# Deal Is Done (Ruben Traded To Denver) MERGED



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*deal is done*

breaking news ruben to denver , lenard to portland


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: deal is done*

dana jacobson just said it on cold pizza its a 3 way deal , portland seattle denver


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: deal is done*

expiring contracts of Lenard and Potapinko to Portland... Ruben to Denver... Watson to Seattle.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: deal is done*

LOL wow I'm shocked I had no idea this was happening.

Keep tuned my friends


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

*Re: deal is done*

Well, if Dana Jacobsen said it's going to happen, you might as well consider it signed, sealed, delivered.

Who the hell is Dana Jacobsen?

-Pop


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

*Re: deal is done*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> expiring contracts of Lenard and Potapinko to Portland... Ruben to Denver... Watson to Seattle.


that's what I had thought earlier but someone rightly pointed out that we would now have 16 players.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

*Re: deal is done*

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2341845

-Pop


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: deal is done*

unconfirmed....still rumour.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: deal is done*

Thank God it's not the Crawford deal.

I actually like this one for us: Ruben's gone, Travis stays, SF log-jam is alleviated a bit, Lenard can stroke it (but is he healthy?), Potapenko is a PF-C, and both Lenard and Potapenko are expiring.

I'd applaud Nash on this one. If it's true.

And Denver just got a lot tougher. Good move for them, too.

PBF


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: deal is done*

chris bushard broke teh story writer for espn the magazine , and on espn news , it has on the bottom waton to seattle 4 team trade


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: deal is done*



sa1177 said:


> unconfirmed....still rumour.


err nevermind link just popped up on ESPN..seems SP posted it already.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: deal is done*

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2341845

Here's the ESPN link.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

*Re: deal is done*

Thank god......no more Rueben and relief from his crappy media outbursts.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: deal is done*

Well I guess we are cutting salary . . .

I would have prefered getting Reggie Evans . . .

The "Allen is selling the team" posts may be resurfacing soon . . .


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

*Re: deal is done*



ProudBFan said:


> Thank God it's not the Crawford deal.
> 
> I actually like this one for us: Ruben's gone, Travis stays, SF log-jam is alleviated a bit, Lenard can stroke it (but is he healthy?), Potapenko is a PF-C, and *both Lenard and Potapenko are expiring*.
> 
> ...


Potapenko is not expiring. He has one year left on his contract after this season.

-Pop


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: deal is done*

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=465~1027~1828~674~638&teams=22~25~7~22~7

Potapenko has one more year... his deal is not expireing.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2341845

Pretty good move for the Blazers, in my opinion. Some experience to steady the kiddy corps this year and next, and also more cap space if we choose to go that route.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: deal is done*

Yep, just saw that B&B. Thanks for the info.

Still, not a bad deal for us at all. I approve.

PBF


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: deal is done*

clears the sf logjam please dont trade travis


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*

just a few secs late TH...MOD merge please.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*

are we cutting smith then?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*

Yea :none:


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*



crowTrobot said:


> are we cutting smith then?


Exactly. I keep wondering how 16 players are going to be on the roster.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: deal is done*

Potapenko has another year left on his contract.

Hopefully we waive him and just eat the $.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*

Can it be? Can it really be true? John Nash makes a trade......and its deemed a GOOD trade?

Ruben out of here. Leonard probably waived before arrival. Potapenko in here, helping b/u Joel and Theo, and also providing insurance in case Joel bolts to Toronto or Chicago.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*

who do we cut now


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*

I agree and approve. Lots of plusses in there for us:

Ruben gone
SF log-jam alleviated somewhat
Lenard can stroke it
Potapenko is a PF-C
Lenard is expiring
Potapenko only has 1 year left
Travis stays

Don't really see many minuses in there at all. Except maybe losing Ruben's hustle. But you gotta figure we're also losing his turnovers, so maybe that's a push.

I've always liked Lenard, even when he was lighting us up at the Rose Garden.

PBF


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

*Re: deal is done*

OK - so that gives us 16 players under contract, right? How does that work? Can't we only carry 15?

-Pop


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*



ColoradoBlazerFan said:


> Exactly. I keep wondering how 16 players are going to be on the roster.


check the thread I just started...I think we got another move to make..picking up Potapenko makes trading Theo or Joel a possibility. Just my thoughts...


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*



Trader Bob said:


> who do we cut now


Either someone gets cut, or another trade is in the works.

I'm guessing either Smith or Monia goes bye-bye. Most likely Smith, because I believe his contract isn't guaranteed.

PBF


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*

ok ok thats a good little deal....we get rid of our only hustle player and get a shooter with bad knees and a worthless center....


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: deal is done*

This is a good trade?!?!?


If your only objective is to rid yourself of Patterson and free up salary, then I..I guess so. But how does this really improve the team? Anybody have any idea of Voshon's defensive ability? 

If the "rumors" are true that Nash really thinks Webster is a 3, then there'd better be some more moves coming on down the line.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: deal is done*



SodaPopinski said:


> OK - so that gives us 16 players under contract, right? How does that work? Can't we only carry 15?
> 
> -Pop


3 scenarios really 

1. waive Leonard before he gets off the plane
2. waive Smith and tell him to go back to Europe where he is actually considered a good player
3. make another trade with Portland sending two out and getting one back


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: deal is done*

We don't know if Nash is done dealing, and we still have the off season. But I am relieved that (so far) none of the young guys have been traded and Miles is still here. Also, I am very very glad that R. Patterson is gone. For a ton of reasons. Just looking team wise and keeping my personal feelings out of the way, it's good. The sf glut is eased so Outlaw should see more pt. Potapenko will be of some help with both our centers hurt and Ha clearly not ready to start. And he will give some insurance in case the team can't re-sign Joel. He may also be the prelude to a trade involving Theo. Trading Theo would have been tricky with Joel hurting as it would have left Ha the only center. Now he can be dealt if a good one comes along. I like Theo personally but he has been too fragile since his first year and his contract is too big. Lenard means one to many guards but I think he is pretty much a rental. And if he can put the ball in the hoop a reasonable percentage of time, great. Meanwhile, some cap room to re-sign Joel and/or another fa.
I'd rate the trade a B. Not a blockbuster but a help. :clap:


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: deal is done*



SodaPopinski said:


> OK - so that gives us 16 players under contract, right? How does that work? Can't we only carry 15?
> 
> -Pop



"Wave" bye-bye to Charles Smith.


----------



## letsmakeadeal (Feb 23, 2006)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*

Updated: Feb. 23, 2006, 11:56 AM ET
Three-way deal brings Watson to SonicsESPN.com news services


The Seattle SuperSonics have reached an agreement on a three-way trade that will bring guard Earl Watson back to the Sonics, who drafted him in 2001, ESPN.com's Marc Stein reports.


Watson 

The deal, which is expected to be announced later Thursday, sends Seattle forward Reggie Evans and Portland swingman Ruben Patterson to the Nuggets. 

Portland, in its ongoing quest for salary-cap relief, was eager to part with Patterson and acquire Denver guard Voshon Lenard (whose contract expires at season's end) and Seattle center Vitaly Potapenko (who has only one season left on his contract).

