyways... Nash was thrown into the job??? I thought he took it on his own volition for millions of dollars a year.



> People were saying that we shouldnt have signed Joel, because we already have someone who does the same things in Stepania....Nash saw something that we didnt and now we have a 25 year old blossoming center....Putting up double doubles consistantly....


I liked the addition of JP to the team then and now, but I'm not that enamoured with the signing from the standpoint that the team has little chance of resigning him once his contract runs out after next season. Why sign anyone to a contract without the option of retaining their Bird rights? Hopefully they'll be able to trade him for someone good before he leaves them with nada.



> He got a 23 year old with tons of potential for an aging, one dimensional backup point guard in McInnis.....
> 
> He traded away a team cancer that stated all he cared about was his check...and brought in some class....


Already covered by Ed and myself, but I'll add that I absolutely hated the Wallace trade then and now view it as a colossal waste. My beef remains the same... if Sheed had to go (for whatever reasons), why not get something for the future mix??? I'd have much rather traded him directly to Detroit for the package of picks and expiring deals they sent Atlanta.



> He drafted a phenom point guard that many people didnt think was going to be much of anything and in the limited time he has played has impressed all the critics...and has solidified himself as the future of the franchise....
> 
> He also drafted a couple of question marks in Monia and Khrapya....Which I think are going to pan out to be very serviceable NBA players at the least and possibly key pieces to a future playoff team....


Telfair is far from a proven player despite your claims, but I hold out high hopes for him and all of Nash's picks including Ha and Nedzad.



> Blazer fans are spoiled by going to the playoffs as many years in a row as we have.....
> 
> I respect Nash for his patience, when everybody around him is urging him to trade this, trade that......And he didnt succumb to all the pressure and make a trade that we would regret in the long run.....There is some contracts that are expiring at the end of the year and a very big offseason to look forward to...
> 
> The only thing that I have to question that Nash has done is hang on to Mo as long as has....Any other situation in the NBA Mo would have been gone...But i can somewhat see his logic in not firing Mo, when this season is pretty much a wash to begin with and not many coaching options out there right now, might as well wait until the offseason....


Now you're singing my tune :biggrin: My fingers are crossed that this next offseason he straitens out the mess. He still has the resources to do it, hopefully he has the vision and some luck on his side.

STOMP


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

I would feel a lot better if Patterson, Nash and Cheeks met and said we are playing the young guy huge minutes for the rest of the season. Telfair should start, Outlaw should get at least 20 minutes of court time every game. Khyrapa(?) should get at least 25 minutes per game. What are we playing for? To lose more lottery balls if we go on a winning run and move from a bottem eight or ten team with a possibilty of getting a top three pick to 11 or 12th with almost no chance of getting into the top three. Cheeks is probably gone, so I expect Nash and patterson to lay down some rules for time with the younger guys. Do anyone really believe we can make the playoffs? Lets bring the young guys on. I'll watch if they are playing and it will maybe give me more hope for the future.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> Those players being traded ton a teahm that has a better record doesnt really mean anything, really.


Ah... but they weren't traded to teams with better records!

The Pistons, of course, were better, but both the Cavs and Grizzlies had worse records at the time of the trades the Blazers made, and each deal helped catapult them (and sink Portland, probably, especially in the case of Bonzi) to better records than the Blazers.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I agree that of all the deals missing out on Carter stings the worst. Sure we can be dissappointed in that, bute again, we don't know the details of...

A: How close was the deal to actually happening.

B: What was teh deal on the table, exactly.

C: Who pulled the plug, based on Rumor alone Nash pulled it, Babcock, pulled it, Paul Allen pulled it. Fact of the matter is we don't know exaclty who nixxed the deal, so tio completely assume Nash was at fault is just try to assign blame, when Blame can't be assesd based on the details we know.


Heck yeah I'm bummed we didn't get Carter. Bor all we know they were demanding 2 of out expiring deals plus Telfair, or our 1st this season or both, we don't know what caused that deal to fall through. But those of us who are down on Nash are quik to asses failure on his behalf.

