# Bonzi Has Been Traded!!!



## Backboard Cam

910 just announced 

for Wesley Person, Conditional 1st round draft pick, and cash.

Details to come, official announcement tomorrow.


----------



## Masbee

http://espn.go.com/index.html

front page ESPN.com


----------



## #colonel

woah... pretty surprising move... Portland gets a nice sharpshooter out of the deal... But they really musta wanted to move him to make this trade...


----------



## gambitnut

Is he playing tonight or will I have to change my x-factor?


----------



## mook

man, if that's true, it could turn out to be a decent deal depending on the conditions of the draft pick. that pick could likely be a top 10 pick


----------



## tlong

Anyone know what the conditions on the draft pick are? Lottery protected?


----------



## 1/2man-1/2incredible

Seriously i never saw this one coming.....lol....wow.... but ye never know the blazers could end up getting two lottery picks outta this not a bad trade... welllllll...... i dunno


----------



## Anima

> Originally posted by <b>gambitnut</b>!
> Is he playing tonight or will I have to change my x-factor?


You gonna have to change the X factor


----------



## ***Finch***

didnt they say last nite on Sportscenter it would be nearly impossible to trade him?


----------



## Ed O

Wow. I'm surprised.

I guess we'll have to see where the first rounder lands, but it looks like Jerry West pulled one over BIG TIME on Nash.

Of course, considering Nash is the guy who traded Rasheed for Rod Strickland, I'm unfortunately not terribly surprised he would mess up so badly.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>***Finch***</b>!
> didnt they say last nite on Sportscenter it would be nearly impossible to trade him?


I didn't see exactly what he said, but if he said it would be nearly impossible to trade him for significant value, it seems like he was right...

Ed O.


----------



## gambitnut

> Originally posted by <b>Epadfield</b>!
> 
> 
> You gonna have to change the X factor


Any suggestions?


----------



## Anima

I would go with Woods. I think he will play Bonzi's minutes.


----------



## Scinos

Wow, great deal for Portland (in terms of salary cap and PR). You get the outside shooter (Person has a .414% career 3pt FG%) and a first round pick. Person also has an expiring contract, so it will give you more cap room in the offseason.


----------



## Backboard Cam

Wesley Person is in the last year of his deal. 

Not playing many minutes this season, but he has had good seasons of course. The last two seasons he was a good shooter (%) and great from three- 4 per game at 44% in 01/02.

I had him on my fantasy team in 01/02, and I remember that he always struggled in the second of back-to-back games. He's getting old. He's younger than me, but you know what I mean.

Nice Person?  Yup. Expiring contract? Check. Fan Favorite? Er, I don't think so. 

I'm happy to have him here.


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>gambitnut</b>!
> 
> Any suggestions?


I would say Qyntel Woods. We don't have any other healthy NBA-level swing men. (I guess Carroll might be considered one, and RP might be healthy).

Ed O.


----------



## Lurch

GodDamnIt!!!! :upset: 

Why couldnt the peice of **** stay were whe came from, he had to go to one the teams I like! I would rather have Person than trash!


----------



## talman

Conditions:

Top 3 protected for this next year. Goes to '05 if Memphis pick is top 3.

Absolutely shows how much Bonzi's stock has plummeted. Not to sound like a Bonzi apologist but I'd almost had preferred we kept him around.


----------



## mook

well, Wesley gives us an outside shooter, assuming he overcomes his early season slump. He's a career 41% shooter from 3, but horrible this year. 

at 32, I guess the thinking is that we needed a more mature role model for Zach and Q. 

man, when we run a back court of Damon and Wesley our guard defense is going to be horrible. 

on the other hand, we already gave up a better 3 point % than just about anyone, so how much worse could it get?


----------



## Backboard Cam

Conditional draft pick is top-3-protected for next year.


----------



## Blaze

Well, believe me or not, but I thought about this move a few weeks ago, only because of Person's expiring contract. I still have questions about Bonzi's contract, whether it is a team option next or not, as reported on hoopshype.com. I like this deal, especially with the emergence of Woods and McInnis. When Anderson comes back, this gives us some pretty good shooters. I also like the pick. Thumbs up to Nash on this one.


----------



## Scinos

What is Memphis gonna do with their swingmen now ?

Posey and Battier are their SF's, and they have Mike Miller at SG. I guess Miller will move to SF and Bonzi will play SG...:whoknows:


----------



## Storyteller

Person fills a short-term need for outside shooting, without bringing on a long-term contract.

The pick looks to be somewhere about 15-16, but could be as good as 10 or as poor as 20.

I'd say that, given the PR situation of Wells in Portland, this was a good trade for the Blazers.

BTW, my guess is that Wells will be coming off the bench (at least intially) in Memphis. I don't see him starting ahead of Miller and Posey at this point.


----------



## Lurch

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> What is Memphis gonna do with their swingmen now ?
> 
> Posey and Battier are their SF's, and they have Mike Miller at SG. I guess Miller will move to SF and Bonzi will play SG...:whoknows:


 Wells could sit his *** *** on the bench and shut his mouth.


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>talman</b>!
> Conditions:
> 
> Top 3 protected for this next year. Goes to '05 if Memphis pick is top 3.


Well, it's better than I thought it was... I was worried it would be lottery protected altogether.

The thing is, with this deal I think that the Grizzlies are now a better team than Portland.



> Absolutely shows how much Bonzi's stock has plummeted. Not to sound like a Bonzi apologist but I'd almost had preferred we kept him around.


As what many on this board would consider a "Bonzi apologist", I'd have to agree on both counts.

I don't see any excuse for Nash trading Wells now, rather than a month ago or a month from now. The value we received back was simply too low to justify the deal unless the team is finally prepared to go into the lottery, because for the first time in a decade I see that as a strong possibility, and perhaps even a probability.

Of course, in half an hour I'm gonna be out of this little funk and looking at the bright side... wait and see 

Ed O.


----------



## ABM

When I read "conditional pick", I was thinking he'd have to have a record or sumthin' like that.


----------



## Anima

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> What is Memphis gonna do with their swingmen now ?
> 
> Posey and Battier are their SF's, and they have Mike Miller at SG. I guess Miller will move to SF and Bonzi will play SG...:whoknows:


I think they will trade Battier sense he seems to have good trade value.


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> What is Memphis gonna do with their swingmen now ?
> 
> Posey and Battier are their SF's, and they have Mike Miller at SG. I guess Miller will move to SF and Bonzi will play SG...:whoknows:


This is the most frustrating thing to me as a Blazers fan: Memphis had Posey, Battier, Miller and Person... and Portland gets EASILY the worst of the litter.

Jerry West has done an excellent job of buying low, which will allow him to either move Bonzi later at a higher value level or move one of the other three guys.

:sour: 

Portland gets rid of a problem, and maybe makes some fans happy, but gets a guy who's defense is so crappy that he'll be lucky to get off the bench more than Tracy Murray did. The pick COULD turn out to be decent, and I'll be rooting against Memphis the rest of the way even harder because of it, but I'm not too optimistic about the present value of a Grizzlies' first rounder.

Ed O.


----------



## talman

By preferring to keep him around I mean let the whole furor blow over for the next month or two, tell Wells to behave and he'll get his trade (assuming that's what he wanted) and I strongly believe we'd have gotten more than what we did. Perhaps with the whole Zach thing, Nash had his hand forced.

Onto new beginnings!!


----------



## mook

Portland is still a better team than the Griz, if only because we have the best two players in Zach and Sheed. However, after that Pau and Jason Williams are better than anyone else we have (barring a huge, unlikely surge in Woods this year). 

Memphis has a boatload of swingmen now, which I don't think is necessarily a good thing. There are a lot of opportunities for in-fighting on that squad. 

Regardless, Portland may have just traded themselves out of the playoffs this year. 

Last time we traded a talented, malcontent stud for veteran role player was Jermaine O'Neal, and we remember how that turned out. 

I waffle on this trade, not even by post, but by individual paragraph.


----------



## Storyteller

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> I don't see any excuse for Nash trading Wells now, rather than a month ago or a month from now. The value we received back was simply too low to justify the deal unless the team is finally prepared to go into the lottery, because for the first time in a decade I see that as a strong possibility, and perhaps even a probability.


What if Bonzi's presence was becoming a distraction? I'm not saying this was definitely the case, but Nash could have seen it happening or predicted it would happen.

Now, Rasheed can't complain about Bonzi not starting (although he can complain about the team trading his friend away). Now, you don't have Bonzi sitting on the bench (in Portland, that is) thinking that he should be starting.
Etc., etc.

Just some ideas about why now and not waiting until later....


----------



## mook

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> When I read "conditional pick", I was thinking he'd have to have a record or sumthin' like that.


lol. he will by the time our blazers are done with him.


----------



## ABM

Jubilation abounds in Andersonville.


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> Just some ideas about why now and not waiting until later....


You might be right. You might be 100% right.

Ed O.


----------



## talman

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> 
> I waffle on this trade, not even by post, but by individual paragraph.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Me too. I think we'd best kiss our playoff streak goodbye.


----------



## Fork

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> Person fills a short-term need for outside shooting, without bringing on a long-term contract.
> 
> The pick looks to be somewhere about 15-16, but could be as good as 10 or as poor as 20.
> 
> I'd say that, given the PR situation of Wells in Portland, this was a good trade for the Blazers.
> 
> BTW, my guess is that Wells will be coming off the bench (at least intially) in Memphis. I don't see him starting ahead of Miller and Posey at this point.


15 or 16? That would assume that Memphis makes the playoffs. 20? That would mean Memphis is about the #6 seed in the west. I doubt that's possible. My guess is this pick will end up in the 9-13 range.


----------



## The Professional Fan

*GOOD RIDDANCE PUNK!! - WHAT A GREAT DEAL!! *


----------



## Scinos

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> This is the most frustrating thing to me as a Blazers fan: Memphis had Posey, Battier, Miller and Person... and Portland gets EASILY the worst of the litter.


You guys got the worst player of them, but perhaps the best contract. I'm guessing that's why Nash wanted Person, he fills a short term need for outside shooting and a more long term need to get the salary cap under control.

Think about it: Sheed's $17 Mill, Persons $7 Mill and Shawn Kemp's $14 Mill contract (I think), that's a lot of money coming off the books next offseason. 




> I'm not too optimistic about the present value of a Grizzlies' first rounder.
> 
> Ed O.


Hmm, that a concern now. With the addition of Bonzi, the Grizz are real contenders for the 6/7/8 playoff spot. They now have a pretty deep, talented roster...


----------



## Fork

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> *GOOD RIDDANCE PUNK!! - WHAT A GREAT DEAL!! *


Wait a second. I'm not sure I understand...are you trying to say you like this deal? Please clarify.


----------



## yangsta

Thank you John Nash!!

Damon
Mcinnis
Sheed
Zbo
DD

OR

Damon
Woods 
Sheed
Zbo
DD


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> Portland is still a better team than the Griz, if only because we have the best two players in Zach and Sheed. However, after that Pau and Jason Williams are better than anyone else we have (barring a huge, unlikely surge in Woods this year).


I would rank the top players on the two teams like this:

* Rasheed
Pau
* Zach
Bonzi
Miller
Williams
* Anderson
Posey
Battier

(* = Portland players)

Putting Anderson where I did is generous towards the Blazers, too. It seems to me pretty obvious that Memphis (which was close to Portland previously) leapfrogs the Blazers by getting Portland's third-best player while giving up their 10th or 11th.

There're some problems with the Grizzlies because of positional overlap (Bonzi, Miller, Battier and Posey are all natural swing guys who play the 2 or 3), but even accounting for that, Memphis is at least as good as Portland at every position considering Portland has the same positional overlap with its two best players.

And Memphis also has a better GM and a better coach.

That all adds up to the 8-8 Grizzlies being better prepared to reach the playoffs than the 8-7 Blazers to me.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> Hmm, that a concern now. With the addition of Bonzi, the Grizz are real contenders for the 6/7/8 playoff spot. They now have a pretty deep, talented roster...


Why would you assume that suddenly Bonzi would start playing well? He's been consistantly terrible throughout the season. he's shooting 39%. he's turning the ball over. he's flat out terrible this year. Now all of the sudden, he's going to turn into a stud and lead his guys to the promised land? Not bloody likely.


----------



## Siouxperior

Great move! We could get a top 5-10 pick for Wells, which is a good deal! Not to mention, we get one of the best shooters in the enite NBA wich an expiring contract. Well, if we don't make the playoffs...who cares! at this point we have chance making it past the 1st round anyways. So we'd have 2 lotto picks. It was only a matter of time before we traded Wells, Glad to see Nash trying to do something with the roster. Next up?.... Rasheed Wallace.


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> Jubilation abounds in Andersonville.


I'm sure he's really looking forward to being with Maurice Cheeks again.

As long as he doesn't do any jumping for joy (bad for the back, I'd think) he should celebrate. He's going to have to play some serious minutes when he gets back.

Ed O.


----------



## Anima

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> 
> 
> You guys got the worst player of them, but perhaps the best contract. I'm guessing that's why Nash wanted Person, he fills a short term need for outside shooting and a more long term need to get the salary cap under control.
> 
> Think about it: Sheed's $17 Mill, Persons $7 Mill and Shawn Kemp's $14 Mill contract (I think), that's a lot of money coming off the books next offseason.


Yeah, they might be far enough under the cap that they can sign a good player before resigning (or sign & trade) Wallace.


----------



## Storyteller

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> 15 or 16? That would assume that Memphis makes the playoffs. 20? That would mean Memphis is about the #6 seed in the west. I doubt that's possible. My guess is this pick will end up in the 9-13 range.