The Sonics also receive a future second-round pick from Denver in the deal, which has been sent to the league office for official approval.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*



dwood615 said:


> ok ok thats a good little deal....we get rid of our only hustle player and get a shooter with bad knees and a worthless center....


Let me rephrase that:

"ok ok that's a good deal....we get rid of our most turnover-prone player who plays reckless offense and sometimes fool-hardy defense and get an expiring contract and another contract that expires in one year."


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: deal is done*



crandc said:


> We don't know if Nash is done dealing, and we still have the off season. But I am relieved that (so far) none of the young guys have been traded and Miles is still here. Also, I am very very glad that R. Patterson is gone. For a ton of reasons. Just looking team wise and keeping my personal feelings out of the way, it's good. The sf glut is eased so Outlaw should see more pt. Potapenko will be of some help with both our centers hurt and Ha clearly not ready to start. And he will give some insurance in case the team can't re-sign Joel. He may also be the prelude to a trade involving Theo. Trading Theo would have been tricky with Joel hurting as it would have left Ha the only center. Now he can be dealt if a good one comes along. I like Theo personally but he has been too fragile since his first year and his contract is too big. Lenard means one to many guards but I think he is pretty much a rental. And if he can put the ball in the hoop a reasonable percentage of time, great. Meanwhile, some cap room to re-sign Joel and/or another fa.
> I'd rate the trade a B. Not a blockbuster but a help. :clap:



Even if we keep Joel, I'm not convinced Ha is a serviceable backup. The guy picks up fouls like lightbulbs attract moths...


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

*Re: deal is done*



yakbladder said:


> Even if we keep Joel, I'm not convinced Ha is a serviceable backup. The guy picks up fouls like lightbulbs attract moths...


I could write a coffee table book with all the Ha analogies I've heard.. :biggrin:


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*



wastro said:


> Let me rephrase that:
> 
> "ok ok that's a good deal....we get rid of our most turnover-prone player who plays reckless offense and sometimes fool-hardy defense and get an expiring contract and another contract that expires in one year."



ok ok....you got me...lol....


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: deal is done*

Nash finally performs a much needed Ruben-ectomy. Not a blockbuster, but a needed first step.

What's the line on another deal before noon?


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*



wastro said:


> Let me rephrase that:
> 
> "ok ok that's a good deal....we get rid of our most turnover-prone player who plays reckless offense and sometimes fool-hardy defense and get an expiring contract and another contract that expires in one year."


Take out the "good" part. I wanted Ruben gone, and if this is the best we could do for him, so be it. However, I definitely wouldn't consider this a good deal. Maybe average would be a better desription.


----------



## BigDtoPDX (Jun 30, 2005)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*

Yay!!!!!! Rube is gone, I know there has been a little feud going on here over Ruben (Hustle or reckless?). But, in any case, the guy HAD to go, for him, Nate, young players, fans, etc. I would be prepared to hear a few tongue-lashings come from him in the near future, now that his supposed situation has "improved". I dont know how his recklessness and whining will fit in to George Karl's scheme, but he does like to drive.

I would have liked to thrown Theo in there somewhere and perhaps gotten Reggie Evans to come right doen I-5 instead.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*

what's not to like? it's just a small trade but it does help rebalance the roster. I expect Leonard to be cut, he doesn't really play defense.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

so will lenard even play for us this year...u think???

potapenko most definetly will...we have no pryz or theo


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Wierd trade in that it was done completely within the Division. Most trades don't go down like that.

PBF


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: deal is done*

Lenard is an 11 year pro SG who shoots, go figure, around 40%.

He's a slow, plodding, player who missed last year due to a torn Achilles tendon.

I'd keep Smith over him.

Mr Potato Head will just prevent Ha from getting any development time while in no way helping us.

Face it, we're not gonna win any decent amount of games this year so let's just start tuning up for next year and play the young guys more.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: deal is done*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> expiring contracts of Lenard and Potapinko to Portland... Ruben to Denver... Watson to Seattle.


I don't believe that Potapenko is an expiring contract. I think he has one year left.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: deal is done*



e_blazer1 said:


> Nash finally performs a much needed Ruben-ectomy. Not a blockbuster, but a needed first step.
> 
> What's the line on another deal before noon?



I put it at 5-1... you'd have to find another trade partner outside of Seattle and Denver....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: deal is done*



MARIS61 said:


> Potapenko has another year left on his contract.
> 
> Hopefully we waive him and just eat the $.


He's a servicable big man. He'll probably start more games than any other center on the Blazers' roster the rest of the way this season, if I had to guess.

The trade itself... could be worse, I suppose.

Ed O.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: deal is done*



Storyteller said:


> I don't believe that Potapenko is an expiring contract. I think he has one year left.


Ya, I corrected myself in another post.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: deal is done*



yakbladder said:


> Even if we keep Joel, I'm not convinced Ha is a serviceable backup. The guy picks up fouls like lightbulbs attract moths...


Potapenko gives the team another year to figure out if Ha can learn to play NBA basketball.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> Wierd trade in that it was done completely within the Division. Most trades don't go down like that.
> 
> PBF


Normally so if the other teams feel threatened or if it involves superstars.

Just tells you how far Portland AND Seattle have fallen...


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Blazers get Lenard and Potapenko*



crowTrobot said:


> are we cutting smith then?


Ric Bucher was reportedly saying that Smith was going to Denver in the deal.

If he isn't going to Denver, though, I'm nearly positive that he'd be the player to be cut.


----------



## letsmakeadeal (Feb 23, 2006)

leanord is a three point shooter and the vataly or however its said is a head scratcher
he wasnt playing alot on a bad seattle team


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

OregonLive blog says Smith is going to Denver too. A bit anti-climatic I think


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> Wierd trade in that it was done completely within the Division. Most trades don't go down like that.
> 
> PBF


And as long as the players we got never set foot on the court in a Blazers uni, I think all three teams did something to please the fans.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Does anyone else think Martell is jumping for joy right now? Running through the West Hills, screaming "NO MORE RUBEN! NO MORE RUBEN!"?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Guys before we get ahead of ourselves here...

Lenard has played 12 games this season and is shooting 28% from 3...Webster is probably better at this point.

My Gut feeling is we aren't completely done dealing for the day.

Good Trade simply in getting rid of Ruben IMO.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

on its own, and in the context of having about 5 other small forwards, and in the context of Patterson being a dumb *** and wanting out, the trade doesn't look so bad. at least we didn't take back any bad contracts or sacrifice any youth to get it done. 

in the bigger picture of Nash's stint as GM, however, it's yet one more transaction where we give up a more talented player and get squat back.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Schilly said:


> Guys before we get ahead of ourselves here...
> 
> Lenard has played 12 games this season and is shooting 28% from 3...Webster is probably better at this point.
> 
> ...


NO/Ok still needs bigs. Maybe this deal will help us to get Smith, *if * the rumors are correct.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: deal is done*



crandc said:


> Potapenko gives the team another year to figure out if Ha can learn to play NBA basketball.