And yes sometmes it is a pure case of bad luck.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Ah... but they weren't traded to teams with better records!
> 
> The Pistons, of course, were better, but both the Cavs and Grizzlies had worse records at the time of the trades the Blazers made, and each deal helped catapult them (and sink Portland, probably, especially in the case of Bonzi) to better records than the Blazers.
> 
> Ed O.


yes...but so what? does that mean they shouldn't trade someone, for fear the other team might end up with a better record!?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> yes...but so what? does that mean they shouldn't trade someone, for fear the other team might end up with a better record!?


It is evidence that Portland is helping build OTHER teams instead of its own. It is evidence that Nash is making mistakes. 

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> It is evidence that Portland is helping build OTHER teams instead of its own. It is evidence that Nash is making mistakes.
> 
> Ed O.


you ever hear of building for the future ed? It's a novel concept..
This team wasn't going to win with it's group. They had 3 chances (post 2000) and didn't do it each year.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> It is evidence that Portland is helping build OTHER teams instead of its own. It is evidence that Nash is making mistakes.
> 
> Ed O.


I have to admit I'm more and more feeling like the Hawks fans must have felt after we screwed them out of Steve Smith and Washington fans must have felt about getting hosed out of Rasheed. we used to be the guys who were on the giving end, while the other team had to sell the idea of "patience." 

as for "well, we don't know what they were asking for Vince," we DO know what they got for Vince, and we had a much better package of players available to trade. it looks to me like we weren't willing to gamble enough on Vince. we just weren't willing to swing for the fences (like Trader Bob was famous for doing). 

I'm not going to say Nash is a horrible GM at this point, just like I wouldn't say Zach Randolph is worthless and we ought to trade him after a couple of bad games. I'm alarmed at the direction our team is spiralling, with consistently worsening records in the new era. 

three years is enough to give us an idea of how successful a GM is going to be. if this time next year we aren't out of the lottery bottom dwellers, it's time to change management.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> you ever hear of building for the future ed? It's a novel concept..
> This team wasn't going to win with it's group. They had 3 chances (post 2000) and didn't do it each year.


How is getting Theo and SAR building for the future?

"Tearing down" doesn't always lead to "building up". I've seen a lot of tearing down but not as much building up as I'd like.

Ed O.


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> ...Wheels is spinning...
> 
> PBF



:rofl:

Sorry...I'm probably the only one who finds that funny.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> How is getting Theo and SAR building for the future?


well..theo and shareef ARE younder than Dale Davis and Rasheed...

8) (yes I know Dale wasn't traded for Theo and Shareef..but NVE is actually *younger* than Dale Davis too. The reason I brought up Dale was because he *WAS* the starting C and theo replaced him)

ok, how's this? Bonzi is older than Serg....McInnis is older than Darius...



> "Tearing down" doesn't always lead to "building up". I've seen a lot of tearing down but not as much building up as I'd like.


Maybe they've decided to go a different route, and trading Rasheed, Bonzi, Dale and not keeping Damon is part of that. If they were to have kept Rasheed, they'd have the same issues they had before. And older PF (or SF, depending on where he played) who wasn't going to lead us to anywhere. 

Just like when they got rid of Drexler (who, while older than Rasheed, was by far a better player). Drexler wasn't going to lead Portland to the finals again (or even out of the 1st round again). So they might as well start over. Trading drexler to the Rockets surely helped them win another title. But it needed to be done (because he wanted gone). 

btw, "building for the future" doesn't always mean getting *younger* players. Sometimes it means getting players who *won't* be on your team for much longer, so players that you DO have, will play. Or players that you want to sign, will have a reason to be signed.

or maybe it means going in a different direction.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> or maybe it means going in a different direction.


The only direction we're going so far is the losing one.

It seems like all that Nash apologists have to offer is that he'll do something someday, and we've been hearing that since he took over. I'm still waiting for him to do something to help the team win basketball games.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> The only direction we're going so far is the losing one.


the journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step. 



> It seems like all that Nash apologists have to offer is that he'll do something someday, and we've been hearing that since he took over. I'm still waiting for him to do something to help the team win basketball games.
> 
> Ed O.


think big picture ed. not small picture.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> And, meanwhile, the "one dimensional point guard" (who's aging no more rapidly than the rest of us, and is over a year younger than our starting PG) is helping his team to a divisional lead...