Yep. I just predicted that the Grizzlies will make it into the playoffs as the #8 seed in the West. One or two teams will have a worse record than them but still make the playoffs in the East.

I used the 10 and 20 as the best and worst case scenario. Players could have career years and they'd still only have the 10th best record in the league. But I don't realistically see teams like Cleveland, Atlanta, Orlando, Seattle, the Clippers, etc. passing them by, either.


----------



## tlong

Question for Ed O!

Don't start back-tracking on me now that Bonzi's gone! You have been saying all season so far that the Blazers would be in the playoffs! Have you changed your mind?......or perhaps come to your senses? :laugh:


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> Why would you assume that suddenly Bonzi would start playing well? He's been consistantly terrible throughout the season. he's shooting 39%. he's turning the ball over. he's flat out terrible this year. Now all of the sudden, he's going to turn into a stud and lead his guys to the promised land? Not bloody likely.


He's played in 13 games, and only started 10.

He's been a very good player over the course of the last several YEARS, and the coaching staff was swearing up and down that he was in great shape and poised for a big season.

I don't think it's a bad bet that he'll bounce back to form. And that he'll be playing for a better coach won't hurt, either. 

Ed O.


----------



## marshall

This trade will for sure have no middle ground. Either Bonzi goes to Memphis and turns it around and makes us look stupid. Or he keeps tanking it and the trade isnt half bad. But if Bonzi turns it around......


----------



## Sean

Wow! That's going to be around $57 Million off the books at the end of this year. According to hoopshype, portland should be at around $28 million to start the FA season. Good financial move for the team.

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/portland.htm


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>tlong</b>!
> Question for Ed O!
> 
> Don't start back-tracking on me now that Bonzi's gone! You have been saying all season so far that the Blazers would be in the playoffs! Have you changed your mind?......or perhaps come to your senses? :laugh:


What?

If Tim Duncan were struck by lightning tomorrow, would the Spurs still be considered playoff contenders?

The Blazers were one of the 8 best teams in the West (and perhaps the NBA). By giving away their 3rd-best player they are not. Based on that, I'd say the team has a significant chance of missing the playoffs.

That is not inconsistent with the position that they would have made the playoffs easily had they kept Wells or received something approaching equal talent in return for him.

Ed O.


----------



## Scinos

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> Why would you assume that suddenly Bonzi would start playing well? He's been consistantly terrible throughout the season. he's shooting 39%. he's turning the ball over. he's flat out terrible this year. Now all of the sudden, he's going to turn into a stud and lead his guys to the promised land? Not bloody likely.


He doesn't need to 'lead' the Grizz to the promised land, Gasol, Miller and Williams are doing that. He just needs to become an effective part of the rotation. I'm sure he can become more valuable than Person's 5.2 ppg and .308% FG's. :sour:


----------



## Backboard Cam

I'm not sure Portland could have received anything close to "equal value" at this point. If Jerry West trades Bonzi next off-season, he could get much closer to equal value for him- if Bonzi can see this as an opportunity to shape up, and his first chance is to not dis Portland.

If Memphis just benches Bonzi for the rest of the season, and somehow keeps his attitude positive (can Jerry West do that?) he could be a top trade prospect next season. Jerry West knows that the biggest chore he has now this season is making Bonzi sane. Maybe he can actually do it- sometimes a change of location can help a lot.

For us? Hey- we got rid of Bonzi. Cool with me. We get the bench 3-point shooter that we need this year. We did not replace Bonzi as a player, someone else is going to have to step up. Q, Jeff, DA...

...man, DA must be excited right now...


----------



## tlong

The best case scenario resulting from this would be to see the Blazers AND the Grizzlies both miss the playoffs this year. We could end up with a couple of decent lottery picks. We need good young talent for the future. In 2 years the Blazers will be back in the playoff mix.


----------



## Storyteller

> Originally posted by <b>Epadfield</b>!
> 
> Yeah, they might be far enough under the cap that they can sign a good player resigning (or sign & trade) Wallace.


A sign-and-trade for Wallace is a definite possibility.

But even if they let Person and Wallace walk away, if they refused the (alleged) team option on Davis' last year, the Blazers would still be only about $5 million under the cap. And that's only if they renounce their MLE. So, they'd have about the same amount under the cap to sign a player to an MLE-level contract. Not enough cap room to be a major player.


----------



## Fork

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> He's played in 13 games, and only started 10.


Yeah. because he was suspended for flipping off a fan and swearing at his coach. Having a guy like that LEAVE the lockerroom will be a positive for the Blazers. he hasn't delivered any positives this year on the court with lackluster defense and bad shooting. No matter who takes over those minutes- Woods, Patterson or Anderson- we are bound to see more production on the court than what we've had. 



> He's been a very good player over the course of the last several YEARS, and the coaching staff was swearing up and down that he was in great shape and poised for a big season.
> 
> I don't think it's a bad bet that he'll bounce back to form. And that he'll be playing for a better coach won't hurt, either.
> 
> Ed O.


I'm sure at some point he will bounce back. But the guy had a negative effect on our team harmony. Maybe he'll be a perfect citizen in Memphis. I wish him all the luck in the world. I feel he was hurting us more than he will help Memphis (both on and off court) and that's why I feel it's wrong to say that Memphis is now better suited for the playoffs.


----------



## Stallion

good move for portland, make a stand in demanding acceptable behavior, take on an expiring contract, fill a need with a solid shooter, aquire a late lottery pick perhaps, and maybe even enter the free agent market at the end of this season. All good things, its a good day.


----------



## tlong

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> If Tim Duncan were struck by lightning tomorrow, would the Spurs still be considered playoff contenders?
> 
> The Blazers were one of the 8 best teams in the West (and perhaps the NBA). By giving away their 3rd-best player they are not. Based on that, I'd say the team has a significant chance of missing the playoffs.
> 
> That is not inconsistent with the position that they would have made the playoffs easily had they kept Wells or received something approaching equal talent in return for him.
> 
> Ed O.


I KNEW you'd pull this on me Ed! Bonzi has played like crap in this season to date and now you're telling me that his absence will be the reason the Blazers will miss the playoffs


----------



## The Professional Fan

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Wait a second. I'm not sure I understand...are you trying to say you like this deal? Please clarify.



Yes! I LOVE this deal. Nash impressed me with this one. Sure, the talent level of Person does not match Bonzi, but Portland has PLENTY of talent. Nash improved the team more than he hurt it, hands down.

Improved PR
Improved outside shooting
Improved next years salary cap
Improved player and coach relations
Improved locker room atmosphere

I mean, he did a GREAT job with this trade. I wish Whitsitt possessed HALF this kind of foresight and understanding of what it takes to build a likable and competitive basketball team.

My hat is off to the man. Nice work, Mr. Nash.


----------



## talman

Thanks SCBF!

I knew once I saw that post that it wouldn't be too long until you clarified the situation for us.


----------



## Backboard Cam

> Originally posted by <b>tlong</b>!
> The best case scenario resulting from this would be to see the Blazers AND the Grizzlies both miss the playoffs this year. We could end up with a couple of decent lottery picks.


I won't stop rooting for the Blazers, but I will be looking for Memphis to lose close games. I like the Grizzlies, but I live in Portland so I like our team more of course.

It gives me something interesting to follow, actually- where the Grizz end up, which pick we get next year from them, and who we can get for it.  

I still believe Portland will make the playoffs this year.


----------



## Ed O

One interesting thing about this trade is that the fans of "addition by subtraction" should finally get a dose of reality.

The team has subtracted Pippen, Sabonis, Daniels (*yawn*) and now Bonzi and replaced them with ... Wesley Person, who will be 33 in March and will be lucky to get off the bench in Portland.

If "addition by subtraction" folks are right, the team's overstock in players will even out a bit and the team will be better for it.

If common sense (as defined, of course, by me  ) is right, the team will be hit by an injury or two, an arrest or two, and turn in the worst Portland record in the better part of three decades (only one Blazers team history has won fewer than 38 games since 75-76).

Well, maybe that's a bit doom and gloom, but a sub-.500 record and a lottery appearance seem a lot more possible to me now than 4 hours ago.

Ed O.


----------



## s a b a s 11

*Blah*

Y'know, I loved Bonzi as a player... so talented, one of the best players i've ever seen that utilized his size. I have to say that after all thats been going on (on top of all the other crap with the Blazers) I won't miss him. I am feeling quite indifferent about all this.

Blah.

Stuart


----------



## Storyteller

> Originally posted by <b>Sean</b>!
> Wow! That's going to be around $57 Million off the books at the end of this year. According to hoopshype, portland should be at around $28 million to start the FA season. Good financial move for the team.
> 
> http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/portland.htm


More like $39 million (The hoopshype total of $36 million doesn't include the team option on Bonzi). Stoudamire, Anderson, Patterson, McInnis, Stepenia, Woods and Outlaw will make about $36-37 million. Add in 2 first round picks (and their guaranteed contracts) and you're looking at about $39 million or more.

And that's only if the Blazers don't pick up the option on Davis and let Sheed walk away for nothing.


----------



## Tommyboy

maybe i'm late on this but I think this signals the absolute end of the current blazer squad. Within the next month or so Sheed will be gone as well. Damon may or may not, he seems to be better but if he slips again, he's gone too. This is a sell off, and it is the direct result of Paul Allen telling mgmt to do it and do it now.


later


----------



## marshall

I am a big fan of Bonzi's game and understand the reason for the trade. But its just so scary to see him go off for 45 last year in the playoffs and have to trade him for off the court/attitude problems. Especially after the off season hype. Im scared to play against him if he turns it around.

Derrick Anderson absolutley HAS to play good this season for any chance for this team to succeed. Bonzis D will be missed too. We are counting on Damon, DA, Q, and Wesley Person for good gaurd play....Kinda scary


----------



## tlong

The Blazers will suck this year. There is no doubt about it. The thing is though that they would have sucked anyway if they kept Bonzi. Now they are finally getting some tools to use in the future.


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> No matter who takes over those minutes- Woods, Patterson or Anderson- we are bound to see more production on the court than what we've had.


I agree it can't get much worse than we've had so far this year... Bonzi was off to a terrible start, and McInnis hasn't been much better. But the team is off to a start that will see them out of the playoffs, so they need MORE production, not the same, and Bonzi was the best bet for that.

I wasn't thinking that the Blazers would be getting out of Wells the rest of the year what they've got to this point. History indicated (indicates) he'll bounce back.

And it also indicates that McInnis is not a shooting guard, that DA won't stay healthy, and that Woods is not ready to be a significant contributor (let alone a starter) on a playoff-level NBA team.



> I wish him all the luck in the world. I feel he was hurting us more than he will help Memphis (both on and off court) and that's why I feel it's wrong to say that Memphis is now better suited for the playoffs.


They're simply a better team than they were before. That makes them better suited to get into the playoffs. Couple that with Portland's step back and it makes them doubly-better suited to make the playoffs (since their competition has been weakened).

Ed O.


----------



## MAS RipCity

> Originally posted by <b>Backboard Cam</b>!
> 910 just announced
> 
> for Wesley Person, Conditional 1st round draft pick, and cash.
> 
> Details to come, official announcement tomorrow.


HOLY HELL WHAT A DAMN DEAL! We get our sharp shooter + a potential lottery pick...what a move..what a move.


----------



## Bad Bartons

*Good trade for everyone*

Portland gets rid of Bonzi's attitude and legal problems and in return got a draft pick that may be upper lotto (5 or 6) depending on how the Griz do.

Memphis gets another talented young player.

Bonzi gets a fresh start with a new city and organization.

I really see this trade as a winner for everyone.


----------



## The Professional Fan

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> One interesting thing about this trade is that the fans of "addition by subtraction" should finally get a dose of reality.
> 
> The team has subtracted Pippen, Sabonis, Daniels (*yawn*) and now Bonzi and replaced them with ... Wesley Person, who will be 33 in March and will be lucky to get off the bench in Portland.
> 
> If "addition by subtraction" folks are right, the team's overstock in players will even out a bit and the team will be better for it.
> 
> If common sense (as defined, of course, by me  ) is right, the team will be hit by an injury or two, an arrest or two, and turn in the worst Portland record in the better part of three decades (only one Blazers team history has won fewer than 38 games since 75-76).
> 
> Well, maybe that's a bit doom and gloom, but a sub-.500 record and a lottery appearance seem a lot more possible to me now than 4 hours ago.
> 
> Ed O.



Unlike you, Ed – I really wouldn't care if Portland didn't make the playoffs this year. You have to think more long term. If the ultimate goal is to win a Championship, but it's VERY clear that the Blazers will NEVER win a Championship with Sheed and Bonzi on their team, then it would be LOGICAL to me that Portland would do whatever needs to be done in order to UNLOAD (as ESPN put it...not TRADED, but UNLOADED) the cornerstones (that's putting it nicely...maybe the CANCERS) of your Franchise in order to start over. UNLOADING Bonzi is the first step of many that could lead the Blazers to a Championship. 

Addition by subtraction is exactly what the Blazers needed to do. Sure, it's very possible that it won't pan out THIS year, but looking at things long term, the Blazers took a HUGE step today.

I'm so stoked! I'm a step closer to loving my Blazers again! *FINALLY!!*


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> maybe i'm late on this but I think this signals the absolute end of the current blazer squad. Within the next month or so Sheed will be gone as well. Damon may or may not, he seems to be better but if he slips again, he's gone too. This is a sell off, and it is the direct result of Paul Allen telling mgmt to do it and do it now.