Why only a year?

It took both Boston and Seattle 4 years each to figure out Mr Potato Head couldn't learn to play NBA basketball.

Seriously, all this does for Ha is give him an inexpensive punching bag to have at in practice.

Ha is already better than Mr P.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Jesus Christ.

Yet another deal where we send out talent and get back crap.

I didn't neccesarily want Ruben on this team, but come one man...


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

IF the roster is healthy


PG Blake, Jack, Telfair
SG Dixon, Webster, Monia, Leonard
SF Miles, Khryapa, Outlaw
PF Randolph, Potapenko
C Przybilla, Ratliff, Ha

Waived or dealt = Smith


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I'm no Potapenko fan, but I recall posting a couple months back that I'd take any serviceable backup PF in order to get rid of Ruben. 

Since both of our centers are currently injured, and we only have Miles and Viktor to back up Zach (who is also out short term), I guess Potapenko will do.

What else could we really expect to get for Ruben anyway, really?

I'll give it a pass. Not exciting, but a good move on balance.

And thank god the rumors about giving away Outlaw didn't happen. That's the best part.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

theWanker said:


> on its own, and in the context of having about 5 other small forwards, and in the context of Patterson being a dumb *** and wanting out, the trade doesn't look so bad. at least we didn't take back any bad contracts or sacrifice any youth to get it done.
> 
> in the bigger picture of Nash's stint as GM, however, it's yet one more transaction where we give up a more talented player and get squat back.


We're getting cap space, and with Joel's possible departure, that will come in handy.

Plus, it rids us of a bad character guy.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Guys before we get ahead of ourselves here...
> 
> Lenard has played 12 games this season and is shooting 28% from 3...Webster is probably better at this point.
> 
> ...


Even without another deal, this is a great trade.

Ruben and his bi-annual whining about playing time is gone. There is more PT now available for the young guns. That's a good thing. And the Blazers didn't have to take on a long-term contract.

Potapenko fills in at C/PF when there are injuries - like right now. Lenard, well, I don't see him playing much if at all. He's what you call "filler" - expiring contract necessary to make the deal possible.

The most surprising aspect of the trade, to me, was Denver sending Watson within the division to Seattle. The Sonics probably got the best "talent" in this deal.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Fork said:


> Jesus Christ.
> 
> Yet another deal where we send out talent and get back crap.
> 
> I didn't neccesarily want Ruben on this team, but come one man...


Try "a deal where we send out the big contract of a whiner and distraction and don't have to take back bad contracts in return."


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

theWanker said:


> on its own, and in the context of having about 5 other small forwards, and in the context of Patterson being a dumb *** and wanting out, the trade doesn't look so bad. at least we didn't take back any bad contracts or sacrifice any youth to get it done.
> 
> in the bigger picture of Nash's stint as GM, however, it's yet one more transaction where we give up a more talented player and get squat back.


True.

I'm happy for Ruben, and for George Karl, whose of the same take it to 'em mind set that Ruben has always displayed.

IMO the Noogies are gonna flat out dominate games the rest of the season.

Like Sheed at Detroit, Ruben will help Denver crank up the volume like they never have before.

Kudos to Kiki for getting the better part of this deal and manipulating the personal feelings of Nash and Wally Wanker.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Not sure if this has already been posted... but ESPN RADIO is reporting that Byron Russell is also going to Seattle as part of this deal.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

I'm not sure why some people seem to be upset about this deal. We traded two guys who have no part in the Blazers' future, one of whom has been an unhappy camper for the past couple of years, for two other guys who have little part in the Blazers' future, but who have better contracts and (hopefully) attitudes. A minor deal with minor blessings.

That said, this does remove one guy from the SF glut and replaces Smith with a guy who on some nights is a decent SG. Adding Potapenko gives us one more big body at a time when we could certainly use one. Even when Joel and Theo return, this now gives Nate the option of playing Theo at the backup PF spot so we're not so undersized all the time.

All-in-all, a decent move, but not one that resolves the re-signing of Joel or brings in a significant new asset. Well, we've still got an hour and forty minutes.


----------



## BlazeTop (Jan 22, 2004)

Looking at it numberwise...

Outgoing:
Patterson: PTS: 11.4 REB: 3.4 AST: 1.3 
Smith: PTS: 3.8 REB: 0.8 AST: 0.4 

Incoming: 
Potapenko: PTS: 3.1 REB: 2.6 AST: 0.3 
Leonard: PTS: 8.3 REB: 2.3 AST: 1.5 

Difference:
PTS: -3.8, REB: +.7 AST: -.1 (I'd Call It a Push)

Plus like everyone else has said we...
Keep our high potential players
Unleash the logjam at SF
Lose the biggest thorn in McMillan's side
Gain around 3 mill to make an even better resigning offer to Joel OR if the market for Joel is diminished because of his knee, possibly allow us to find a long time solution to back PF or SG....

Now for our logjam at PG


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

wastro said:


> We're getting cap space, and with Joel's possible departure, that will come in handy.
> 
> Plus, it rids us of a bad character guy.


We're not getting cap space unless we move 2 more players.

And he may have been 'bad character' but he's also probably the only guy we had who could be counted on to give effort every night.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> I'm not sure why some people seem to be upset about this deal. We traded two guys who have no part in the Blazers' future, one of whom has been an unhappy camper for the past couple of years, for two other guys who have little part in the Blazers' future, but who have better contracts and (hopefully) attitudes. A minor deal with minor blessings.


It's just another in a long string of trades where we get less talented with no signs of ever making a trade that actually makes the team better.

Every day it looks more and more like management is setting the team up to be sold, rather than win a championship in the next 10 years.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Anything from One Center Court? This deal has been commented on by John Nash? Until I hear him say something this deal has been completed.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

theWanker said:


> .....in the bigger picture of Nash's stint as GM, however, it's yet one more transaction where we give up a more talented player and get squat back.


It also exposes our "homer-ism" in over-valueing our recent past players Damon, Nick, Shareef, Ruben - none were as valuable as we thought (hoped) they were.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Fork said:


> It's just another in a long string of trades where we get less talented with no signs of ever making a trade that actually makes the team better.
> 
> Every day it looks more and more like management is setting the team up to be sold, rather than win a championship in the next 10 years.


I guess I don't see it as getting less talented. Ruben plays with a lot of frenetic energy, but he does not play within the system at all. Leonard is more talented than Smith. Potapenko is a stiff, but he's big and we need big.

Overall, it's a ho-hum deal, but one that benefits the team, IMO.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Storyteller said:


> Even without another deal, this is a great trade.
> 
> Ruben and his bi-annual whining about playing time is gone. There is more PT now available for the young guns. That's a good thing. And the Blazers didn't have to take on a long-term contract.
> 
> Potapenko fills in at C/PF when there are injuries - like right now. Lenard, well, I don't see him playing much if at all. He's what you call "filler" - expiring contract necessary to make the deal possible.