Ed. O, 

it seems like the many of the Cavs fans dont think that McInnis is helping his team to a divisional lead either Cavs Board


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Ed. O,
> 
> it seems like the many of the Cavs fans dont think that McInnis is helping his team to a divisional lead either Cavs Board


Many Blazers fans thought that this was a playoff team until about 2 weeks ago. Many Blazers fans think that the first step of the road to winning is putting together a terrible team.

Many Cavs fans are presumably capable of being just as misguided as many Blazers fans.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Many Blazers fans thought that this was a playoff team until about 2 weeks ago.


What Blazers fans thought this team was playoff team a couple weeks ago??Coming into this season i knew we were'nt going to do anything with this current group of players....



> Blazers fans think that the first step of the road to winning is putting together a terrible team.


The Bulls were terrible until Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen came along...The Lakers had their down times before Shaq and Kobe came along...With the current youth of this team and if Nash plays his cards right, I think many intelligent, loyal, patient blazer fans see the light at the end of the tunnel....



> Many Cavs fans are presumably capable of being just as misguided as many Blazers fans.


Misguided by what? They realize that McInnis isnt that good, kind of like Nash did....

Do you seriously think that McInnis is a better option then Damon at this point, or that trading away our backup point guard for a young, athletic SF was a bad idea by Nash?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Many Blazers fans thought that this was a playoff team until about 2 weeks ago.
> 
> Ed O.


I doubt that's true. 

I'm sure there were those who would admit that it's still mathematically possible to make the playoffs, but nobody was saying this is a playoff team 2 weeks ago.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

IMHO, the Blazers are in great shape to be able to make the changes that are needed this summer. I've been singing this song for a long time here that the Blazers' probably would not make a move before the deadline but would use the sign-and-trade route to upgrade the roster this summer. 

Nash, to his credit, tried to hit a homerun and get Redd, but when that didn't pan out because Dallas solved the Bucks' cap issues, making no move was by far the best move. Let's look at the Blazers' situation objectively by looking at their assets:

1. A first round pick that will probably be in the top 7.
2. NVE's large expiring contract.
3. A quality PF in SAR who will almost certainly need a S&T in order to get the money he's worth.
4. An experienced PG in Damon who can either be re-signed or used in a S&T.
5. Two starter-quality centers in Joel and Theo, plus two desirable center prospects in Ha Sueng-Jin & Nedzad Sinanovic.
6. Two starting-caliber SF's in Miles and Patterson, plus two solid prospects in Outlaw and Khryapa.
7. A talented young PG with star potential in Telfair.
8. A PF with All-Star stats in Zach Randolph.
9. A prospect at SG in Monia, a role-player in Frahm, and a worn-out 2G with 2 years left on his contract in DA (so, OK, that's hardly an asset).

Balance those assets against the team's needs: A starting caliber 2G and a backup PF. I have a hard time seeing how there's any difficulty in meeting those needs by packaging some of our other pieces. I'd expect Nash to make another run at Vince Carter this summer by offering a S&T package of SAR plus another piece or two (Outlaw or Khryapa perhaps) to sweeten the deal. With a healthy Jefferson back, the Nets will probably be looking to bolster their front line. Since SAR will undoubtedly make less under his new contract, New Jersey would be able to get more out of the trade than they could have before the deadline, thereby making a deal much more attractive. 

That's only one example, but it goes to the point I've tried to express before and that is that SAR, and to a lesser extent Damon, are more attractive players through a S&T than they were as ending contracts. They are pieces that teams want to keep; not simply dump for cap space. Now that they will be commanding much fewer dollars than they are this year, the Blazers can up the offers that they make to other teams by adding some of our excess young talent in order to make a deal for the player we need more attractive. I'm very optimistic that this will be the summer that gets the Blazers headed back in the right direction.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I wonder what it would take to pry Kyle Korver this way...I think he is a free agent this summer....I love his game and he is a dead eye outside shooter...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> I'm sure there were those who would admit that it's still mathematically possible to make the playoffs, but nobody was saying this is a playoff team 2 weeks ago.


There was at least one person who was saying that. I'm not going to say who he/she was but if you were reading who I was arguing with a while ago you might remember.

On the 9th of February, before we lost to New Orleans, the team had won three games in a row and 5 of 7. Some people on this board thought the team was starting to gel and that the playoffs were a definite possibility.