I don't disagree with you entirely, but I think the team will simply let Rasheed walk rather than trade him... they won't want to take the contracts back necessary to get the salaries matched up.

:no: 

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O

*Re: Good trade for everyone*



> Originally posted by <b>Bad Bartons</b>!
> Portland gets rid of Bonzi's attitude and legal problems and in return got a draft pick that may be upper lotto (5 or 6) depending on how the Griz do.


What legal problems? 

Can you please name a single legal problem Bonzi has had?

Thanks,

Ed O.
p.s. if Portland gets the #5 or #6 pick from Memphis next year, it WILL be a pretty good deal, but the odds of that happening are infinitesimal


----------



## Fork

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> They're simply a better team than they were before. That makes them better suited to get into the playoffs. Couple that with Portland's step back and it makes them doubly-better suited to make the playoffs (since their competition has been weakened).
> 
> Ed O.


It sounds like you're assuming a best case scenario for Wells performance. Sounds like you're saying he'll put up 15 pts, 5 rebounds and 5 assists every night while shooting a high percentage. Maybe that'll happen. If it does, I agree that Memphis will be a better team. Luckily for us, Wells hasn't showed any signs of improvement yet.


----------



## Schilly

Portland very likely will have 2 top 13 picks this season.

Build for the future, cut salary badda bing badda boom.


----------



## MAS RipCity

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Wow. I'm surprised.
> 
> I guess we'll have to see where the first rounder lands, but it looks like Jerry West pulled one over BIG TIME on Nash.
> 
> Of course, considering Nash is the guy who traded Rasheed for Rod Strickland, I'm unfortunately not terribly surprised he would mess up so badly.
> 
> Ed O.


Not really, Bonzi was a huge distraction and a TOTAL no-factor all-year. He could go down as one of hte most inconsistent player of all damn time. Who else can drop a franchise record 40+ points in a playoff game then go off for a measly 6 the next. He woulda been awesome jsut taking it to the rack but he was lazy and never did, all he did was shoot jumpers and he was streaky at best. We needed a sharp shooter, and I remember that big wes finished 2nd 2 straight years in the 3 pt shootout, + we get a potential lottery pick..damn..great deal for us.


----------



## tlong

At least it's easy to get cheap Blazer tickets these days.


----------



## Sambonius

Am I the only one that sees this as a pretty damn good deal? Memphis will NOT make the playoffs, so no matter what it will be a lottery pick which could get us a solid player. Addition by subtraction is another thing, but for all we know we could get the 4th pick in next years draft.


----------



## Masbee

This is a bad deal that Nash has made, and as a ticket paying fan I am against it. It is "selling low". There is no guarantee the draft pick will ever amount to much, though it could be ok - *years in the future*. Notice though, how Wes Person's expiring contract will save the Blazer's $15mil in salary and luxury tax next season (assuming the lux tax is in effect). How special. :sour:

I know Bonzi had to go, but so does IMO Damon, Ruben and probably Rasheed (the media onslaught is too great). And Woods and Zach may have to be moved too if they really want to clean house. So why panic now, when the job is still only 1/4 done?

This deal is yet further amunition for my great fear that the Blazers had made cost cutting their number 1 - with a bullet - priority. All the other stated goals are secondary, nice if they are included, but not the driver of any trigger pull.

I will only take this back if Wes Person's expiring contract is used before the trading deadline to snag another player and/or Portland uses the pick to facilitate quality wheeling and dealing. In the strange world of NBA lux tax, Wes Person may have more value as an expiring contract, than a far more talented player in trading scenarios.

Here I quote myself from this summer:



> Jeff isn't worked up over Nash. He is angry over the Blazers Organization.
> 
> So far nothing has gone particularly well.
> 
> Sure it is too early to render a verdict on the overall change in direction of the organization and the off-season changes. But, when all is negative and neutral so far, the organization needs to start batting 1000 the rest of the way.
> 
> The organization announced that they were going to clean house, get rid of the bad apples, and field a team that the fans could love again, all while maintaining the playoff streak. They were also going to reign in the days of unlimited spending on payroll.
> 
> What has the Blazers organization accomplished so far?
> 
> Took a long time to hire a President and GM. In the case of the GM, too late for him to have any input into the draft, potential draft day trades, or attempt to work sign-and-trades with the most desired free agents.
> 
> This delay likely ruined any chance Nash had for pulling of a major roster overhaul right away. Instead, he will have to tinker this summer, and wait for mid-season trading season and next summer to make his moves. Won't it be fun to watch the opening day roster that will be filled with trade bait?
> 
> The Blazers fired a ton of staff to cut costs. There is no way this will make going to the Rose Garden a better experience, interacting with the organization an improvement or the community involvement better.
> 
> Quality assistant coaches have left.
> 
> The Mo Cheeks wooing by Philly was mishandled.
> 
> Sabonis is gone. Pippen is gone. The two most loved Blazers - gone.
> 
> Have the Blazers managed to unload any of their bad apples or PR problems? Nope. Not a one.
> 
> Have the Blazers brought in a player of impeccable character to set the new standard? Nope.
> 
> What have they accomplished so far?
> 
> *They have reduced player payroll significantly by letting all free agents walk, regardless of fan popularity or character and have slashed expenses by cutting staff.*
> 
> Do I blame Allen and the Blazers for slashing expenses, and making that priority no. 1? Nope. But I sure don't want to hear from them how fielding a team the fans can be proud of, that will still make the playoffs was their top priority. Because those statements are B.S. Actions speak louder than words and their actions show very clearly what their top priority has been. And now the Blazers are perilously close to being painted in a corner where Nash is left to choose to either keep many of the talented bad apples on the team to stay competitive or dump them for lesser talent. If the Sabonis contract is not used to get the Blazers a Center or Point Guard, we will know a lot.


----------



## SheedSoNasty

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> If common sense (as defined, of course, by me


LOL, I finally understand you Ed. For the longest time I just thought you were some grumpy dude who had to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing... You should change your name to Common Sense Ed or something more creative than that.

On the trade front, I'm really surprised to see this go down. If DA comes back with fire in his belly like he did in SA, this could work out quite well if we get a decent pick in the draft. All in all, I'm glad to see Bonzi outta here.


----------



## Storyteller

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> I don't disagree with you entirely, but I think the team will simply let Rasheed walk rather than trade him... they won't want to take the contracts back necessary to get the salaries matched up.


Unless, of course, the Blazers can make My Crazy Trade Idea a reality!


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> 
> Unlike you, Ed – I really wouldn't care if Portland didn't make the playoffs this year. You have to think more long term. If the ultimate goal is to win a Championship, but it's VERY clear that the Blazers will NEVER win a Championship with Sheed and Bonzi on their team


That's not very clear by any stretch of the imagination. They almost won a championship with both of those guys playing key roles just a few years ago.



> , then it would be LOGICAL to me that Portland would do whatever needs to be done in order to UNLOAD (as ESPN put it...not TRADED, but UNLOADED) the cornerstones (that's putting it nicely...maybe the CANCERS) of your Franchise in order to start over. UNLOADING Bonzi is the first step of many that could lead the Blazers to a Championship.


What team has ever been better for unloading the cornerstones of the foundation? I'm interested to know what teams have gone onto championship(s) by doing that.

Other than Adrian Dantley in Detroit, I can't think of a single team that has unloaded one of their best two or three players and been better off for it in the long run in terms of championships.

I might be having a blackout, though, so please convince me so I'll feel better 



> Addition by subtraction is exactly what the Blazers needed to do. Sure, it's very possible that it won't pan out THIS year, but looking at things long term, the Blazers took a HUGE step today.


Addition by subtraction is a joke. A myth.

It's like people who think that zamboni machines spray hot water so the ice will freeze faster. It just doesn't work that way.



> I'm so stoked! I'm a step closer to loving my Blazers again! *FINALLY!!*


I'm happy for you and others, honestly. (I know that will sound sarcastic, but it's not). I'm not going anywhere, and I won't be rooting for Bonzi as a Grizzlie (other than that I have him on one of my fantasy teams), so I hope that I'm wrong about how bad this team might now be.

Ed O.


----------



## Tommyboy

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you entirely, but I think the team will simply let Rasheed walk rather than trade him... they won't want to take the contracts back necessary to get the salaries matched up.
> 
> :no:
> 
> Ed O.



well that was what I originally thought as well prior to the season and I recall posting that almost word for word (they'd let Sheed walk). However this trade signals to me the mgmt has been told in no uncertain terms to move quickly and decisively to get rid of the PR nightmares now for the best available deal that doesn't a) saddle with longterm debt and b) doesn't bring back percieved "thugs. 

the blow up of the squad is now reality.


----------



## tlong

Masbee,

I am in near total agreement with your post. However, I don't think the Blazers "sold low" with Bonzi. They needed to get rid of him, and they needed to do it quick. That they received what could be a decent draft pick for him is better than I expected frankly.


----------



## Fork

> Originally posted by <b>Masbee</b>!
> This is a bad deal that Nash has made, and as a ticket paying fan I am against it. It is "selling low". There is no guarantee the draft pick will ever amount to much, though it could be ok - *years in the future*. Notice though, how Wes Person's expiring contract will save the Blazer's $15mil in salary and luxury tax next season (assuming the lux tax is in effect). How special. :sour:


Wells contract was a team option for next year. So Portland would have declined it and let him walk then. Instead, we get Person, who also has an ending contract, and we'll simply let him walk.

The way I see it, we just stole a free first round draft pick and lost one talented knucklehead in the process while opening up more playing time for Qyntel Woods.

Sweet move.


----------



## Quigly

this also gives them the option of lumping two high midrange draft picks together to trade for one higher pick.

I don't see Person playing... so perhaps the rift between Bonzi and Cheeks was getting worse and spreading to Wallace and maybe Damon... Bonzi's friends. they had to get rid of him in a hurry.

it certainly does seem like DA should be the happiest guy in town. happiness causes healing doesn't it?


----------



## Storyteller

> Originally posted by <b>Masbee</b>!
> In the strange world of NBA lux tax, Wes Person may have more value as an expiring contract, than a far more talented player in trading scenarios.


Yes, and by making this trade for Person today, the Blazers can package him with another player in early February - ie, before the trading deadline on February 19th. 

*Ed O.* - this may be another reason why the deal was made today and not in a month or so.....


----------



## Sambonius

lets specificy that the pick is a lottery pick, a top 13 not including 1-3.


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> It sounds like you're assuming a best case scenario for Wells performance. Sounds like you're saying he'll put up 15 pts, 5 rebounds and 5 assists every night while shooting a high percentage. Maybe that'll happen. If it does, I agree that Memphis will be a better team. Luckily for us, Wells hasn't showed any signs of improvement yet.


I'm not assuming a best case scenario for Wells. A best-case scenario would be for him to average 20+ ppg and consistently be the offensive beast that he's shown glimpses of in Portland for the last few years.

I would say that an AVERAGE scenario for Wells is that he ends up with 15+ points on over 44% shooting. He might not get that many points, because he's part of a deeper team now in Memphis than he has been in Portland this year, but he's never shot under 44% and I don't think that this year will end up different.

The worst-case scenario for Wells is that his season continues as it's been going. The odds of that are slim to none, IMO, because he's going to be better coached and because he's got 4 years of showing he's better than he's been in the first 7th of the season.

Ed O. 

Ed O.


----------



## MAS RipCity

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> Am I the only one that sees this as a pretty damn good deal? Memphis will NOT make the playoffs, so no matter what it will be a lottery pick which could get us a solid player. Addition by subtraction is another thing, but for all we know we could get the 4th pick in next years draft.


I am very enthuesed about it, so count me in as a Pro for this one.


----------



## marshall

I hope this doesnt sour Rasheed to the point of where his performance drops. He has been very good this year. Maybe once this rough patch is passed then the Blazers will play as good as they have shown. I think the duo of Sheed and Zach should stay if the other positions are upgraded. Thats a dominating front court. Why couldnt that win a title?


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>tlong</b>!
> 
> I am in near total agreement with your post. However, I don't think the Blazers "sold low" with Bonzi. They needed to get rid of him, and they needed to do it quick. That they received what could be a decent draft pick for him is better than I expected frankly.


"Needing to get rid" of someone, especially having to "do it quick" are almost sure-fire signs that the team WAS selling low with Wells.

Other teams aren't stupid, and I don't believe they'd offer what they would have offered, say, last summer or in the upcoming summer.

Nash and Co. sold low.

Ed O.


----------



## bfan1

anyone think the recent Zach trouble brought this on? I mean...it can serve as a distraction of sorts and maybe make it look like they are trying to do something?

Personally I think Bonzi may have got the better end of this deal. Memphis is a good team...he is also closer to his kids now.

Person? Well-the way you all talk he is just taking up space...so just what do we get? First pick? From what pool? Is there another Lebron on the way? Hopefully so.

Is person really that bad?


----------



## marshall

This also takes a little attention off of Z-Bo's little problem. Not saying that was planned but it could help.


----------



## Yega1979

<<I don't see any excuse for Nash trading Wells now, rather than a month ago or a month from now. The value we received back was simply too low to justify the deal unless the team is finally prepared to go into the lottery, because for the first time in a decade I see that as a strong possibility, and perhaps even a probability.

Of course, in half an hour I'm gonna be out of this little funk and looking at the bright side... wait and see>>

Let me throw you one, how about the fact that most blazer fans hate bonzi and boo him every day, and the blazers are recording record lows in ticket sales, while the off-court "incidents" continue to mount.