Doesn't seem great in any way to me. More playing time for the kids is just a fancy way of saying the team got worse. An extra $3 million in "cap space" next year isn't enough to make any difference, unless we dump Theo in the next hour. Seems to me this trade is 'great' in the same way the Wallace trade was 'great'. Disliked but effective player sent away in return for crap. 

barfo


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> Overall, it's a ho-hum deal, but one that benefits the team, IMO.


I agree. I see it as addressing a few of our issues (SF log-jam reduced by 1 to a more manageable number, bringing us a decent shooter, bringing us a backup PF-C, bringing us an expiring contract plus another short contract, and removing a semi-malignant tumor). But its not a WOW trade, so I can understand people hoping for a WOW trade (or even no trade at all) not liking this one too much.

I like it but, again, Im not WOWED by it.

PBF


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I don't think this is a particularly good trade. It's basically a reprise of what Nash has done throughout his tenure here: Make the team worse and set the team up to lower payroll down the road.

Portland, as usual, traded away better talent than they received. In return for "cap space" which won't materialize unless more contracts are moved (and the team is made even worse). And if that is successfully done and cap space is finally opened up, what is the huge prize at the end? Joel Przybilla? A player we already have and are going nowhere with? Or does anyone think this will all lead to LeBron James or Dwyane Wade or Chris Bosh in 2008 (when they will be unrestricted FAs)?

I don't. The "tear it all down and rebuild with draft picks and cap room" has been a massive failure for almost every team who's tried it. All it has generally led to is a decade of futility. Which, unfortunately, is what I see as the result of Nash's "plan."


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Can it be? Can it really be true? John Nash makes a trade......and its deemed a GOOD trade?


A lot of posters have made it very clear that Nash doesn't deserve credit/blame for personel moves and that Paul Allen, the Vulcan group, and that meddling Steve Patterson need to be put on double secret probation pronto!

Though I think Portland gave up more talent then they recieved back, overall I give a tepid thumbs up for the same reasons others have. Rube was of course disgruntled and him leaving clears PT for young guys who need time to develope and be evaluated... and Potopeko, while a less then mediocre talent, is a needed big body with 6 fouls. So a mild kudos from me to Portland's braintrust for a halfway decent move.

On other fronts, Rube has got to be thrilled and the Nugs just got a lot better IMO. I think Rube and Melo will be complimentry wings to pair, and they'll be a much tougher out. Though I won't miss having him in red and black one iota, his addition to Denver will make watching them more fun for me. I hope he does well.

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

The fan reported that it's a 4 way deal, with sac included.

we trade out Ruben, Smith and Serg, and get back Vashon and Brian Skinner.

:bleh:


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Hap said:


> The fan reported that it's a 4 way deal, with sac included.
> 
> we trade out Ruben, Smith and Serg, and get back Vashon and Brian Skinner.
> 
> :bleh:


By the time this deal becomes official, it might be a 10 team trade.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Im not gonna fault anyone for not liking this trade. Some feel we gave up more talent than we got back. Personally, I think its a net gain when you factor Rubens negatives in with his positive (singular form intended), and the fact that it should give Travis / Viktor more time on the court.

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap said:


> The fan reported that it's a 4 way deal, with sac included.
> 
> we trade out Ruben, Smith and Serg, and get back Vashon and Brian Skinner.
> 
> :bleh:



WTF?

Also, Skinner has some kewl tatoos, doesnt he? Oh waitaminnit... thats Cherokee Parks Im thinking of.

PBF


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

monia for skinner....wtf?????


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Hap said:


> The fan reported that it's a 4 way deal, with sac included.
> 
> we trade out Ruben, Smith and Serg, and get back Vashon and Brian Skinner.
> 
> :bleh:


It's dissapointing if Monia is included in the deal and we get Skinner back. Skinner is much much better than Vitaly but not at the expense of Monia. We better be getting some picks back or a young player.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

What have you seen from Monia that makes you think he's of more value than Skinner?


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Ill take Skinner for Monia any day of the week. Of all our youngsters, Monia seems the farthest away from contributing.

PBF


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> WTF?
> 
> Also, Skinner has some kewl tatoos, doesnt he? Oh waitaminnit... thats Cherokee Parks Im thinking of.
> 
> PBF


Yah. blah indeed. he has 2 more years (1 team option)..so I guess he's a short backup PF..

But as I understand it.

Seattle trades Evans and PottyPanko, for Watson

Kings trade Skinner for Sergei and Potty

Denver trades Vashon, Watson for Ruben, Evans and Smith

Portland trades Ruben, Smith and Sergei

It's not even a salary dump trade either. All that crap for basically an ending contract which doesn't help us in the long run $$ wise, and a player who's contract is basically the same as Rubens would be had he stayed on the team?

I get that Ruben was a moron, and probably a bad influence..but this trade makes even less sense (both literallyand $$) than the first one.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

ProudBFan said:


> Ill take Skinner for Monia any day of the week. Of all our youngsters, Monia seems the farthest away from contributing.
> 
> PBF


I agree.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I don't think this is a particularly good trade. It's basically a reprise of what Nash has done throughout his tenure here: Make the team worse and set the team up to lower payroll down the road.
> 
> Portland, as usual, traded away better talent than they received. In return for "cap space" which won't materialize unless more contracts are moved (and the team is made even worse). And if that is successfully done and cap space is finally opened up, what is the huge prize at the end? Joel Przybilla? A player we already have and are going nowhere with? Or does anyone think this will all lead to LeBron James or Dwyane Wade or Chris Bosh in 2008 (when they will be unrestricted FAs)?
> 
> I don't. The "tear it all down and rebuild with draft picks and cap room" has been a massive failure for almost every team who's tried it. All it has generally led to is a decade of futility. Which, unfortunately, is what I see as the result of Nash's "plan."


I agree.. This trade was just all about getting rid of Ruben, and saving a miniscule of cap space, but for what? Re-signing Joel is going to be a priority but that still isn't going to make the team any better than it is now.
I guess the trade isn't terribly bad, but it isn't that good either. Nash has been pretty unimpressive in his trading so far.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> What have you seen from Monia that makes you think he's of more value than Skinner?


what has skinner shown that makes you think he's worth more than Monia? 1 year of double figures in his whole career?


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Giving up Monia now? Ugh... there goes a wasted draft pick. Good scouting Nash and all you front office people, for Brian Skinner no less.. :curse:


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Hap said:


> what has skinner shown that makes you think he's worth more than Monia? 1 year of double figures in his whole career?


Skinner fills a position we need, can rebound, plays solid defense, and his contract expires (unlike Potapinko). I'd take Skinner over Potapinko. Wouldnt you?

I havent seen anything real impressive of Monia... and judging by the fact that Nash and Nate see him in practice every day, they must not be all that impressed either.

Monia? What has he done?, what can he do that Viktor cant?


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

BTW, still havent seen anything from any of the media channels to confirm the expansion of this trade to involve Sac/Skinner.

PBF


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Brian Skinner actually helps Portland, makes them better, if not terribly so. He's a very good rebounder and a worthwhile defender. His numbers are unimpressive because his minutes have been low, but he's a very good rebounder for his minutes played.

He's not going to be much of an offensive option, but then, it's not like Monia has done much either.