If you want to go back before the season, though, almost everyone on this board thought this was a .500 team (or better). People dismissed posters like me who saw this as a clearly inferior team to the one before.

Even further back, lots of people were celebrating the Bonzi deal not just because of Bonzi's departure but because they envisioned us adding a lottery pick from the Grizzlies... and when I pointed out that Memphis was going to be better than us, it was seen as mere pessimism.

My point here is not to say that I'm always right--or even that I'm mostly right. It's that popular opinion of fans does not define reality, and zagsfan pointing to some Cavs fans complaining about McInnis doesn't erase how much better they've been since the team acquired him.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Many Blazers fans thought that this was a playoff team until about 2 weeks ago.


You said fans as in the general fan base not just one fan on this board.....



> and zagsfan pointing to some Cavs fans complaining about McInnis doesn't erase how much better they've been since the team acquired him.


Would it be that their better because of Lebron James maturing and getting more experience since McInnis has been there....Or Drew Gooden playing great basketball...Zydrunas Illgauskas having an outstanding season...I wouldnt say that McInnis is the reason that the Cavs are playing so well....Lebron runs the point just as much as McInnis does when he is on the floor.....

When Payton came to the Lakers last year was that the reason they didnt win a championship?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

e_blazer

You forgot PG...POR will need either a b\u or starting PG...depending on how Telfair plays.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> You said fans as in the general fan base not just one fan on this board.....


Where did I say "as in the general fan base"? That's clearly misreading what I said. You pointed to a thread on the Cavs' board to support your (IMO way off-base) opinion that McInnis is "aging" and "one-dimensional". I pointed out that fans of teams think all sorts of things, and popularity of an opinion doesn't establish the level of accuracy of the position.



> Would it be that their better because of Lebron James maturing and getting more experience since McInnis has been there....Or Drew Gooden playing great basketball...Zydrunas Illgauskas having an outstanding season...I wouldnt say that McInnis is the reason that the Cavs are playing so well....Lebron runs the point just as much as McInnis does when he is on the floor.....


James is better, but Gooden is no better than Boozer was last year. Z is the same player he was last year. McInnis isn't the ONLY reason that the Cavs are in a position for HCA (not by a long shot) but he starts on a good team for a reason: he's a good player, and the team is a lot better with him than they were without him.



> When Payton came to the Lakers last year was that the reason they didnt win a championship?


Um. What?

Ed O.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

trade for pick trade for picks


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Where did I say "as in the general fan base"?


You said "fans"...I dont think that people would think that when you said fans you were talking about what one poster thought a couple months ago...



> You pointed to a thread on the Cavs' board to support your (IMO way off-base) opinion that McInnis is "aging" and "one-dimensional". I pointed out that fans of teams think all sorts of things, and popularity of an opinion doesn't establish the level of accuracy of the position.


I think that fans of another team would know more about their teams player then a Blazer fan does...Its like people trying to tell us that Telfair is going to be a bust...We watch Telfair play every game and know that he is a great talent....I take the consensus of what the Cavs board says about McInnis....



> James is better, but Gooden is no better than Boozer was last year. Z is the same player he was last year. McInnis isn't the ONLY reason that the Cavs are in a position for HCA (not by a long shot) but he starts on a good team for a reason: he's a good player, and the team is a lot better with him than they were without him.


He's definitely not a difference maker....And if it wasnt for his spat with Paul Silas, Eric Snow would be the starter on that team...To picture this team this year with McInnis at the point instead of Damon would be bad...Damon is a focal point of our offense, without him Van Exel would be our only outside threat...McInnis is one dimensional offensively, he has no outside shot and his only offensive move is his running floater....

IMO, almost any other starting point guard in the league could fill in for McInnis and do what he does or even better...

Would you seriously rather have McInnis over Miles...


In that little Payton bit, i was trying to show you that McInnis is like Payton in a way that he's not really a difference maker, whether the team is successful or not.....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> You said "fans"...I dont think that people would think that when you said fans you were talking about what one poster thought a couple months ago...


A couple of months ago? What posts are you reading? It was a couple of WEEKS ago.



> I think that fans of another team would know more about their teams player then a Blazer fan does...Its like people trying to tell us that Telfair is going to be a bust...We watch Telfair play every game and know that he is a great talent....I take the consensus of what the Cavs board says about McInnis....