You think trading Wells bans us to the lottery? So far we've been above .500 despite the fact that he's shot under 30% from the field this season. We still have a good chance of being a lottery team because of how good the West is, but it won't be due to Wells' absense. 

But just think, this coming draft we could potentially get TWO lottery picks? We could trade up and get that Russian giant.


----------



## tlong

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Wells contract was a team option for next year. So Portland would have declined it and let him walk then. Instead, we get Person, who also has an ending contract, and we'll simply let him walk.
> 
> The way I see it, we just stole a free first round draft pick and lost one talented knucklehead in the process while opening up more playing time for Qyntel Woods.
> 
> Sweet move.


Actually Wells contract is at the teams option for the 05-06 season, not next year. His contract next year is guaranteed.


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>Quigly</b>!
> this also gives them the option of lumping two high midrange draft picks together to trade for one higher pick.


It's a nice thought, and maybe you're right. It seems to me, though, that teams with the top picks are much less likely to want to take on two guaranteed 1st round contracts from later in the round.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> Wow, great deal for Portland (in terms of salary cap and PR). You get the outside shooter (Person has a .414% career 3pt FG%) and a first round pick. Person also has an expiring contract, so it will give you more cap room in the offseason.


It gives *no* cap room, because Portland is over the cap. All it "gives" is payroll back that can't be used for anyone else. (Well, I should amend that...combined with everything else, it could give Portland $1 or $2 million extra under the cap...that's being $5 million under the cap but losing the mid-level exception).

In other words, entirely useless to the team...but hey, it's Paul Allen's money. Maybe he'll be pleased to save a couple million.

This is an absolutely terrible deal. But, I guess this is what people wanted, the "Anti-Whitsitt" deal: reduce talent level of the team instead of increase it, and also reduce the questionable character quotient.

It sure makes the team less interesting this season. Maybe that pick will mean something, although I imagine it's protected from being anything *too* interesting.

Certainly, the Blazers are now one step less likely to continue their playoff streak. But they're a nicer bunch.

Current emotion: :| and :whoknows:


----------



## Storyteller

Nobody gets it, do they???

This was a trade engineered by none other than....

Bob Whitsitt!

My sources at MCI tell me that Bob made a call to Bonzi this morning and that Bonzi used a deragotory and colorful phrase to describe Whitsitt. I won't go into details (this is a family forum).

Once that happened, it was only a matter of hours until the trade happened.

After all, we know who's REALLY in charge of the Blazers, don't we????


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> lets specificy that the pick is a lottery pick, a top 13 not including 1-3.


What do you mean "specify"? There's no guarantee that the pick will be in the lottery. Memphis is sitting at .500 and has played a tougher schedule than some teams in the West (including Portland).

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan

Brilliant, brilliant, BRILLIANT move! We:

1. Cut out a cancer.
2. Get a solid person.
3. Get a respectable perimeter shooter.
4. Get a player in the last year of his contract.
5. Get a first round (possible lottery) pick, and...
6. Get cash.

I just can't find anything to complain about with this trade!

But now I want MORE!!!

PBF


----------



## tlong

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> "Needing to get rid" of someone, especially having to "do it quick" are almost sure-fire signs that the team WAS selling low with Wells.
> 
> Other teams aren't stupid, and I don't believe they'd offer what they would have offered, say, last summer or in the upcoming summer.
> 
> Nash and Co. sold low.
> 
> Ed O.


If the deal had not been made and Bonzi continued to sulk (pretty much a given) then there is NO WAY a better deal could have been made later. NO WAY! The only thing it would do is alienate the fans further.


----------



## Scinos

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> It's a nice thought, and maybe you're right. It seems to me, though, that teams with the top picks are much less likely to want to take on two guaranteed 1st round contracts from later in the round.
> 
> Ed O.


Well, it will no doubt be different next year's lottery. But teams in the #4-#7 area were looking to deal with Seattle for the #12 and #14 when we had the two picks in this years lottery.

The two midrange picks are valuable to a team that needs to fill two positions. Also, if there is a guy they like who is projected to go later, they might trade down instead of reaching on them.


----------



## Storyteller

> Originally posted by <b>tlong</b>!
> 
> Actually Wells contract is at the teams option for the 05-06 season, not next year. His contract next year is guaranteed.


In the last couple of weeks, a report has been circulating that Bonzi's deal does indeed have a team option for 04-05. Hoopshype and Jeff Roberson are among those circulating this report.


----------



## Bad Bartons

*Re: Re: Good trade for everyone*



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> What legal problems?
> 
> Can you please name a single legal problem Bonzi has had?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that Bonzi has had run ins with the police. Hasn't he been arrested since with the Blazers. If so I call those "legal problems".
> 
> If not then it's my mistake. I thought that he had a durg charge or a driving charge or something. It is hard to keep up with the Blazers controversies. I have stopped following it all.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ed O

*Re: Re: Re: Good trade for everyone*



> Originally posted by <b>Bad Bartons</b>!
> 
> I thought that Bonzi has had run ins with the police. Hasn't he been arrested since with the Blazers. If so I call those "legal problems".


No, he has not been arrested since being with the Blazers. He was cited in December of 2001 for failing to leave the scene of a fight and cursing at police, but I don't think anyone with a straight face can say that trading Bonzi helps with reducing "legal problems."



> If not then it's my mistake. I thought that he had a durg charge or a driving charge or something. It is hard to keep up with the Blazers controversies. I have stopped following it all.


Commenting out of ignorance IS easier than actually "following it all", isn't it?

Ed O.


----------



## Fork

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> The worst-case scenario for Wells is that his season continues as it's been going. The odds of that are slim to none, IMO, because he's going to be better coached and because he's got 4 years of showing he's better than he's been in the first 7th of the season.
> 
> Ed O.
> 
> Ed O.


I agree that Hubie Brown is a better coach than Cheeks in X's and O's. However...the man is old school. Do you foresee a possible clash between him and Bonzi?

I could see it happening.


----------



## Yega1979

<<What team has ever been better for unloading the cornerstones of the foundation? I'm interested to know what teams have gone onto championship(s) by doing that.

Other than Adrian Dantley in Detroit, I can't think of a single team that has unloaded one of their best two or three players and been better off for it in the long run in terms of championships.>>

That's a complete strawman's argument because Wells is not a top player on our team and certainly wouldn't be the cornerstone of any team. When you talk about unloading a cornerstone, you're talking about a great player, not someone who shoots under 30% from the field and has no cerebral cortex.


----------



## Fork

*Re: Re: Re: Good trade for everyone*



> Originally posted by <b>Bad Bartons</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> What legal problems?
> 
> Can you please name a single legal problem Bonzi has had?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that Bonzi has had run ins with the police. Hasn't he been arrested since with the Blazers. If so I call those "legal problems".
> 
> If not then it's my mistake. I thought that he had a durg charge or a driving charge or something. It is hard to keep up with the Blazers controversies. I have stopped following it all.
> 
> 
> 
> If you admit that you know nothing about the Blazers and their situation, then why do you feel the need to chime in?
> 
> Go do your homework and get back to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Dan

Think that Hubie Brown (or Jerry West) will put up with Bonzi if he keeps acting like this?


----------



## blazersamiga

it's official:
http://www.nba.com/blazers/news/wellstraded.html


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> Think that Hubie Brown (or Jerry West) will put up with Bonzi if he keeps acting like this?


Ask Jason Williams.

Ed O.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET

ONE DOWN, ABOUT 8 TO GO!!!!!!


----------



## Ed O

...


----------



## Oldmangrouch

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> *GOOD RIDDANCE PUNK!! - WHAT A GREAT DEAL!! *



 
You want to be happy Bonzi is gone, fine. A "great" deal? That's laughable. 

Talent-wise, the Blazers got raped. Nash just flunked his first big test......getting stampeded into a bad deal for PR reasons.


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> 
> Well, it will no doubt be different next year's lottery. But teams in the #4-#7 area were looking to deal with Seattle for the #12 and #14 when we had the two picks in this years lottery.


I hope you're right, but I don't know that the Sonics were really stupid enough to pass up on Bosh, Wade or someone similar to get Ridnour and Collison. Maybe.



> The two midrange picks are valuable to a team that needs to fill two positions. Also, if there is a guy they like who is projected to go later, they might trade down instead of reaching on them.


That makes some sense. With the way picks are nowadays, though, players outside of the top few can have a pretty wide spread of where they go. That makes lower firsts more valuable, IMO, and mid-firsts less so.

Looking at who Memphis got this past year with their mid-firsts (Bell and Jones, both traded from Boston) I'd say they were smart to get what they could for a pick that will probably be in the same ballpark.

Of course, as you say, each draft is different, and it's still too early to tell how deep the draft is going to be next year.

Ed O.


----------



## Bad Bartons

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Good trade for everyone*



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> No, he has not been arrested since being with the Blazers. He was cited in December of 2001 for failing to leave the scene of a fight and cursing at police, but I don't think anyone with a straight face can say that trading Bonzi helps with reducing "legal problems."
> 
> 
> 
> Commenting out of ignorance IS easier than actually "following it all", isn't it?
> 
> Ed O.


Wow Ed. You sound mad. Are you that big of a Bonzi fan?

If it will cheer you up a little I'll take back the "legal problems" statement. But Bonzi is not a model citizen or anything. He has a poor attitude, he is a distraction to the team, he is disrespectful to the Blazer fans who pay his salary, he has conflict with the coach and he has had negative contact with the police. This is not the norm of the NBA. I'll drop the "legal problems" statement in favor of saying that Bonzi has been a problem with the Blazers.

I think a fresh start with a new team, new fans and a new coach will be good for him...I wish him luck. But he was part of the problem in Portland so getting rid of him was good.


----------



## Trader Ed

> Originally posted by <b>Epadfield</b>!
> I think they will trade Battier sense he seems to have good trade value.


I actually wanted Battier from Memphis... he is a Duke player! :whoknows:

I think he owuld be a good SF for us, even if its a backup


----------



## The Professional Fan

> That's not very clear by any stretch of the imagination. They almost won a championship with both of those guys playing key roles just a few years ago.


_Almost._ 



> What team has ever been better for unloading the cornerstones of the foundation? I'm interested to know what teams have gone onto championship(s) by doing that.
> 
> Other than Adrian Dantley in Detroit, I can't think of a single team that has unloaded one of their best two or three players and been better off for it in the long run in terms of championships.
> 
> I might be having a blackout, though, so please convince me so I'll feel better


Ok, fine. How many teams have you seen win a Championship with two of their 3 best players posessing the maturity and general lack of respect for authority that has defined Sheed and Bonzi? You know as well as I do that Championship teams are not led by boneheads.




> Addition by subtraction is a joke. A myth.


The Trailblazers might be an exception to the rule. No team in NBA history stacked talent (and boneheads) like the Blazers have over the last 5 or 6 years. It didn't work, so logic would dictate to me that addition by subtraction could work in this situation.




> I'm happy for you and others, honestly. (I know that will sound sarcastic, but it's not). I'm not going anywhere, and I won't be rooting for Bonzi as a Grizzlie (other than that I have him on one of my fantasy teams), so I hope that I'm wrong about how bad this team might now be.


I've got Mike Miller on my big Fantasy league. I'm a little worried about that, honestly. He's been putting up some sick numbers lately. Big assists, nice rebounds, and serviceable points. I wish is FG% would go up, but whatever. I hope Bonzi doesn't take too much away from his stats.


----------



## hobojoe

:laugh: There are currently 38 members browsing the Blazers forum. DAMN!


----------



## Samuel

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to be happy Bonzi is gone, fine. A "great" deal? That's laughable.
> 
> Talent-wise, the Blazers got raped. Nash just flunked his first big test......getting stampeded into a bad deal for PR reasons.


if you were put into the same situation as he was in, you'd drop the soap too, guy.


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> I agree that Hubie Brown is a better coach than Cheeks in X's and O's. However...the man is old school. Do you foresee a possible clash between him and Bonzi?
> 
> I could see it happening.


It definitely could happen. And if it does, and a change of scenery ends up doing Bonzi no good, then I guess I'll have to say this trade wasn't so bad, after all.

Looking at how Jason Williams has done after clashing with previous coaches going back to his college days, I think it's more likely that Brown will play to Wells's strengths and get good production out of him.

Ed O.


----------



## Oldmangrouch

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! I LOVE this deal. Nash impressed me with this one. Sure, the talent level of Person does not match Bonzi, but Portland has PLENTY of talent. Nash improved the team more than he hurt it, hands down.
> 
> Improved PR
> Improved outside shooting
> Improved next years salary cap
> Improved player and coach relations
> Improved locker room atmosphere
> 
> I mean, he did a GREAT job with this trade. I wish Whitsitt possessed HALF this kind of foresight and understanding of what it takes to build a likable and competitive basketball team.
> 
> My hat is off to the man. Nice work, Mr. Nash.




Improved salary cap situation? Yes.
Improved PR? (YAWN)

Improved outside shooting? Sorry, but you are living in the past. Person's offensive game has gone south...and that was the only positive thing he ever brought to the table.

Improvement in the locker room? Earlier in his career that certainly wasn't true. Person has never been known as a "character" guy!


----------



## MAS RipCity

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to be happy Bonzi is gone, fine. A "great" deal? That's laughable.
> 
> Talent-wise, the Blazers got raped. Nash just flunked his first big test......getting stampeded into a bad deal for PR reasons.