----------



## chevelle (Feb 8, 2004)

ProudBFan said:


> BTW, still havent seen anything from any of the media channels to confirm the expansion of this trade to involve Sac/Skinner.
> 
> PBF



Neither did I. Have you guys been hearing about this on the radio or something? I'm stuck at PSU right now in class so I can't tune in to any stations. :biggrin: 

Any info will be great!


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

chevelle said:


> Neither did I. Have you guys been hearing about this on the radio or something? I'm stuck at PSU right now in class so I can't tune in to any stations. :biggrin:
> 
> Any info will be great!


They're talking about it a lot on the OregonLive.com forum, but even some of the people there are asking where the info comes from.

I think it's BS, but we likely won't know for sure until 5:00-6:00pm tonight (when all the dust finishes settling).

PBF


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

i just don't like the fact we couldn't get more for monia, and we also dont get vitaly, since we need a big man right now. Also, monia was just in his rookie year, i hate to give up on him so early.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Brian Skinner actually helps Portland, makes them better, if not terribly so. He's a very good rebounder and a worthwhile defender. His numbers are unimpressive because his minutes have been low, but he's a very good rebounder for his minutes played.
> 
> He's not going to be much of an offensive option, but then, it's not like Monia has done much either.


Agreed. I actually hope this new wrinkle is true. But at this point I have my doubts.

PBF


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Skinner fills a position we need, can rebound, plays solid defense, and his contract expires (unlike Potapinko). I'd take Skinner over Potapinko. Wouldnt you?
> 
> I havent seen anything real impressive of Monia... and judging by the fact that Nash and Nate see him in practice every day, they must not be all that impressed either.
> 
> Monia? What has he done?, what can he do that Viktor cant?


Skinners contract doesn't expire this season, it expires next season.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

MAS RipCity said:


> i just don't like the fact we couldn't get more for monia, and we also dont get vitaly, since we need a big man right now. Also, monia was just in his rookie year, i hate to give up on him so early.


If its true... SKINNER is better than Vitaly, and Skinner's deal expires.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Hap said:


> Skinners contract doesn't expire this season, it expires next season.


Thats all you got? 

Not according to ESPN's Trade Machine.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

MAS RipCity said:


> i just don't like the fact we couldn't get more for monia, and we also dont get vitaly, since we need a big man right now. Also, monia was just in his rookie year, i hate to give up on him so early.


While I kinda agree with you on Monia, Skinner is a better big man then Potty. So at least from that perspective the trade fills a need better. I think overall I like the modification (if true) since we get a better talent back and only included the swingman who has shown the least out of our way too many. I still dislike giving up on him so early, but he really wasn't likely to get any play time anytime soon.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

According to hoopshype's salary schedule Skinner would come off the books AFTER next season.


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

Ian Furness on the FAN is reporting the Skinner inclusion.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> Ill take Skinner for Monia any day of the week. Of all our youngsters, Monia seems the farthest away from contributing.


He was our best defender at the three. He had a GREAT first game, when he was a surprise starter. He can shoot the three. He could talk in Russian to his buddy Viktor.

Sure, he wasn't great, but I bet he has a better understanding of basketball than Travis Outlaw will ever have, and after all... _Brian Skinner_!?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

if skinner expires this year its ok i guess,but no sense in getting him if he comes off in a year.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

A friend who works at the Fan confirmed their report... we get Lenard, Skinner, and possible someone else. Stay tuned.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

I dont know if u know its confirmed yet but on espn sports center popped up and said the trade was official.I kinda like this one.Ruben was getting show cased last few games.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

NBA TV reports just Lenard and Potapenko, no Skinner/Monia inclusion.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

meru said:


> He was our best defender at the three. He had a GREAT first game, when he was a surprise starter. He can shoot the three. He could talk in Russian to his buddy Viktor.


HA HA! :laugh:


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

i thought the deal was ruben to denver,reggie evans, to denver,voshon lenard to us,vitaly potapenko to us,second round pick to seattle possibly just the pick or a player if it was i dont remember his name.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Zidane said:


> i thought the deal was ruben to denver,reggie evans, to denver,voshon lenard to us,vitaly potapenko to us,second round pick to seattle possibly just the pick or a player if it was i dont remember his name.


wait ti just checked earl watson,bryon russel,second to seattle,reggie to denver,ruben to denver,voshon to us,vitaly to us.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> A friend who works at the Fan confirmed their report... we get Lenard, Skinner, and possible someone else. Stay tuned.


Okay, NOW I'm interested!

Keep us up on it B&B.

PBF


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Thats all you got?
> 
> Not according to ESPN's Trade Machine.


according to storytellers, hoopshype, and patricia bender, he's signed till 07, and has a team option for 08.

the best I got? Ok, Skinner NOW might be better..but by yuor theory, he'll be gone next year..and what does that do us?

Puts us 6 million or so down on the salary cap..which we're over anyways.

At least Monia is a body who can play. Skinner (by your theory) is gone. 

But in reality, Skinner isn't gone, and IS a body that's paid more than Monia, and does pretty much what Monia does (and is *older*).


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Hap said:


> But in reality, Skinner isn't gone, and IS a body that's paid more than Monia, and does pretty much what Monia does (and is *older*).


Monia can play the 4/5 with pretty good defense and rebounding? I'm not enamoured with this deal or anything, but are you thinking of the same Skinner as I am? I see no similarities between the two.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

i wish we get reggie but we really needed to get expiriing contracts.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Cool. We got some new music for the Rose Garden: Lenard Skinner!! Great band.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

at least martel becomes the PRIMARY backup at sg (hopefully,no more small backcourts) and Outlaw hopefully becomes the PRIMARY backup to Miles and Viktor backs up Zach. Bassy Outlaw and Martel are the only reasons to watch games for me now, and Zach to a certain extent to see if he regains his bulldog mentality.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Hap said:


> according to storytellers, hoopshype, and patricia bender, he's signed till 07, and has a team option for 08.
> 
> the best I got? Ok, Skinner NOW might be better..but by yuor theory, he'll be gone next year..and what does that do us?
> 
> ...


All Monia does is ride the bench, Skinner would play. Why do we need Monia when we have Viktor? They are basically the same player, from what I've seen.


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

Leaving out the Sac portion of this talk, IMO the three team trade is a good move for this division. Portland, Denver, and Seattle all needed to do something to shake up their roster and make something happen.

Denver definately got the best end of this deal by moving two unneeded pieces for more depth in the bench that can bring defense and energy. The will surely keep the division now and may make an upset in the finals.

Seattle could have moved anyone except Allen and Lewis and it wouldn't make a difference. They just needed some new faces, but they still won't make the playoffs. It may help them for next year.

Portland, IMO Nash made a decent move. Patterson forced the trade and Nash found something that actually made sense. The Theo, Miles, and Outlaw options just weren't practicle. Nate already knows what Vitaly can do so it doesn't put him in a position where he needs to evaluate him. Leonard will bring some much needed experience to the back court. Even if he is just on the bench he will definately help in tutoring Webster, Jack, and Telfair. I think that is his biggest plus. Even if his % is down this year, he is a better option for a quick three than Smith.