Then you and I differ. I watch a lot of games of every NBA team. Not just the Blazers. Additionally, as has been demonstrated repeatedly on this board, fans of certain teams as a whole aren't very reliable on giving solid predictions or even accurate comparisons of their own players.



> He's definitely not a difference maker....And if it wasnt for his spat with Paul Silas, Eric Snow would be the starter on that team...To picture this team this year with McInnis at the point instead of Damon would be bad...Damon is a focal point of our offense, without him Van Exel would be our only outside threat...McInnis is one dimensional offensively, he has no outside shot and his only offensive move is his running floater....


Eric Snow plays about 22 minutes a game, and has started 4 games this year... McInnis is playing over 38 minutes a game with 51 starts. I think it's a joke to state that he'd be the starter over McInnis if it weren't for personality conflicts with Silas. Newble had a blowup with Silas previously, and it hasn't affected his starting role on the team. McInnis has been way, way, better than Snow this season.

I don't know how much you watch McInnis, but you're way off about his offensive game. McInnis is shooting 36.2% from 3 point range this season and leads the Cavs in 3 pointers attempted and made. He shot 36.2% last year, too. Maybe it's just because you only saw him play as a Blazer, where he shot 3's horribly in his role off the bench, but he's been a good 3 point shooter for most of his career.



> IMO, almost any other starting point guard in the league could fill in for McInnis and do what he does or even better...


We disagree.



> Would you seriously rather have McInnis over Miles...


Probably. It's a close call. The Blazers would have won more games the last two seasons if McInnis had been playing instead of Damon, and I can't say that there's much of a dropoff between Darius and Ruben Patterson. With Outlaw, Viktor and perhaps Monia waiting in the wings, I'm not so sure that the Miles acquisition will be that great of a move.

For the long run, I'd prefer to have Miles, but it's closer in my mind than it seems to be in yours.



> In that little Payton bit, i was trying to show you that McInnis is like Payton in a way that he's not really a difference maker, whether the team is successful or not.....


Ah. Of course, they might be similar, but there's no evidence that suggests that they're not difference makers. The Cavs were better with McInnis than they were before he arrived, and the Lakers were six games better with Payton than they were the year before without him (and, of course, since he left, but Shaq is almost certainly more responsible for that decline).

Good players tend to make teams better. It's amazing that people can ignore that when they've got something stuck in their heads about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of certain players.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> A couple of months ago? What posts are you reading? It was a couple of WEEKS ago.


a couple of weeks ago or a couple of months ago is really irrelevant...point is it is one persons opinion.....



> Then you and I differ. I watch a lot of games of every NBA team. Not just the Blazers.


I watch the Cavs play often on NBA league pass....and your right our opinions do differ....



> Additionally, as has been demonstrated repeatedly on this board, fans of certain teams as a whole aren't very reliable on giving solid predictions or even accurate comparisons of their own players.


There is a lot of smart basketball fans on these boards...When several fans have the same opinion of a player, theres know way that handful of fans could all be dilusional...



> Eric Snow plays about 22 minutes a game, and has started 4 games this year... McInnis is playing over 38 minutes a game with 51 starts. I think it's a joke to state that he'd be the starter over McInnis if it weren't for personality conflicts with Silas. Newble had a blowup with Silas previously, and it hasn't affected his starting role on the team. McInnis has been way, way, better than Snow this season.


McInnis has gotten much more of an opportunity then Snow has...

Snow was the point guard on a team that reached the finals...Was the team a lot better because Snow was the point guard? No, not really....Kinda like what I'm trying to say about McInnis....



> I don't know how much you watch McInnis, but you're way off about his offensive game. McInnis is shooting 36.2% from 3 point range this season and leads the Cavs in 3 pointers attempted and made. He shot 36.2% last year, too. Maybe it's just because you only saw him play as a Blazer, where he shot 3's horribly in his role off the bench, but he's been a good 3 point shooter for most of his career.


McInnis has made 248 3's in his 11 year career...That number is minut compared to Damons 1,028 in his 12 year career....Damon is a better shooter than McInnis...