Oh ya Bonzi was such a great talent..I just loved seeing early jumper in the shot clock clank off the rim after early jumper in the shot clock...I also loved how he cursed out his own damn caoch, it is SO great that he doesn't give a EFF about the fans,the team,etc..to get an expiring 3 pt shooting contract and a lotto pick for him...HELL MUTHA  no masked swearin YA!


----------



## Scinos

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I hope you're right, but I don't know that the Sonics were really stupid enough to pass up on Bosh, Wade or someone similar to get Ridnour and Collison. Maybe.
> 
> Ed O.


Well, the situations weren't right for the deals. The main deal was with the Bulls for the #7, but that fell apart when Jay Williams had his motorcycle accident. The deal with the Raptors didn't work out because they wanted to dump longterm contracts (AD or JYD) on us. I think there was also a rumor for the #5 that fell through because Podkolzine pulled out of the draft. Under different circumstances, there could of been a trade between the Sonics and one of these teams.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> 
> 
> You want to be happy Bonzi is gone, fine. A "great" deal? That's laughable.
> 
> Talent-wise, the Blazers got raped. Nash just flunked his first big test......getting stampeded into a bad deal for PR reasons.


What he said.

I'd have no problem with Nash shipping Bonzi for reasonable value. Essentially, he traded him for nothing.


----------



## Bad Bartons

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Good trade for everyone*



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> If you admit that you know nothing about the Blazers and their situation, then why do you feel the need to chime in?
> 
> Go do your homework and get back to us.


I do not admit that I know nothing about the Blazers and their situation. I have stopped following the Blazers controversies off the court closely. I made a statement that Bonzi has had "legal problems" while with the Blazers. If you do not think he has had "legal problems" then you think I am wrong...like Ed O.

He has been a problem in Portland. Anyone who does not think so is fooling themselves.


----------



## WhoDaBest23

Mann I like this trade for the Blazers. This allows Qyntel to step up and hopefully perform like he should. Wesley Person might be old, but he's still useful from behind the arch and plus his contract's expiring. We'll have to see about that draft pick though, but it should do us good. Good luck in Memphis Bonzi.. Don't cuss out Hubie Brown now!


----------



## Schilly

And to think we could have had Stackhouse or Wally instead.


----------



## mook

why do many posters here assume that Bonzi will rebound from his miserable early season, yet Person won't? 

Person is a career 45% FG shooter, and a career 41% long range shooter. more than any offensive skill, long range gunning is what we need most. Bonzi was never going to provide that for us. Person is 32, but most jump shooters still have game until they are at least 34. San Antonio resurrected some long ballers' careers by sticking them in with great post players. maybe we can too. 

I'm not saying that Person stands as good a chance of being a decent player again as Bonzi, but it seems to me like a lot of posters don't give him any chance at all of succeeding. 

if Person returned to the level he played at in the 00-01 season (15 ppg, 44% from 3) he'd be a much better fit than Bonzi even without the draft pick. 

maybe it's all just wishful thinking, but the similarities with the JR Rider/Steve Smith trade certainly present themselves:

• character and chemistry for talent and streaky dominance

• jump shooter for slasher

• guard for guard

• young for old

• Portland to a floundering team in the South


----------



## MAS RipCity

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, the situations weren't right for the deals. The main deal was with the Bulls for the #7, but that fell apart when Jay Williams had his motorcycle accident. The deal with the Raptors didn't work out because they wanted to dump longterm contracts (AD or JYD) on us. I think there was also a rumor for the #5 that fell through because Podkolzine pulled out of the draft. Under different circumstances, there could of been a trade between the Sonics and one of these teams.


Seattle got Ridnour..the best pg in the draft, not a bad deal at al lfor them just to take him RID RULES!


----------



## MAS RipCity

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> why do many posters here assume that Bonzi will rebound from his miserable early season, yet Person won't?
> 
> Person is a career 45% FG shooter, and a career 41% long range shooter. more than any offensive skill, long range gunning is what we need most. Bonzi was never going to provide that for us. Person is 32, but most jump shooters still have game until they are at least 34. San Antonio resurrected some long ballers' careers by sticking them in with great post players. maybe we can too.
> 
> I'm not saying that Person stands as good a chance of being a decent player again as Bonzi, but it seems to me like a lot of posters don't give him any chance at all of succeeding.
> 
> if Person returned to the level he played at in the 00-01 season (15 ppg, 44% from 3) he'd be a much better fit than Bonzi even without the draft pick.
> 
> maybe it's all just wishful thinking, but the similarities with the JR Rider/Steve Smith trade certainly present themselves:
> 
> • character and chemistry for talent and streaky dominance
> 
> • jump shooter for slasher
> 
> • guard for guard
> 
> • young for old
> 
> • Portland to a floundering team in the South






:yes:


----------



## Trader Ed

$$$$$$$

I take it since we took on an additional $800K in salary, and with tax considerations of about $1.6 mill..... the cash we receive is to help compensate in that regards.

anyone know??? :whoknows:


Of course we will know this summer, but Bonzi for an expiring contract and a chance at maybe 2x somewhat high picks (ours and Memphis) being traded for a higher pick, is worth the gamble IMHO.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> why do many posters here assume that Bonzi will rebound from his miserable early season, yet Person won't?


Because Wells is on the right side of 30 and Person is not.



> Person is 32, but most jump shooters still have game until they are at least 34.


In my experience, when shooters fall off after 32 or so, it's not a temporary slump. Maybe it is for Person...I just don't think it's likely.

Meanwhile, pre-30's players have slumps all the time, that they rebound from.



> maybe it's all just wishful thinking, but the similarities with the JR Rider/Steve Smith trade certainly present themselves:


All of those peripheral issues are similar. Unfortunately, in the most key issue, talent, Person never had a quarter of Smith's talent. Person could shoot well, but never had Smith's post-up game, slashing or passing skills. Nor does Person strike me as a crafty veteran like Smith was.


----------



## mook

it surprises me that anyone could consider character and chemistry a "peripheral" issue for JR Rider or Bonzi Wells. 

that's like saying, "Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"


----------



## Backboard Cam

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> ...maybe it's all just wishful thinking, but the similarities with the JR Rider/Steve Smith trade certainly present themselves:
> 
> • character and chemistry for talent and streaky dominance
> 
> • jump shooter for slasher
> 
> • guard for guard
> 
> • young for old
> 
> • Portland to a floundering team in the South


Jim Jackson was in that Rider trade too. 

But the math still works- 
Smith - JJ = Person.
Wells = Rider + JJ






(I don't mean salary math, btw)


----------



## Dan

one the plus side, thats 7 more million dollars off the cap next year.

whats our cap at next season?


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> it surprises me that anyone could consider character and chemistry a "peripheral" issue for JR Rider or Bonzi Wells.
> 
> that's like saying, "Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"


I'd say *talent* is the best comparable to Lincoln being assassinated in your analogy...the key issue.

I'm willing to agree that character/chemistry is worth something. So let's say all the rest are "peripheral issues."


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer

I like the trade... 

Bonzi has made me less and less of a fan of his over the past couple of years. I'm not a big off-court reactionary either... my gripe with Bonzi has always been on the court. His inconsistency, tendency to get into it with other players and lose focus on the game... 

I dunno, I hate to use words like "punk", but he's been trying really hard to force my hand.

I was pleasantly surprised to hear that he was planning on addressing these things over the summer and was ready to give him another shot. But man... when he flips off the fans and tells the press that he "blacks out sometimes"... c'mon. He talked about working hard every night to be a consistent player like a Kobe or McGrady or what have you... he's never played worse.

His fight with coach was really the last straw. It's always seemed like when it rains it pours with Bonzi... he's easily frustrated and when he's struggling instead of working harder, he picks a fight or sulks.

On one hand, I think there is a world in which Bonzi Wells returns more in a trade... but that would be a situation where he's playing the worst basketball of his life and being a complete jerk. If that were not the case, then maybe he wouldn't need to be traded... could they have been more shrewd? It's certainly possible, but sometimes I think you just have to cut your losses.

I also think Person will be able to contribute this season. If we can get DA healthy having DA, Patterson, Person, Woods is solid depth at SG/SF, not to mention Sheed at SF. 

Anyway, we'll see what happens...


----------



## Nightfly

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> If common sense (as defined, of course, by me  ) is right, the team will be hit by an injury or two, an arrest or two, and turn in the worst Portland record in the better part of three decades (only one Blazers team history has won fewer than 38 games since 75-76).


Let us not forget that the year after the blazers won 38 games (and still made the playoffs), they went all the way to the finals.

Now, I'm not saying that a finals appearance is going to happen, but maybe history will repeat it self.


----------



## RetroBlazers

does this trade mean that bonzi won't be thought of in Portland like Clyde Drexler is? lol


----------



## Dan

> Originally posted by <b>RetroBlazers</b>!
> does this trade mean that bonzi won't be thought of in Portland like Clyde Drexler is? lol


well, both players were traded for washed up players....


----------



## tlong

Ed!

Are you telling me that now the Blazers will win fewer than 38 games?


----------



## bballer27

Well portland got the worst of this trade but memphis didnt get a good trade either because with all these small forwards and shooting guards wats he gonna do with dahntay jones,and the reason why this was a trade for portland was because welsey is old and isnt makin alot of shots rite now


----------



## loyalty4life

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> Jubilation abounds in Andersonville.


*snickers* :devil2: 

Loyalty goes a long way, injuries or not. :angel:


----------



## The Enigma

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> Why would you assume that suddenly Bonzi would start playing well? He's been consistantly terrible throughout the season. he's shooting 39%. he's turning the ball over. he's flat out terrible this year. Now all of the sudden, he's going to turn into a stud and lead his guys to the promised land? Not bloody likely.


He will look mighty _studly_ when the Blazers play at Memphis in a couple of days (be it in a starting role or off the bench), you can put that in the bank.

He has consistently torched Detroit (over the years) since the disrespect he perceived they gave towards him when they traded him. 

I will go on record and predict that Portland now assumes that role.

The Blazers will be lucky to win a game against the Grizzlies for the remainder of this season (IMO). Expect for Wells to give McInnis, Woods, and Anderson the business in every Grizzlies/ Blazers contest here on out.


_...As the city of Portland rejoices West treats himself to a well deserved night on the town (In memory of the unfortunate John he took to the cleaners)._


----------



## trifecta

This trade, like all of them I suppose, can't be immediately weighed. There are so many factors that are yet to be determined.

1. The primary participants. Will Bonzi provide a consistent offensive presence? I'm not sure that superstar games followed by no-shows are actually better than consistent below average performance. Will Wesley start to make shots again and is he a better fit for this team? Now I haven't paid any attention to Wesley over the years so I have no idea what kind of player he is but I do know shooters don't lose their touch automatically at 32. There is potential that he can start knocking down shots again. He might be a better fit for this team as well. Simply the league-wide respect he seems to have for his perimeter game. With players like Zach down low, teams will have respect Person outside. If not, perhaps we will experience the Hakeem phenomena - where washed up players play well because of the lack of attention paid to them.

2. The draft pick. If the pick is used in any number of ways (a good young player, combined to trade up, as part of a player for player trade to sweeten the deal) then it will add a lot of positive to this trade. This part is what I'm actually most excited about.

3. The addition by subtraction myth/joke/rule/theory. I can't provide any proof but it's possible it could have some validity. I mainly see this being valid from a Bonzi's consistency issue as opposed to other players feeling better about their playing time.

4. Furthur trades. Person's contract does have value and appeal to other teams - much like Stoudamire's will and in theory Sheed's does. While I'd be a bit surprised if something does happen before the offseason, it could and that would dramatically change things.

While I'm generally in favor of this trade because I really am tired of watching players not play to their strengths and act like idiots, I can certainly see where things could get mighty ugly for the team with an injury to Zach or Sheed. Bonzi was at least good enough to carry the team on occasional nights.

I'll just sit here and hope that the playoff streak survives and Memphis does really, really bad.


----------



## The Enigma

I like the acquisition of Person.

He is a flat out shooter (with what I perceive to be the most aesthetically pleasing stroke in the business).

Playing on a team with real post presences (Randolph, Wallace: Gasol and Swift don’t cut it down low) will benefit him greatly.

This may turn out to be a blessing in disguise (and if the “change” allows some to ease up on Wallace just a tad it will be an added bonus).


----------



## BlayZa

i actually dont mind it , its a good move and i think will make for a more cohesive 'team' even though the players individual skill isnt equal. finally a consistent outside threat for us - all up i think its good for both teams - we got some vet leadership , shooting , and salary relief - they get a potentially v.good player if he can turn the corner - it was worth a punt for them.


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>tlong</b>!
> Ed!
> 
> Are you telling me that now the Blazers will win fewer than 38 games?


I'm not really telling you, in particular, that, but I DO think that there is a chance of that happening.

When the Blazers were on the verge of signing Gary Payton this summer, if someone would have told me that we would be facing that possibility I would not have believed them.

Portland has simply let our depth atrophy while not replacing anyone. We've got no superstar or potential superstar that we didn't have before (ZR would have been on the team one way or the other), but some people will be happier with the PR and the financial situation is a bit less hairy than it was before the summer started and a lot less so than if Payton had been signed.

So far, the optimism I was expecting just hasn't kicked in. Maybe the game against Indiana will do it tonight, but considered the team has mismanaged the roster so pathetically as to only have 11 active players BEFORE trading Wells (and that's counting a gimpy RP, an undrafted rookie in Matt Carroll and a guy in RBB who can't get on the floor under Mo Cheeks) I don't like our chances.

Ed O.