All in all, I can't complain about this trade because we still have our core guys and all the youngin's, a little more cap space, and are free off the last disgruntled Jail Blazer. ( I don't consider Zach disgruntled )

And all this talk about trading away talent and getting nothing in return. Which previous Blazers have had career seasons since leaving. Rasheed, that's it. And that was just because his TEAM got him a ring, he didn't put up career numbers. Damon was doing decent in Memphis, but he was still below his career average in every stat. Bonzi, DA, Shareef, Pippen, McGinnis, all did squat after leaving and really had a lower trade value than everyone hoped. DA and Damon both got signed for a MLE, which shows what they were worth and while under contract there value in a trade was even worse because the receiving team wasn't getting their moneys worth. So let's stop hounding Nash about not getting return out of the vets. He got cap room, out of the luxary tax, and put this team that much closer to being able to make money.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> All Monia does is ride the bench, Skinner would play. Why do we need Monia when we have Viktor? They are basically the same player, from what I've seen.


one is 6'8" and basically is a SG and maybe SF..the other is 6'9" and can play SF, PF and in a pinch C..

and Sergei is a better shooter.

but whatever. skinners great.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Redbeard said:


> Leaving out the Sac portion of this talk, IMO the three team trade is a good move for this division. Portland, Denver, and Seattle all needed to do something to shake up their roster and make something happen.
> 
> Denver definately got the best end of this deal by moving two unneeded pieces for more depth in the bench that can bring defense and energy. The will surely keep the division now and may make an upset in the finals.
> 
> ...


Good post. If it goes down this way. I think it is very good.

gatorpops


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Is this all Monia was worth?

What a waste of a pick he was...particularaly when you consider POR could have drafted Kevin Martin, Delonte West, David Harrison, Anderson Varejao, Beno Udrih or Tony Allen.....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

while I applaud them getting rid of the big dork-i-stottle, it just seems to be a trade that doesn't really resolve any out-standing issue.

It gives us a decent backup PF (for at least this and next year) and someone who'll probably not play much this year (Lenard).

I hope this kind of trade was done because they're confident the younger players can make a difference now.

god ruben is such a tool.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Is this all Monia was worth?
> 
> What a waste of a pick he was...particularaly when you consider POR could have drafted Kevin Martin, Delonte West, David Harrison, Anderson Varejao, Beno Udrih or Tony Allen.....


especially when you consider they traded bonzi for the pick that was Sergei.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

monia is gone wtf happened with that deal.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Redbeard said:


> And all this talk about trading away talent and getting nothing in return. Which previous Blazers have had career seasons since leaving. Rasheed, that's it. And that was just because his TEAM got him a ring, he didn't put up career numbers. Damon was doing decent in Memphis, but he was still below his career average in every stat. Bonzi, DA, Shareef, Pippen, McGinnis, all did squat after leaving and really had a lower trade value than everyone hoped. DA and Damon both got signed for a MLE, which shows what they were worth and while under contract there value in a trade was even worse because the receiving team wasn't getting their moneys worth. So let's stop hounding Nash about not getting return out of the vets. He got cap room, out of the luxary tax, and put this team that much closer to being able to make money.


It's not about what a guy does after he leaves here, it's about us losing talent.

Miles for McInnis is the only talent upgrade we've made. I guess Khryapa for Gill counts too. But other than that, we keep bleeding away talent for nothing. It's starting to sting a little because it's apparent that we won't be actually aquiring any talent in the forseeable future, aside from the draft, which is clearly not a strong suit for John Nash.

And by the way, this deal doesn't give us cap room, not by itself at least.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Cool. We got some new music for the Rose Garden: Lenard Skinner!! Great band.


I thought of the same thing, RH&R, but you posted it first so credit goes to you.
Like when we were hoping for Jack and Daniels.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Foulzilla said:


> Monia can play the 4/5 with pretty good defense and rebounding? I'm not enamoured with this deal or anything, but are you thinking of the same Skinner as I am? I see no similarities between the two.


meant that skinner basiaclly brings the same as monia does, not a whole lot.

but skinner is older, shown he sucks, and gets paid a decent money this year and next year.


----------



## Gunner (Sep 16, 2005)

While not jumping outta my chair ecstatic about the deals,I'm satisfied. C'mon,we all knew that there was little chance that we were gonna snag a KG or equivalent though it was nice to dream. I'm even a little surprised (and happy) that Ruben was moved considering that hes been on the block for 2 yrs. We'v still got all of our young guys with the exception of Sergei,some serviceable backups where its sorely needed,plus some veteran guidance for Martell and the rest. Now lets play some BBall! :banana: :biggrin:


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

OK, I'm lost, I've heard too many variations. Now I'm hearing that Potapenko goes to the Kings along with Monia? That would IMO be bad since we need him a lot more than Skinner or Lenard. And is Smith gone or not?
All I know for sure is Ruben Patterson is gone! Anyone have the full breakdown before I have a breakdown?
And although I live in Northern California, Skinner just does not ring a bell, anyone able to tell me anything about him? Position, game, what?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

crandc said:


> Skinner just does not ring a bell, anyone able to tell me anything about him? Position, game, what?


The game is basketball.

That's all I know about him too.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

he players pf c.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

crandc said:


> OK, I'm lost, I've heard too many variations. Now I'm hearing that Potapenko goes to the Kings along with Monia? That would IMO be bad since we need him a lot more than Skinner or Lenard. And is Smith gone or not?
> All I know for sure is Ruben Patterson is gone! Anyone have the full breakdown before I have a breakdown?
> And although I live in Northern California, Skinner just does not ring a bell, anyone able to tell me anything about him? Position, game, what?


Skinner is a 4/5 just like Potty (though I think potty is more natural at the 5 whereas Skinner is more natural at the 4, but since neither are particulalry great anyways it's not a real big difference). Skinner is a good post defender who rebounds pretty well. He hasn't been playing a lot of minute this year because he's been stuck behind Miller, Thomas, Williamson, and SAR. Overall an upgrade over Potapenko in my opinion.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

edit plays.I the trade deadline over with.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Zidane said:


> edit plays.I the trade deadline over with.


Not sure what that says up there, but if you're asking whether or not the trade dealine has passed, the answer is yes. It ended at noon today.

But, if teams were working on a deal at noon Pacific time, they have an extension to get a deal done. So, there could still be trades out there that become official after the deadline.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

crandc said:


> I thought of the same thing, RH&R, but you posted it first so credit goes to you.
> Like when we were hoping for Jack and Daniels.


I could use some Jack Daniels right about now.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I had thought that Skinner was an expiring contract (ESPN.com has him as such). If he's not, this is just a bad deal for Portland.

I'm not a huge Monia guy, but I like his size and his shot and I think he might turn into a player. Giving him up so we can get two guys that won't help us and rid of Patterson... it just doesn't make sense.

And make no mistake: Lenard won't help us. Skinner is a decent player but he's not a guy that's going to help us escape the cellar this year or next.