> Probably. It's a close call. The Blazers would have won more games the last two seasons if McInnis had been playing instead of Damon


If I remember right, McInnis took Damons job as a starter because Damon was struggling...We experimented with McInnis as a starter and he failed miserably..So we traded him...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> McInnis has made 248 3's in his 11 year career...That number is minut compared to Damons 1,028 in his 12 year career....Damon is a better shooter than McInnis...


which explains why McInnis is shooting 43% and Damon is shooting 40% for this season. Bringing up stats from a decade ago to make your point when we're talking about the last couple of seasons is pretty week IMO.



> If I remember right, McInnis took Damons job as a starter because Damon was struggling...We experimented with McInnis as a starter and he failed miserably..So we traded him...


Your memory seems at odds with the facts. Damon started all 82 games last year. JM's "failing miserably" stats from 2003 as a Blazer... in 39 games he started 26 and averaged 32.5 minutes per, 12 pts on 47% shooting, 5 assts per with a 3.2 asst to TO ratio. Next time why not look things up? 

IMO Damon and McInnis were a poor starting tandem because they couldn't match up with most backcourts on D. McInnis was as overwhelmed trying to stop 2 guards as Damon has always been trying to stop points. Bonzi was traded early in the season and DA was on the IR... they had no legit 2 guard options to put on the floor... so the team struggled to get stops (sort of formiliar eh?). 

That Portland traded him and not Damon might have had something to do with Nash's comment of not being able to move Damon for a chair. Damon was/is the highest paid guard in the whole league, while JM made under the league average salary at just over 3 mil. The team was struggling, and only one of them was tradable... since both have esablished prima-donna egos tied to a need to start, and with DA coming back off the IR, Nash moved Jeff for Darius to help round out the lineup.

STOMP


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Well, I predicted a 43 win team at the beginning of the year. And with it hoped a deal could be done at the deadling. But it did not materialze.

That 43 games in itself would have put them in playoff contention. But will not happen. This team had the capabilites to do this. But injuries, lack of consistancy in shooting, coaching decisions, and internal turmoil have again taken its toll on the team. Heck we struggle to beat Atlanta at home now, even without their star player in Walker.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> a couple of weeks ago or a couple of months ago is really irrelevant...point is it is one persons opinion.....


If you're going to paraphrase what I say, it's more fair to be accurate. Distorting a position and then saying the incorrect aspect of it is irrelevant is sort of a cop out.



> There is a lot of smart basketball fans on these boards...When several fans have the same opinion of a player, theres know way that handful of fans could all be dilusional...


Please re-read the posts on this board regarding the Blazers' chances this year. Regarding the Grizzlies' pick after the Wells deal. Almost ANY major prediction involves significant numbers of people being incorrect. It's not about a lack of intelligence or delusions. It's just a simple fact that people have opinions and sometimes they're wrong. I put more credence to solid statistical analysis that buttresses my own personal obvservations on McInnis than I do in what people I don't know on the Cavs' board think of him.

I've made this statement before in this very thread. You seem to be ignoring it for some reason.



> McInnis has gotten much more of an opportunity then Snow has...


*laugh* If only Snow was given a chance, I'm SURE he'd prove to Paul Silas and me that he's better than Jeff McInnis!

What is Silas thinking?



> Snow was the point guard on a team that reached the finals...Was the team a lot better because Snow was the point guard? No, not really....Kinda like what I'm trying to say about McInnis....


You might be too young to remember, or maybe it's another failure of your memory, but Eric Snow was a critical component of that team. He was able to guard shooting guards while Iverson switched over to point guards... not many PGs are as big and strong as Snow was and still able to run an offense.



> McInnis has made 248 3's in his 11 year career...That number is minut compared to Damons 1,028 in his 12 year career....Damon is a better shooter than McInnis...


*yawn*

Are you really saying there are two states of offensive player:

-- one dimensional, or
-- as good as Damon?

Your statement about McInnis not having a perimeter shot is incorrect. It's quantifiably incorrect. And then you compare him to Damon, without even bothering to normalize for games or minutes played?



> If I remember right, McInnis took Damons job as a starter because Damon was struggling...We experimented with McInnis as a starter and he failed miserably..So we traded him...


As STOMP pointed out, you remember incorrectly. McInnis didn't get a chance to run the point guard spot. He was playing in the same back court as Damon, and as we've seen (but Cheeks seems to continually forget) 2 PGs in the same starting 5 adds up to a lot of losses when Damon is one of them. He started all 26 games between November 19 and January 13, but unfortunately Damon did, too, and the team went 11-15 (as STOMP pointed out, without Wells for most of the time as he was suspended, benched, and then traded and without DA).