----------



## alext42083

I'm in favor of this trade although Memphis does have some other quality swingmen that are better than Person, but Bonzi worn out his welcome here. 
Hopefully this trade miraculously gets DA's back better and can play again.
And it'll be interesting to see how Hubie Brown deals with Bonzi and his antics. If Bonzi doesn't change, then things don't look any better for him
A good beginning for Portland, imo.


----------



## jackiejackal

*Their perspective*

http://grizzlies.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=frm&s=217609464&f=880608174

Oh my goodness..check the thread about how "now Portland won't make the playoffs and they will"

I don't believe the playoffs hung on Bonzi being here..:laugh:


----------



## sabas4mvp

That forum is also saying Bonzi will come off the bench... What do you guys think about that?


----------



## Talkhard

Forget Wesley Person, okay? Nice guy, good shooter, but this trade is not about him. It's about the DRAFT PICK! In case you missed it, a youth movement is underway in Portland. The Memphis first-rounder could easily be a lottery pick, and so could our own. That adds up to HOPE people, in all caps. It's the one thing we need right now. 

Another thing: This probably isn't the last trade this season. And I wouldn't be surprised if the next one also includes a first round pick. This is the strategy I suggested a couple of weeks ago regarding Wallace. Since our players have low market value right now, we trade them for first round picks. Teams are willing to gamble a pick, since you never know how it will turn out.

Finally, who gives a flip if our playoff streak comes to an end? We weren't going to win a title anyway. I think it's more painful to see the Blazers flame out in the first round every year than it is to not have them participate. At least if we don't make the playoffs we get a lottery pick.

This may not be a great trade, but it's a good trade for Portland. And the draft pick is what makes it that.


----------



## Draco

ABOUT FREAKIN TIME!!!

I've been waiting for a trade ever since nash and company toke over and it took them awhile but at least they have finally done something.

The pick could end up being in the lottery which would make this a great deal.

Now some people are saying we sold low with Bonzi which is somewhat true but who knows if he would have improved this season? Maybe we will be better this year without him I'd say there is a good chance of that. Also when a player looses value like Bonzi it takes a while for his value to rise again so even if he turned it around we probably couldn't have gotten anything better this year.


----------



## SeattleBlazerfan

Wooohooo time to clean house baby hope that pick is a number 4!


----------



## Trader Ed

I do like the money off the cap and draft possibilities

but... has anyone noticed???

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/memphis.htm

Bonzi is the highest paid player now on the Memphis roster


----------



## FeloniusThunk

Great, we traded Bonzi for hope and a ping pong ball. I guess the Blazer fans will be filling the Rose Garden up by the busload now. Just to make it feel even better, our new gm got taken in by Mr. Laker Jerry West. Next up, to please the bleating: Rasheed for Devean George and Ho Grant.

Oh well, once a fan always a fan. C'mon ping pong ball! I'll go ask my Denver relatives if I'm saying that right.


----------



## Truth34

*Ping Pong Ball?*

Uh, guys...Don't get me wrong, I love this trade for the Blazers, but there may not be a ping-pong ball after all. Memphis is pretty tough to beat down in Graceland. They've already beaten the Lakers, Spurs and Mavs in Tennessee, and they are sitting at 9-8 right now. 

Assuming the 

Lakers
Spurs
Mavericks
Kings
T'Wolves

all get in the playoffs, 

that means the final 3) spots will be battled for by the following teams:

Blazers
Sonics
Rockets
Grizzlies
Jazz
Nuggets

I'd say the Rockets are the strongest of those. Portland is tough, but by no means is guaranteed to finish ahead of Memphis. Seattle isn't either. The Jazz and Nuggets are nice stories, but can they sustain it? Take a look at Memphis right now.

C Tsakalidis/Wright
PF GASOL/Swift
SF BONZI/Battier
SG MILLER/Posey
PG WILLIAMS/Watson

People, this team is 9 or 10 deep and well-coached. They are by no means, after adding Wells, guaranteed to go to the Lottery. Now, the Blazers pick could be a lottery pick, but maybe not.


Incidentally, I heard Boston was one of the 12 teams that talked to Portland about Wells. Any idea which players were discussed? I'm thinking Tony Battie was one, but that is probably why the deal never happened.

BTW, did I mention that I love this trade for Portland!


----------



## Blue Bear

Greetings from Memphis & the Grizz fans.

I've been reading your message board concerning the Memphis/Portland trade yesterday. The Grizz fan board is about as split on this move as you guys are. 

You are getting a class act in Wes Person. We have no idea what happened to his shot this year. It just went on vacation & Wes is really struggling to get it back. It's all in his head now. Instead of just shooting he's thinking about it now. Hopefully his new surroundings will get him back on track. Normally he's money in the bank beyond the arc. His defense is shakey, but you already know that.

Lots of Memphis fans are concerned about Bonzi. Great talent but seems like he's got a loose screw somewhere. Hubie & Jerry have a great rep for turning headcases into productive players. We are all hoping that is the case with Bonzi. Hubie will give him a clean slate. I doubt if Bonzi will disrupt our chemistry. Simply because our guys won't tolerate it. This is Wrights home town & he won't let Bonzi or anyone else disrespect his house. We think Bo Outlaw, Wright, & Battier will have a postive influence on Bonzi. If he gets his head screwed on right he could be a very big upgrade for us. Obviously, that's what we're hoping for anyway. 

Hubie is famous for his 10 man rotation, so Bonzi will get his floor time unless he becomes a problem. We think he'll start over Posey in the near future. JP is struggling with a bone spur & his game has fallen off. He probably needs to go on IR & get it fixed so he'll be 100% after the All Star break. 

We aren't the Vancouver Grizzlies, so don't count on that draft choice being all that good. We're 5-4 on the road this year & 3-0 on this last east coast swing. We intend to be a playoff contender this year. I don't think West is done wheeling & dealing either. 

West has made it clear he wants a Super Star. We think he is stockpiling talent to make a blockbuster deal this summer before moving into our new arena next year. 

In a very short time West has taken us from the laughing stock of the league to a very respectable team & he isn't done. 

Obviously, we hope Wes gets his shot back & helps you guys out & Bonzi gets his loose screw tightened so he's an asset for us. This should be an interesting game Sunday afternoon. 

Our fan board is located on the Grizz team website. Easy to find. Drop by and say hi.


----------



## Dan

Not that Bonzi is in the same league, but Jerry West couldn't get JR Rider and Dennis Rodman to be normal productive players.

Of course, I'm not saying that this is proof that Jerry West can't do it.


----------



## Blue Bear

Hap, I said we were hoping JW & Hubie could tighten Bonzi's loose screw. There are certainly Memphis fans that don't think it's possible considering Bonzi's history since college. 

We all recognize that this trade has risk & that's the concern. However, it seems like the risk is justified. If it doesn't work out we didn't give up enough to hurt us too badly. Additionally, if it doesn't work out JW will package him and move him out & salvage what he can. 

There is risk, but I don't think there is enough to pass on the deal.


----------



## Ed O

> Originally posted by <b>Viper</b>!
> 
> There is risk, but I don't think there is enough to pass on the deal.


I think you're right... and I think that independently of what I think from Portland's side of the deal.

It was like when the Blazers acquired Rider... the Blazers gave up diddly squat to get him and they knew they were getting a very good player. What they DIDN'T know was whether Rider would behave himself. As we all know, while Portland did make a WC Finals led by Rider, he didn't behave himself... so it wasn't perfect. But we also know that we got Steve Smith for him, so I think it would be hard to argue the deal didn't work out in the long run for Portland.

Now, compare that to when Atlanta acquired Rider. They gave up a fan favorite and one of the (if not THE) best player on their team in Steve Smith. Because of this investment, the risk-reward ratio was all messed up, and even if Rider had been as good as he was in Portland the trade would have been a failure. It turned out to be worse than that.

While Memphis's downside is greater here than Portland's acquisition of Rider (in that if Memphis somehow flops the rest of the way, their pick could be pretty valuable), I think the upside is the same and so it's a good deal for them.

Ed O.


----------



## mook

great points, trifecta. especially these:



> Originally posted by <b>trifecta</b>!
> This trade, like all of them I suppose, can't be immediately weighed. There are so many factors that are yet to be determined.
> ....
> 3. The addition by subtraction myth/joke/rule/theory. I can't provide any proof but it's possible it could have some validity. I mainly see this being valid from a Bonzi's consistency issue as opposed to other players feeling better about their playing time.


as an example, several years ago imagine if the sweetheart deal for Steve Smith wasn't available. would we have been better off just cutting Rider? I think we probably would've, long term. it would've cleared a huge amount of playing time for a young Bonzi, and may have had a big impact on Bonzi (and the rest of the team's) attitude had we just kept Rider because of his talent. 

however, I can easily imagine a number of people here would've argued that it would have been a disaster to let a talented cornerstone like Rider just walk away without getting anything in return. 

Kemp is another clear example of addition by subtraction. don't even have to explain that one. 

another example is Brian Grant. we let him walk without getting anything for it, and I'm happy we did. even though he had a key leadership role on the team, he just didn't fit anymore. and certainly not for the cash he wanted. 

further, what if we'd used the addition by subtraction theory on Brian Grant a few years earlier? we might be featuring a lineup of Zach Randolph, Rasheed Wallace and Jermaine O'Neal right now, because we would've been forced to give Jerm the court time he needed to develop. 

the theory of addition by subtraction only works when you've got some youngsters waiting in the wings to take over. Bonzi and Jermaine were the diamonds in the rough at that time. it does make me nervous when I think that Qyntel, Outlaw and a mystery pick are all we have to bank on. 

however, you can also argue that Zach might be a guy whose career is being limited by Bonzi. Jeff Robertson's report mentioned the impact of his character and friends on Zach. 

more than this, though, we've seen Zach succeed IN SPITE of playing alongside an inconsistent guard who doesn't have a threatening long range game. Zach is getting consistently doubled, and Bonzi has done almost nothing this year to punish teams for doubling Zach. look at how badly the Spurs flounder when Ginobli can't hit a long ball. 

I'm not sold that this trade was brilliant, but I think it's way too soon to write this off as Nash getting jobbed. in two years, we may look back on this trade as fondly as Rider for Smith, or as grimly as Jerm for Dale.


----------



## Priest

I'm sorry for the freepost but damn eleven strong keep it up


----------



## Ehehehcallmedaddy

Good riddance!! I only put up with the guy because I had too.


----------



## Damian Necronamous

This was just an outstanding move by the Blazers.:yes:


----------



## Ed O

barfo's comment about the Zach thread being one of the top-viewed threads of all time made me revisit some of the classics.

December 3, 2003. The date that my optimism for the Blazers began its hibernation.

It's a bit less painful now to read this thread since the team appears to be headed in the right direction...

Ed O.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife

I also re read many of those older threads. back when the forum just started people thought we should draft Rod Grizzard. Rod WHO>>??<<


----------



## Justinmoney85

rod grizzard played for the tide, he was good in college, but i'm glad we didn't take him, probably cuz he went to college.


----------



## Trader Ed

Ed O said:


> barfo's comment about the Zach thread being one of the top-viewed threads of all time made me revisit some of the classics.
> 
> December 3, 2003. The date that my optimism for the Blazers began its hibernation.
> 
> It's a bit less painful now to read this thread since the team appears to be headed in the right direction...
> 
> Ed O.


Ed is still in denial or is it da-Nile :rofl:

Sheed and Bonzi = Randolph and Miles ?


----------



## It's_GO_Time

Is Bonzi still with the Kings?


----------



## crandc

Bonzi Wells is a free agent. The indications are that the Kings do not plan to re-sign him and so far neither has anyone else. Apparently, having worn out his welcome in 3 cities has so far overcome his strong playoff performance last April. I imagine sooner or later someone may take a chance on him, provided he does not pull a Sprewell and insist he cannot support his family on the mid level exemption.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling

I believe he's about the enter the twilight zone of his career......for all the good he CAN do on the court helping a team win (as Ed O loves to say).....his bad side will be reflected in the contract amount and length. He's about to sign for short $$ and years. Someone will take him - but it will be a bargain!!!


----------



## Utherhimo

i see europe in bonzis future


----------



## tradetheo

this trade would have gotten us to the playoffs if we had kept sheed for the remainder of the season then let him walk. we could have what we have now minus lafrenz. nash sure did a number on this team in his short amount of time here. hindsight is 20/20, but that is what nash got paid for and he failed big time.


----------



## Ed O

Trader Bob said:


> Ed is still in denial or is it da-Nile :rofl:


*I'm* in denial?

Look at the posters who
-- predicted Portland would miss the playoffs after trading Wells
-- predicted Memphis would MAKE the playoffs after acquiring Wells, and
-- saw some franchise-worst-level basketball in the future for Portland 

And then compare that to the posters who
-- thought it was a great trade
-- figured Wells wouldn't bounce back to near-career averages level, at least, the rest of the season
-- believed that the Wells trade would be good for the team long-term, and
-- argued Nash was doing a good job

Guess which group I was in. And then guess which group of predictions turned out to be right.

I almost never say, "I told you so" but it's remarkable that someone can read this thread, look at the crap-*** team that Portland has had since the trade, and say that I am the one in denial.

Ed O.