I wasn't thrilled about Vitaly, but he makes 2.6m less than Skinner seems to next year... and it cost us Monia for the "pleasure" of spending that extra money.

Crap.

Ed O.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

did or did we not trade monia, linkage please!!!???


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> I had thought that Skinner was an expiring contract (ESPN.com has him as such). If he's not, this is just a bad deal for Portland.
> 
> I'm not a huge Monia guy, but I like his size and his shot and I think he might turn into a player. Giving him up so we can get two guys that won't help us and rid of Patterson... it just doesn't make sense.
> 
> ...


Monia is just a victim of an attempt to resolve an imbalanced roster. There's no way that he gets the minutes he needs to develop his game while we're going about getting minutes for Miles, Khryapa, Outlaw, and even Webster (whom Nate apparently wants to see some minutes at the SF spot). Add to that the fact that the best draft picks are SF's this year, and it's pretty clear that Monia was the odd man out. Could the Blazers have gotten more for him? Maybe given enough time, but I think it's more important to simply identify our keepers at this point and move along.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Here it is!



We get Lenard and Skinner.

Kings get Potapenko and Monia.

Nuggets get Evan, Ruben, and C.Smith.

Sonics get Watson, Russell, and Denvers 2nd round pick in 2008.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> Monia is just a victim of an attempt to resolve an imbalanced roster. There's no way that he gets the minutes he needs to develop his game while we're going about getting minutes for Miles, Khryapa, Outlaw, and even Webster (whom Nate apparently wants to see some minutes at the SF spot). Add to that the fact that the best draft picks are SF's this year, and it's pretty clear that Monia was the odd man out. Could the Blazers have gotten more for him? Maybe given enough time, but I think it's more important to simply identify our keepers at this point and move along.


So cut him.

If the Blazers could have received Vitaly instead of Skinner if it meant not giving up Monia, we would have been better off cutting Monia and taking Potapenko.

The NBDL exists for a reason, though, and there's no reason that we shouldn't have let Sergei play down there if we were worried about him not developing.

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Here it is!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This seems to be the most consistent report, but it's not official yet.

This trade would leave us at 14 players on our roster. I wonder if Nash has his eye on somebody to add to the team.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> So cut him.
> 
> If the Blazers could have received Vitaly instead of Skinner if it meant not giving up Monia, we would have been better off cutting Monia and taking Potapenko.
> 
> ...


I've always kind of liked Skinner's game. Potapenko...not so much.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Brian Skinners stats 

Thinking Voshon will be no help at all, just dwelling on what Brian may be able to get us...

4.9 boards a game.. 3.3 boards defensively. That may help in itself. We stink at rebounding


I think I may have just NOT done the deal, and benched Ruben... hoping he woul d opt out of his contract this summer. That would of saved us $6.8 mil next year, not the paltry $2.5 mil savings this deal created for us

BUT Ruben is now gone... that in itsef is a blessing personality wise. I would of kept Monia for the money he made...


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Keeping, and especially benching, Ruben was not an option. He would have destroyed this team if Nash had backed out on the apparent agreement to satisfy his trade demands. And he wouldn't have given up all that loot. He said so himself.

Skinner will be a tougher rebounder and defender than Potapenko. More of a Nate kind of guy. And Nate knows Potapenko. Either would just be short-term guys anyway, backups, like Blake and Dixon.

Losing Monia hurts a little, but it would be hard to notice since he wasn't going to sniff the court anyway.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

I would have liked Potapenko just to have another big body out there.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Trader Bob said:


> Brian Skinners stats
> 
> Thinking Voshon will be no help at all, just dwelling on what Brian may be able to get us...
> 
> ...



Getting rid of Ruben/Monia/Smith for Skinner alone gives the Blazers some necessary defense at the backup PF spot that has been lacking. Last night proved that as Charlotte went bananas against the donut defense the Blazers were employing.

Ruben was a distraction and his one on one style was damaging to a team that is beginning to learn how to play as a team. Nate prefers his big guys to be able to play defense and rebound and Skinner brings both.

Monia did not show the handles to be a SG or the quickness to defend the perimeter and the SF position was too crowded. This opens up time for Travis and gives Nate the additional roster flexibility to bring in another big if Theo's injury is a bad one (which is possible).


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Xericx said:


> I would have liked Potapenko just to have another big body out there.


Skinner: Height: 6-9 Weight: 265

Potapenko: Height: 6-10 Weight: 285

They're both big.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

I'm shocked there are so many people here that like Potapenko more than Skinner. I've watched both play and there is no doubt in my mind Skinner is better.

Potapenko is slightly bigger, but Skinner has way better touch and is a considerably better passer. Skinner can play both post positions well, while Potapenko would have a hard time defending most PF out west. 

I haven't gone back and looked at Skinners production last year for the Kings, but I think he was very solid. I'm a little dissapointed Monia is gone, but I wouldn't be surprised if we resign Skinner next year.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

When I heard that the deal was gonna be Ruben for Lenard and Potapenko, I cringed. Vitaly simply isn't a good basketball player and wouldn't bring a whole lot of anything that Ha doesn't already bring.

However, getting Brian Skinner kind of eases the pain of a trade like this. I've been a big Ruben fan for a while now so it's sad to see him go, but at the same time one has to realize that he's not a part of the future; and effort aside, his overall being was detrimental to the team.

Clearing him out along with Monia (who I was shocked to see leave) simply made me glad that we hadn't traded away Travis Outlaw. Our rotation has openned up a bit and I'm glad that we can add some much needed size, rebounding and interior defense in the form of Brian Skinner. If anything, he can be about on par with what Dale Davis gave us during his last few years.

Overall, I'm indifferent to the trade seeing as how we didn't make any major moves and just rounded out the roster a little bit.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Backboard Cam said:


> Skinner: Height: 6-9 Weight: 265
> 
> Potapenko: Height: 6-10 Weight: 285
> 
> They're both big.


Yeah, but having them both. Skinner is the better player....but it would be nice to have them both...Although, two choose between the two, SKINNER is the obvious choice.....but having both centers out...Potapenko would have been an added plus.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Bert said:


> Keeping, and especially benching, Ruben was not an option. He would have destroyed this team if Nash had backed out on the apparent agreement to satisfy his trade demands.


Destroyed how? What can he do to this team that is going to make it worse?

If he did too much, anyways, the team could suspend him.

Ed O.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Today's trade balanced out the roster - the best its been in 2 years. We have 2 fewer SF's!! We added a SG - not a great one - but he used to start for Denver!! I don't know much about Skinner but some others have said we were correct to get Skinner instead of Potopenko.

Blake - Telfair - Jack
Dixon - Webster - Lenard
Miles - Outlaw - Khryapa
Randolph - Skinner
Przybilla - Ratliff - Ha

Much better balance for PT than...
Blake - Telfair - Jack
Dixon - Smith
Miles - Patterson - Outlaw - Khryapa - Monia
Randolph
Przybilla - Ratliff - Ha

We didn't extend our financial commitments by adding bigger contracts. We moved SF's for b/u's at SG and PF.