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> If you're going to paraphrase what I say, it's more fair to be accurate. Distorting a position and then saying the incorrect aspect of it is irrelevant is sort of a cop out.


It's one person, It's one person, It's one person.........Once again it's one persons opinion.....A week ago, two weeks ago, three weeks ago, who really cares its still just one persons opinion......And i dont see it as a cop out, more of me just not paying much attention or caring about that one persons opinion on whether the Blazers were still a playoff team or not.....



> Almost ANY major prediction involves significant numbers of people being incorrect. It's not about a lack of intelligence or delusions. It's just a simple fact that people have opinions and sometimes they're wrong.


It's not a prediction that McInnis is stanky on the court....It's common knowledge, as showed by a rather large group of knowledgable?/unknowledgable? posters on the Cavs board...To think that a whole board could be wrong about a player that they watch day in and day out, should question whether me or you are should be posting on these boards.......You can stick by your opinion that McInnis is a quality point guard, but having watched him play, i beg to differ.....



> I've made this statement before in this very thread. You seem to be ignoring it for some reason.


I have read so much stuff on this board it's really hard for me to remember every little thing that every poster has said......



> *laugh* If only Snow was given a chance, I'm SURE he'd prove to Paul Silas and me that he's better than Jeff McInnis!


Snow is the better defensive player by far....

If i was Paul Silas, I would be running Lebron at the point.....



> You might be too young to remember, or maybe it's another failure of your memory, but Eric Snow was a critical component of that team. He was able to guard shooting guards while Iverson switched over to point guards... not many PGs are as big and strong as Snow was and still able to run an offense.


My age has nothing to do with my knowledge of sports, So what are you trying to say here about Snow???? That he started on a NBA Finals team, because he was good enough to run the point, and good enough defensively to shut down 2 guards...If my memory serves me correctly, I remember Eric Snow playing solid defense against guys like Ray Allen, Vince Carter and Reggie Miller.....

The only finals that McInnis has ever been involved in were in the CBA.....



> Your statement about McInnis not having a perimeter shot is incorrect. It's quantifiably incorrect. And then you compare him to Damon, without even bothering to normalize for games or minutes played?


You have to shoot 3's to make 3's......McInnis has way less attempts than does Damon throughout their careers, A. Jeff doesnt have confidence in his shot or B. The coaches dont want him to shoot it......


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> I have read so much stuff on this board it's really hard for me to remember every little thing that every poster has said......


That's understandable. But if you're going to debate a relatively minor point in a long thread, it seems best to make sure you're getting what the point was.



> So what are you trying to say here about Snow???? That he started on a NBA Finals team, because he was good enough to run the point, and good enough defensively to shut down 2 guards...If my memory serves me correctly, I remember Eric Snow playing solid defense against guys like Ray Allen, Vince Carter and Reggie Miller.....


My point is to counter your assertion that Snow wasn't important in the 76ers success. Your specific statement was "Snow was the point guard on a team that reached the finals...Was the team a lot better because Snow was the point guard? No, not really....Kinda like what I'm trying to say about McInnis.... "

Are you changing your tune and saying that Snow WAS important to the team because it serves your argument about why he's as good as McInnis is now?



> You have to shoot 3's to make 3's......McInnis has way less attempts than does Damon throughout their careers, A. Jeff doesnt have confidence in his shot or B. The coaches dont want him to shoot it......


As I pointed out in this very thread, McInnis is the Cavs' leading 3 point shooter. Moreover, he's shot about as many 3 point shots this season as the Cavs' next 3 most prolific 3 point shooters combined.

How many 3 point shots McInnis took with Denver, Washington, LA, or the Blazers doesn't impact this. If we're looking at his career from a historical perspective, then clearly it DOES matter. If you're trying to label him as one-dimensional and trying to tell me he can't shoot 3's well NOW, then it clearly proves you wrong.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed. O, I have to give it to you for being a good manipulator of posts.....



> Are you changing your tune and saying that Snow WAS important to the team because it serves your argument about why he's as good as McInnis is now?