----------



## mook

mook said:


> why do many posters here assume that Bonzi will rebound from his miserable early season, yet Person won't?
> 
> Person is a career 45% FG shooter, and a career 41% long range shooter. more than any offensive skill, long range gunning is what we need most. Bonzi was never going to provide that for us. Person is 32, but most jump shooters still have game until they are at least 34. San Antonio resurrected some long ballers' careers by sticking them in with great post players. maybe we can too.
> 
> I'm not saying that Person stands as good a chance of being a decent player again as Bonzi, but it seems to me like a lot of posters don't give him any chance at all of succeeding.
> 
> if Person returned to the level he played at in the 00-01 season (15 ppg, 44% from 3) he'd be a much better fit than Bonzi even without the draft pick.
> 
> maybe it's all just wishful thinking, but the similarities with the JR Rider/Steve Smith trade certainly present themselves:
> 
> • character and chemistry for talent and streaky dominance
> 
> • jump shooter for slasher
> 
> • guard for guard
> 
> • young for old
> 
> • Portland to a floundering team in the South


doah!


----------



## sa1177

Ed O said:


> *I'm* in denial?
> 
> Look at the posters who
> -- predicted Portland would miss the playoffs after trading Wells
> -- predicted Memphis would MAKE the playoffs after acquiring Wells, and
> -- saw some franchise-worst-level basketball in the future for Portland
> 
> And then compare that to the posters who
> -- thought it was a great trade
> -- figured Wells wouldn't bounce back to near-career averages level, at least, the rest of the season
> -- believed that the Wells trade would be good for the team long-term, and
> -- argued Nash was doing a good job
> 
> Guess which group I was in. And then guess which group of predictions turned out to be right.
> 
> I almost never say, "I told you so" but it's remarkable that someone can read this thread, look at the crap-*** team that Portland has had since the trade, and say that I am the one in denial.
> 
> Ed O.


There is a reason he hasn't been signed by anyone yet...what do you think it is?


----------



## Ed O

sa1177 said:


> There is a reason he hasn't been signed by anyone yet...what do you think it is?


Because his agent overplayed his hand and tried to get more than the MLE.

Why do YOU think that it is?

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177

Ed O said:


> Because his agent overplayed his hand and tried to get more than the MLE.
> 
> Why do YOU think that it is?
> 
> Ed O.


What the majority of everyone else thinks...difficult player, arrogant, bad attitude, questionable work ethic...general ahole. There is a reason Bonzi has been moved as much as he has IMO. 

Although I do agree that both he and his agent asked for a bit to much.


----------



## tradetheo

sa1177 said:


> What the majority of everyone else thinks...difficult player, arrogant, bad attitude, questionable work ethic...general ahole. There is a reason Bonzi has been moved as much as he has IMO.
> 
> Although I do agree that both he and his agent asked for a bit to much.


I think a reason bonzi was moved was because he didn't live up to his potential. In 2000, he used kobe bryant. abused him every way you can think of. then he gets more minutes and even starts, and does nothing. his attitude didn't help matters, even though I would take his attitude over darius miles attitude any day of the week.


----------



## sa1177

tradetheo said:


> I think a reason bonzi was moved was because he didn't live up to his potential. In 2000, he used kobe bryant. abused him every way you can think of. then he gets more minutes and even starts, and does nothing. his attitude didn't help matters, even though I would take his attitude over darius miles attitude any day of the week.


Hmm had more to do with spitting, his middle finger and "blacking out" IMO.


----------



## mook

in hindsight, this trade doesn't look great. we basically got Viktor Khryapa out of the deal. we bought the next pick in the draft (Monia) for $3 mil. Person was a waste. 

Bonzi was well-liked by Grizzly fans for his first season (and helped get them to the playoffs), but eventually wore out his welcome. Memphis got Bobby Jackson and Greg Ostertag when they traded him, so it looks like they at least got a little more value when they unloaded him. 

Memphis has only gotten better since this trade went down. Portland has only gotten worse. 

However, this may be the season where we finally begin to turn those trends around. By dumping so badly into the lottery, we actually have some decent young talent now. 

The Sheed trade (and what we did with the assets acquired from that trade) still depresses me far more than this deal.


----------



## barfo

sa1177 said:


> There is a reason Bonzi has been moved as much as he has IMO.


Well, he hasn't really been moved all that much. He's between his 3rd and 4th teams, right? That's not so many for a vet. Magloire is on his 4th team now. Joel is on his third. Raef is on his 4th. 

barfo


----------



## Ed O

mook said:


> The Sheed trade (and what we did with the assets acquired from that trade) still depresses me far more than this deal.


I can see that... Rasheed was (and is) a much better player than Bonzi. I agree that the Blazers blew the Rasheed Wallace trade, but I think they blew it by not following up to remain competitive. They traded for a couple of veterans (SAR and Theo) that could contribute to a winning team, but then they extended Zach (rather than trading him with SAR in the fold, or trading SAR before extending Zach) and extended Theo (rather than waiting to see what his value would be as a FA, and essentially stripping him of all positive trade value)... and didn't make many additional moves to help their competitiveness (drafting four guys that weren't close to ready to help an NBA team, etc.)

The Bonzi deal, though, is more systematically flawed IMO. It was a kneejerk reaction to relatively harmless PR issues from a team that had no other options at the 2 guard spot... the team clearly rebounded from the trade of Wells after a bit of time but the 9-17 slump immediately after the trade doomed the team's playoff chances.

It's funny that 9-17 now would be a hot streak, but at the time it was back-breaking.

Ed O.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler

I miss Bonzi and Sheed. Two great players on both sides of the floor. 

The media had a huge part in their leaving...

I would resign Bonzi in a second. He's vastly underrated.

That's the signing that would put us back in the playoffs....


----------



## sa1177

Anonymous Gambler said:


> I miss Bonzi and Sheed. Two great players on both sides of the floor.
> 
> The media had a huge part in their leaving...
> 
> I would resign Bonzi in a second. He's vastly underrated.
> 
> That's the signing that would put us back in the playoffs....


The years of Sheed and Bonzi are well bhind us...give up the past. NO way in hell Bonzi or Sheed ever plays in Portlans again.


----------



## Dan

you want to talk about a depressing trade?

Try Clyde Drexler for Otis Thorpe. 

Clyde Drexler who was by far a bigger fixture in this teams history, and the in the long run, the NBA's history, a better player a better teammate and a better person, for ****ing Otis Thorpe.

Every single time you guys ****ing whine about sheed being trade for what he was traded for, or bonzi being trade for what he was traded for, remember that saint ****ing bob traded drexler for otis thorpe.

If we can let go of Drexler being traded, who not only was a better player in Portlands history but ACTUALLY lead us to 2 finals appearances, we can stop having people whine about sheed being traded, or act like it was a big blow to the franchise. 

way to not be able to let go of things guys.


----------



## Utherhimo

i see europe in bonzis future


----------



## Ed O

Hap said:


> way to not be able to let go of things guys.


If you don't want to talk about it: go to another thread. Simple as that.

I don't think that anyone claimed that the Drexler trade was a good one. It also wasn't the first step into a massive pit of losses and lottery appearances.

On the other hand, we have people that claimed the Wells trade wasn't just good but GREAT. That it was the first step to turning around the franchise. Which it kinda was, but it turned it around to the tune of the path of us being the worst team in the NBA.

Ed O.


----------



## SheedSoNasty

mook said:


> The Sheed trade (and what we did with the assets acquired from that trade) still depresses me far more than this deal.


In a way, it ended up landing us Brandon Roy. I doubt the Celtics would have done the trade had Raef and Theo not been involved.


----------



## sa1177

Ed O said:


> If you don't want to talk about it: go to another thread. Simple as that.
> 
> I don't think that anyone claimed that the Drexler trade was a good one. It also wasn't the first step into a massive pit of losses and lottery appearances.
> 
> On the other hand, we have people that claimed the Wells trade wasn't just good but GREAT. That it was the first step to turning around the franchise. Which it kinda was, but it turned it around to the tune of the path of us being the worst team in the NBA.
> 
> Ed O.


No team rebuilds in a single season...rarely two seasons. Patience is a important virtue in sports IMO.


----------



## SheedSoNasty

sa1177 said:


> No team rebuilds in a single season...rarely two seasons. Patience is a important virtue in sports IMO.


Truth.

I'm sure the Blazers would have an even worse reputation had those two (Bonzi and Sheed) still been around.


----------



## Ed O

sa1177 said:


> No team rebuilds in a single season...rarely two seasons.


Your point has no relevance here.

2003-04: Season 1
2004-05: Season 2
2005-06: Season 3
2006-07: Season 4
...

Why does it matter that no teams rebuild in a season or two? We're already done with season 3 and we aren't close to being rebuilt.



> Patience is a important virtue in sports IMO.


Patience is good, yes. But it's often an excuse for incompetence... and in this case, it certainly is.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O

SheedSoNasty said:


> I'm sure the Blazers would have an even worse reputation had those two (Bonzi and Sheed) still been around.


In what way? What "reputation" would be worse?

Would ticket sales be worse? I doubt it.

Would we catch less flak for allegedly criminal behavior? I doubt it, since neither Wells nor Wallace were guys that got into much trouble off the court.

Would we have more wins in the last three years? Absolutely.

I don't see how our reputation would be worse with those two guys.

In any event, it's not so much that we traded them (I'm comfortable trading any Blazer at any time) but that the deals weren't done as part of a plan to improve the club. Or at least not as part of a plan that made any sense.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan

Ed O said:


> If you don't want to talk about it: go to another thread. Simple as that.
> 
> I don't think that anyone claimed that the Drexler trade was a good one. It also wasn't the first step into a massive pit of losses and lottery appearances.
> 
> On the other hand, we have people that claimed the Wells trade wasn't just good but GREAT. That it was the first step to turning around the franchise. Which it kinda was, but it turned it around to the tune of the path of us being the worst team in the NBA.
> 
> Ed O.


trading bonzi was great. it's been proven, despite what you and others think, that he's a total ****wit who can't stay on a team for very long before he blows up and costs that team something.


----------



## Trader Ed

Ed O said:


> *I'm* in denial?
> Ed O.


I was teasing you my friend (thus the :rofl: )because this thread was brought back up.... and I know your a strong Bonzi supporter


----------



## sa1177

Ed O said:


> Your point has no relevance here.
> 
> 2003-04: Season 1
> 2004-05: Season 2
> 2005-06: Season 3
> 2006-07: Season 4
> ...
> 
> Why does it matter that no teams rebuild in a season or two? We're already done with season 3 and we aren't close to being rebuilt.
> 
> 
> 
> Patience is good, yes. But it's often an excuse for incompetence... and in this case, it certainly is.
> 
> Ed O.


lol you have the patience of a 5 year old...the era of NBA teams rebuilding quickly by spending gross amounts of money is over. The Blazer have certainly made some poor moves in recent years but they have also made some good ones. Moving Bonzi and Sheed was necessary to maintain a solid fanbase and community support...there is no getting around their severe negative images in the city of Portland and the Blazer fanbase. I am sure it is much easier for you to look past this since you are not currently a resident of Oregon or Portland. With those two guys on the team we would be mired in mediocrity and the arena would be filled with 12k fans max. Doesn't sound to exciting to me.

Thoughts of Bonzi and Sheed taking this team anywhere past the first round of the playoffs are simply delusional.


----------



## SheedSoNasty

Ed O said:


> In what way? What "reputation" would be worse?
> 
> Would ticket sales be worse? I doubt it.
> 
> Would we catch less flak for allegedly criminal behavior? I doubt it, since neither Wells nor Wallace were guys that got into much trouble off the court.
> 
> Would we have more wins in the last three years? Absolutely.
> 
> I don't see how our reputation would be worse with those two guys.
> 
> In any event, it's not so much that we traded them (I'm comfortable trading any Blazer at any time) but that the deals weren't done as part of a plan to improve the club. Or at least not as part of a plan that made any sense.
> 
> Ed O.


Think of the kind of trouble those guys got themselves into. You really don't think that a lot of fans would have been even more disgusted than they are now had Wallace not been dealt when he was? Not only were the local fans tired of him, but the national media would still be labeling our team as the Jail Blazers.

Granted that Miles and Randolph haven't exactly been saints for us, the amount of disdain shown toward Wells and Wallace was reaching scary proportions. The trades may not have been done from a talent persective, but with the way the team was headed, the deals that were made saved some face.


----------



## Ed O

Hap said:


> trading bonzi was great. it's been proven, despite what you and others think, that he's a total ****wit who can't stay on a team for very long before he blows up and costs that team something.


That's an interesting perspective. I find it almost impossible for you to back up, though.

What did Bonzi cost the Grizzlies?

What did Bonzi cost the Kings?

Players get traded and change teams all the time... it doesn't mean that it "costs" the team anything when they move on.

I'm interested to hear how the Grizzlies or the Kings are worse off for having acquired Wells.

Ed O.


----------



## SheedSoNasty

Ed O said:


> I'm interested to hear how the Grizzlies or the Kings are worse off for having acquired Wells.
> 
> Ed O.


I'm interested to hear why both teams didn't decide to keep him.


----------



## Ed O

sa1177 said:


> lol you have the patience of a 5 year old...


And you have the analytical abilities of a person in a coma.



> the era of NBA teams rebuilding quickly by spending gross amounts of money is over. The Blazer have certainly made some poor moves in recent years but they have also made some good ones.


Blah blah blah. Neither of these sentences add anything.



> Moving Bonzi and Sheed was necessary to maintain a solid fanbase and community support...there is no getting around their severe negative images in the city of Portland and the Blazer fanbase. I am sure it is much easier for you to look past this since you are not currently a resident of Oregon or Portland. With those two guys on the team we would be mired in mediocrity and the arena would be filled with 12k fans max. Doesn't sound to exciting to me.


Wait... so your OWN guess as to where the team might be doesn't sound exciting to you?