Although not a block-buster deal that everyone would love.....nonetheless, a solid trade to move players.

I see nothing WRONG with this trade. Not much right, either.


----------



## AnDrOiDKing4 (Feb 6, 2005)

Skinner is a good player, solid one on one Defense, great shot blocker and rebounding, but just hide your children if he touches the ball on the offensive side.

I wish he would of played more in Sac-Town, but RA doesnt like guys that can hit a Free Throw, but at the end, if he plays, Blazer fans will love the guy.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

i like the trade

we get another big man

we get a decent shooter

for 

a disgruntled forward

a project shooter

a scrub guard


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

but i want us to sign another big man


maybe james thomas he played well for us last year


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I really like this trade; the team finally gets some balance while getting rid of a cancer and keeping the salaries manageable. Now let's see if the young'ns blossom.

It's a good "stopgap" trade that makes the Blazers more likely to make some moves this summer; they have some different pieces to work with and won't worry about trying to get the roster balance they have now. I guess what I'm saying is, they have fewer problems that stand between them and acquisitions in the offseason.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Problem is...you guys have zero talent.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

I don't understand the point of this trade. I really don't. Ruben was an asset to the team, and was probably going to leave after this year anyway, if he stayed one more, it would be to the benefit if the team actually.

What do we want with Old-Man Lenard who has lost his shooting touch and some boring backup PF scrub? Patterson at least had a positive affect on the team with his energy, inside scoring and tenacious defense.

This trade sucks.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Yega1979 said:


> I don't understand the point of this trade. I really don't. Ruben was an asset to the team, and was probably going to leave after this year anyway, if he stayed one more, it would be to the benefit if the team actually.
> 
> What do we want with Old-Man Lenard who has lost his shooting touch and some boring backup PF scrub? Patterson at least had a positive affect on the team with his energy, inside scoring and tenacious defense.
> 
> This trade sucks.


Patterson said in Canzano's column that he'd be a fool to turn down the player option for next year. So he comes back, coughs up unforced turnovers and plays streaky defense next year. Great. That, and if he wasn't traded, Patterson would have continued his trade demands and loud mouth, and that doesn't have a positive impact on the team.

Lenard will come off the books after this year, and Skinner is a servicable backup PF who will come in and block some shots.


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

Xericx said:


> I would have liked Potapenko just to have another big body out there.


Naw....we have Ha.... Potapenko isn't as cool as the Ha man.


We got the wall of china baby... why would we some tall skinny punk?


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

Tom said:


> Problem is...you guys have zero talent.



Your way to cool for school.



*TOM* :rocket:


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Congratulations to John Nash for accomplishing three things with today's trade(s):

#1 - getting rid of Ruben Patterson who was a festering boil on the collective behind of the Blazers' organization (in spite of his hustle), 

#2 - helping the team move closer to getting under the salary cap, and 

#3 - improving the team at the one position it desperately needed it - power forward. 

Am I sorry to see Monia go? Yes. But I have to believe a little in Blazers' management that they saw more upside with Travis Outlaw and Viktor Khryapa as the team's future small forwards, and more possibility with Juan Dixon and Martell Webster as future shooting guards, to let him go. I hope they're right. 

Brian Skinner is a solid backup. Whoever compared him to Dale Davis might have been right on - or he's sort of a Bo Outlaw type, too. Can't handle the ball too well, but he'll play good defense, block shots, rebound, and hurt people if they waltz down the lane. If the Blazers are going to lose Patterson's tenacity, at least they're replacing it with someone who isn't afraid to play physical. 

Voshon Lenard? Once upon a time he could shoot. Maybe he'll find that stroke again, and the Blazers will actually have someone over the age of 20 who can hit an outside shot.


----------



## chula vista blazer (Jul 13, 2005)

I join the PD in liking today's trade. We dealt from a position of plenty (small forward) and picked up a much need defensive big man. Veshon may be a useful piece as a Steve Kerr type 3 point shooting reserve.

We lost nothing, really. Patterson and Monia are assets that are fungible to us- we already have too many players like them. There's also additon by subtraction in getting rid of a malcontent. Canzano is quickly running out of players to make a good beef about.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

chula vista blazer said:


> Canzano is quickly running out of players to make a good beef about.


He still has Miles. And Zach when he wants a little change of pace. Then it will be Telfair...Outlaw....


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Tom said:


> Problem is...you guys have zero talent.


So well thought out and elloquent.

Thanks.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I heard somewhere that it was Pritchard's doing to get Skinner here instead of Potapenko....

Could that be a hint that he has more of a future in Portland then as just the player personel guy...


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> I heard somewhere that it was Pritchard's doing to get Skinner here instead of Potapenko....
> 
> Could that be a hint that he has more of a future in Portland then as just the player personel guy...


 He couldn't be worse than Nash. 

Nash will be gone this summer, so it couldn't hurt to give Pritch a little audition before we open up the job to other canidates.


----------



## ThomasG86 (May 3, 2003)

To me, the only player that really hurts Portland losing is Ruben. I think Leonard and Skinner should be able to pick up the slack. We'll see... Ruben was just such an energy guy and could seemingly pick the whole team up and put him on his back.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

OK, I almost (and I emphasize almost) feel bad about pointing this out, and I know that I'm nitpicking, but....

In his article today, Jason Quick has this to say:



> And a good payday. Patterson made more than $1.3 million Thursday because of a clause in his contract that requires the team that traded for him to pay an additional nine percent of his remaining contract. Patterson makes $6.353 million this season and $6.807 next season.


Close. Jason gets the amount of Patterson's "trade kicker" right, but messed up the %. He should have said "a clause in his contract that requires the team that traded for him to pay additional fifteen percent of his remaining contract." 15% of next year's amount plus 15% of the pro-rated amount left this season equals just over $1.3 million.

The reason I "almost" feel bad is because I just learned a couple of days ago that trade kickers are pro-rated under the new CBA (they weren't under the previous CBA). But one of the purposes of this board is for education, so I just thought I'd pass on the information. Hey, maybe Jason will see this and.....


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Storyteller said:


> The reason I "almost" feel bad is because I just learned a couple of days ago that trade kickers are pro-rated under the new CBA (they weren't under the previous CBA).


And that change applies retroactively to Ruben's contract? That seems kind of surprising.

barfo


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

barfo said:


> And that change applies retroactively to Ruben's contract? That seems kind of surprising.
> 
> barfo


Here's what the CBA says:



> A player’s Salary with respect to any Salary Cap Year covered by a Contract entered into prior to the date of this Agreement shall continue to be calculated in accordance with the Salary Cap rules that were in existence at the time the Contract was entered into. In no event shall the preceding sentence apply to the calculation of Salary with respect to any Contract, Extension, Renegotiation, transaction, or event entered into or occurring on or after the date of this Agreement.


It's my understanding that the "event" in this case was the trade that kicked in his bonus. Since the event took place under the new CBA, it's covered by the new rules. If the bonus had been in place prior to the signing of the new CBA, there would have been no retroactive change.

Like I said, that's my understanding of how it works. So if I'm wrong, somebody please correct me.


----------