Snow was important on the defensive end, but any other point guard in the league could have done what he did on the offensive end....That is the reason that Snow guarded the 2 guards...

McInnis looks better stat wise, but there is so many things that players can do on the court to help their team win, that isnt measured by some kind of statistical merit.....

McInnis just didnt produce in the Blazers rotation bottomline....At the time of the trade did you seriously question what Nash was doing? Its always easy to be the monday morning quarterback, but when the trade happened I thought it was for the better of the team and I still feel that way.....





And now I'm off to the Blazers game..........


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Ed. O, I have to give it to you for being a good manipulator of posts.....


I don't think I'm "manipulating" anything. I read what you write and when I disagree with it I tell you so and why I think you might be wrong.



> Snow was important on the defensive end, but any other point guard in the league could have done what he did on the offensive end....That is the reason that Snow guarded the 2 guards...


So was Snow important, or not? Why the distinction between offense and defense?



> McInnis looks better stat wise, but there is so many things that players can do on the court to help their team win, that isnt measured by some kind of statistical merit.....


So you're saying that McInnis is better stats-wise than Snow, the coach plays him a lot more than Snow, AND that the team wins with McInnis, but Snow's still just as good?

I just don't see what supports your position other than your opinion.



> McInnis just didnt produce in the Blazers rotation bottomline....


Wrong. He produced pretty well, actually.



> At the time of the trade did you seriously question what Nash was doing? Its always easy to be the monday morning quarterback, but when the trade happened I thought it was for the better of the team and I still feel that way.....


I think you're getting confused about what I'm arguing. I think that it was a decent trade (thought so at the time, although McInnis was a better PG and player than Damon and remains so to this day), but I don't need to put down McInnis to think that.

He's not one-dimensional, and he doesn't suck, and even if I'm the biggest fan of Nash, Miles and Damon in the world I'd still defend those opinions whether some Cavs fans think differently or not.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Lets just agree to disagree on this subject....


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed. O

Do you still feel the same way about McInnis?.....


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

J-Mac is a headcase. I couldn't be more happier to have Darius over him.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Ed. O
> 
> Do you still feel the same way about McInnis?.....


That he's not one-dimensional? Yes.

That he's not aging? Yes.

That he's better than Damon? Yes.

That he's better than Snow? Yes.

The Cavs struggled when they let Snow start games, and McInnis had 22 points last night to help the Cavs to a win. I don't understand why you dug up this month-old thread to ask me that. Surely if you're going to search my posts for things to make me look foolish over you can find something better than this...

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Obviously you dont watch Cavs games...

He is the reason that they have been playing so poorly lately...He has been in the doghouse with Silas and now he's in the doghouse with Brendan Malone..I dont think that its just a coincedence either...

Are you sure that it was the 22 points that helped them win, or was it Lebrons 40 points, 10 rebounds and 10 assists..


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

trade lebron?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Obviously you dont watch Cavs games...
> 
> He is the reason that they have been playing so poorly lately...He has been in the doghouse with Silas and now he's in the doghouse with Brendan Malone..I dont think that its just a coincedence either...


He's in the doghouse, huh? 

#1: Who cares if he is? I never argued that he was a nice guy and that he'd stay out of the dog house.

#2: He's started the last three games. It's not a case, as far as I can tell, of him "now" being in the doghouse with Malone. Malone's finally had enough of Snow and has decided to play his best PG.

Look at what Snow did when he was the starter during that recent 10 game stretch and tell me with a straight face that he's as good as McInnis. It's a joke because it's not even close.

McInnis HAS been in a funk since Silas benched him... and the team has been, too. That indicates to me that McInnis is pretty important for that team's success.



> Are you sure that it was the 22 points that helped them win, or was it Lebrons 40 points, 10 rebounds and 10 assists..


What a silly question. More than one player can help a team win last I checked.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> #1: Who cares if he is? I never argued that he was a nice guy and that he'd stay out of the dog house.


This is the NBA, players are in the doghouse for their play more than their attitude.....McInnis is a horrible defensive player and his offense is subpar as well....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Your arguments are weak and inconsistent here, zagsfan. I am tired of trying to clarify or augment my positions with you, and to be honest I'm not sure what YOUR position is except that it somehow differs significantly from mine.

Ed O.


----------