And your guess just happens to support your opinion that, in spite of objective evidence showing the team going in the tank and attendance not improving, the moves were "necessary"?

That's very convenient.



> Thoughts of Bonzi and Sheed taking this team anywhere past the first round of the playoffs are simply delusional.


Taking THIS team? Perhaps. But I don't know of a single person who thinks that Bonzi and Rasheed would be on this team.

Again, though, it's more convenient for you to state irrelevancies than to simply admit that trading Wells and Rasheed hasn't helped the franchies.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O

SheedSoNasty said:


> I'm interested to hear why both teams didn't decide to keep him.


The Grizzlies were stacked at the swing man spot. They had Posey, Battier, Jones, Miller and Wells. Bonzi was the oldest and made the most money and they were able to move him for a piece that would help them in Bobby Jackson. Clearly Wells didn't get along well with Fratello, but the Grizzlies were wise not to dump Bonzi merely because of that.

He's not gone from the Kings just yet, but it's clearly a money issue that's the current delay on his movement. He wanted more than the MLE and the Kings are hesitating to do a sign and trade because of luxury tax implications.

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1

Ed O said:


> The Grizzlies were stacked at the swing man spot. They had Posey, Battier, Jones, Miller and Wells. Bonzi was the oldest and made the most money and they were able to move him for a piece that would help them in Bobby Jackson. Clearly Wells didn't get along well with Fratello, but the Grizzlies were wise not to dump Bonzi merely because of that.
> 
> He's not gone from the Kings just yet, but it's clearly a money issue that's the current delay on his movement. He wanted more than the MLE and the Kings are hesitating to do a sign and trade because of luxury tax implications.
> 
> Ed O.


All of those things you state may be true, but if you're attempting to say that Bonzi's behavior issues aren't a major factor in determining whether a GM wants him on his roster or what a team is willing to pay him, then you're overstating your case. Teams do (and probably should) put up with talented headcases that can help them win. Guys like Bonzi that are mid-level talents are much more expendable and teams are likely to look elsewhere to players who will cause less trouble.


----------



## MemphisX

Bonzi is a talented idiot. Unless you give him carte blanche with minutes and shot attempts you are in for some problems. He quietly destroyed the entire Grizzly locker room and if you have another idiot type on your team for him to tag along with then it is a wrap.


----------



## Schilly

How does a guys talent help a team if he's been banned from the stadium?


----------



## Ed O

e_blazer1 said:


> All of those things you state may be true, but if you're attempting to say that Bonzi's behavior issues aren't a major factor in determining whether a GM wants him on his roster or what a team is willing to pay him, then you're overstating your case. Teams do (and probably should) put up with talented headcases that can help them win. Guys like Bonzi that are mid-level talents are much more expendable and teams are likely to look elsewhere to players who will cause less trouble.


Behavior is without a doubt an issue, both in terms of his salary worth to a team and his attractiveness as an acquisition independent of contractual considerations. 

Behavior is secondary, though, to productivity. 

Unfortunately, during the Nash reign of terror, he seemed to focus more on the former than the latter, and our team went in the toilet because of it.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O

Schilly said:


> How does a guys talent help a team if he's been banned from the stadium?


How does a monkey eat a grapefruit without a spoon?

I don't see how your question makes much sense here.

Wells helped the Grizzlies make the playoffs both years he was there. That he clashed with Fratello at the end of that time doesn't detract from those previous contributions.

And then that the Grizzlies were able to get Bobby Jackson, which was more than they gave up to get Wells in the first place, makes the deal even better for Memphis in spite of Bonzi's less-than-perfect track record there.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly

Ed O said:


> How does a monkey eat a grapefruit without a spoon?
> 
> I don't see how your question makes much sense here.
> 
> Wells helped the Grizzlies make the playoffs both years he was there. That he clashed with Fratello at the end of that time doesn't detract from those previous contributions.
> 
> And then that the Grizzlies were able to get Bobby Jackson, which was more than they gave up to get Wells in the first place, makes the deal even better for Memphis in spite of Bonzi's less-than-perfect track record there.
> 
> Ed O.


Getting to the Playoffs means very little, it means you were good enough to get there, and thats it. The playoffs are when players are supposed to step up, not step out. 

Sure they got Bobby Jackson, who they now don't have. The Grizzlies have nothing to show for trading Bonzi Right now. 

Bonzi abadoned his team through his selfish actions at the worst possible time. It's one thing to argue that point if the guy got you there then was injured. but if he was too bloody stupid to self sacrifice just a little for the benefit of the team, he's done nothing thatn get you to the bottom of the steps. 

We always hear the arguments for all time great players and the 1 surefire argument that comes up is how many rings a guy has, not wether he was a contributor in getting his team to the playoffs only to flame out.


----------



## blakeback

Ed O said:


> How does a monkey eat a grapefruit without a spoon?


Assuming Bonzi is the grapefruit and the monkey is the team, I think the monkey would rather eat a nice sweet apple than a sour grapefruit with a yukky peel. And if you give a monkey a spoon, it'll probably just throw it back at you.

The only Blazer that I'm happier is not a Blazer anymore is Woods.


Sorry for the bad grammar


----------



## Dan

Ed O said:


> That's an interesting perspective. I find it almost impossible for you to back up, though.
> 
> What did Bonzi cost the Grizzlies?


you don't honestly believe that him being suspended for the playoffs cost them something? I mean, honestly ed?


> What did Bonzi cost the Kings?


well, for starters him being such a dumb **** has cost them any decent s&t opportunity probably.



> Players get traded and change teams all the time... it doesn't mean that it "costs" the team anything when they move on.
> 
> I'm interested to hear how the Grizzlies or the Kings are worse off for having acquired Wells.
> 
> Ed O.


thats just 1 individual criteria you're asking about ed, which is applying waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much credit to bonzi.


----------



## sa1177

Ed O said:


> Taking THIS team? Perhaps. But I don't know of a single person who thinks that Bonzi and Rasheed would be on this team.
> 
> Again, though, it's more convenient for you to state irrelevancies than to simply admit that trading Wells and Rasheed hasn't helped the franchies.
> 
> Ed O.


Apparently you don't understand, the NBA is a business...it's inconceivable that you don't understand that the Blazers as a business would be terribly unsucessful if Sheed and Bonzi where still members of the team. If a custoer doesn't like the product you are selling then he isn't going to buy said product. While ticket sales are not the strongest they are on a upswing...whereas when Sheed and Bonzi where the team ticket sales continued to drop. Do you recall that the Blazers signed large sponsorship deals shortly after these moves were made as well. 

There came a point where Sheed and Bonzi just weren't attracting fans to the RG anymore....in fact they were causing fans to stay away. Not a viable business model. Thus the model was changed. Was it changed in the best, most efficient manner...probably not, but a change had to be made.


----------



## Masbee

MemphisX said:


> Bonzi is a talented idiot. Unless you give him carte blanche with minutes and shot attempts you are in for some problems. He quietly destroyed the entire Grizzly locker room and if you have another idiot type on your team for him to tag along with then it is a wrap.


"Quietly"

Is this code for "I have no substantive evidence to substantiate my claims, so I will characterize the activity in conspiritorial language that cannot be repudiated."?

If not, thats cool. Just asking.

Anywhoo. If Bonzi was the reason the Grizz were mysteriously plunged into the depths of the Western Conference standings...... oops. Scratch that thought.

Anywhoo. If Bonzi was the antichrist, why pray tell, did West put practically the entire team (not named Gasol) on the block?

Did Bonzi's "idiot" cooties contaminate a lot of the team?

Just wondering.


----------



## Dan

Masbee said:


> "Quietly"
> 
> Is this code for "I have no substantive evidence to substantiate my claims, so I will characterize the activity in conspiritorial language that cannot be repudiated."?
> 
> If not, thats cool. Just asking.
> 
> Anywhoo. If Bonzi was the reason the Grizz were mysteriously plunged into the depths of the Western Conference standings...... oops. Scratch that thought.
> 
> Anywhoo. If Bonzi was the antichrist, why pray tell, did West put practically the entire team (not named Gasol) on the block?
> 
> Did Bonzi's "idiot" cooties contaminate a lot of the team?
> 
> Just wondering.


if bonzi was so important, why was he then traded? why was he banned from the arena during the playoffs?

why has this "uber" talented guy alienated 3 teams in the nba already?

I mean, how many more times does it have to happen before people realize it's not just coincidences?


----------



## dudleysghost

You guys are silly, crying about Bonzi being traded. Bonzi fans say he was a contributor to Memphis making the playoffs, but neglect to mention that he was at best the 6th or 7th man on the team. You guys say he was traded because Memphis had so many swingmen, but then again neglect to mention that he alienated himself from the coach enough to get suspended during the playoffs. Do you expect to have credibility when you so clearly omit crucial evidence?

In any case, Memphis gave up an old guy and a pick for two years worth of Bonzi, which ended unhappily, followed by one year worth of Bobby Jackson, who was their _third_-string point guard (after Damon and Chucky) and who then left for nothing. The Blazers made some mistakes to get where they are now, but dumping Bonzi is a triviality.


----------



## Pain5155

wow, the kings forum hasnt even mentioned this.


----------



## Ed O

Schilly said:


> Getting to the Playoffs means very little, it means you were good enough to get there, and thats it.


What else is there? Success in the NBA is not binary to me (championship or bust). There's a spectrum of success, and a playoff team is more successful than a non-playoff team.



> The playoffs are when players are supposed to step up, not step out.


*yawn*

You're confusing two different arguements:

-- whether Bonzi helped his team in the playoffs, or
-- whether Bonzi hurt his team.

I don't think anyone's arguing the former, but I'm waiting to see support from the people that argue the latter.



> Sure they got Bobby Jackson, who they now don't have. The Grizzlies have nothing to show for trading Bonzi Right now.


They have some number of wins more than they would have. 



> We always hear the arguments for all time great players and the 1 surefire argument that comes up is how many rings a guy has, not wether he was a contributor in getting his team to the playoffs only to flame out.


That's silly. No one is saying that Wells is anything approaching an all-time great. Judging a player like Wells (who, at his peak, is a borderline all-star) by the standards that you judge MVP- of HoF-level players is a waste of time.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O

Hap said:


> you don't honestly believe that him being suspended for the playoffs cost them something? I mean, honestly ed?


What did it cost them?

Was an absent Bonzi worse than a present and productive Bonzi? Of course.

But was an absent Bonzi worse than an absent Person and Viktor? I can't see how it was.

In the mean time, in the regular season, Bonzi helped them GET to he playoffs... a lot more than Person's cap savings and Viktor would have.



> well, for starters him being such a dumb **** has cost them any decent s&t opportunity probably.


Again, your logic is flawed.

I'm comparing "actual Bonzi" to "no Bonzi", and you're comparing "ideal Bonzi" to "actual Bonzi".

Your position is like arguing that a guy who weighs 300 pounds isn't heavy because he could weigh 500 pounds.



> thats just 1 individual criteria you're asking about ed, which is applying waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much credit to bonzi.


You're the one claiming that Bonzi "cost" his teams something... and it appears that your claim was just hot air. I have no idea what you're talking about with "1 individual criteria".

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O

Hap said:


> if bonzi was so important, why was he then traded?


Why was Charles Barkley traded? Why was Wilt Chamberlain traded?

Are you arguing that only unimportant players can be traded? Because, if you are, then you're wrong.



> why was he banned from the arena during the playoffs?


Because he didn't get along with Fratello. Why are you asking questions that we all know the answer to and that no one disputes?

Ed O.


----------



## Masbee

dudleysghost said:


> You guys are silly, crying about Bonzi being traded. Bonzi fans say he was a contributor to Memphis making the playoffs, but neglect to mention that he was at best the 6th or 7th man on the team. You guys say he was traded because Memphis had so many swingmen, but then again neglect to mention that he alienated himself from the coach enough to get suspended during the playoffs. Do you expect to have credibility when you so clearly omit crucial evidence?
> 
> In any case, Memphis gave up an old guy and a pick for two years worth of Bonzi, which ended unhappily, followed by one year worth of Bobby Jackson, who was their _third_-string point guard (after Damon and Chucky) and who then left for nothing. The Blazers made some mistakes to get where they are now, but dumping Bonzi is a triviality.


When the first sentence contains deception it isn't a surprise the rest of the post goes downhill from there.

Nobody is crying about Bonzi being traded. It is being pointed out that the day the trade was announced, several posters complained that it was a crappy trade. Not wanting to get fleeced is not the same as not wanting Bonzi to be traded at all.

You say the Blazers made some mistakes to get where they are now. If trading Bonzi for crap was not among those mistake, please tell me what were the "mistakes" that led the team from the playoffs to the worst record in the NBA, poor attendance, bankruptcy of arena, and threats to sell and/or move team?


----------



## sa1177

Masbee said:


> When the first sentence contains deception it isn't a surprise the rest of the post goes downhill from there.
> 
> Nobody is crying about Bonzi being traded. It is being pointed out that the day the trade was announced, several posters complained that it was a crappy trade. Not wanting to get fleeced is not the same as not wanting Bonzi to be traded at all.
> 
> You say the Blazers made some mistakes to get where they are now. *If trading Bonzi for crap* was not among those mistake, please tell me what were the "mistakes" that led the team from the playoffs to the worst record in the NBA, poor attendance, bankruptcy of arena, and threats to sell and/or move team?


Generally you can only trade crap for crap....at that point Bonzi's antics had turned him into crap as a trade asset. Either you wait awhile hope be behaves and trade him after his value improves, or you trade him for another team's crap. The Blazers were desperate they felt they couldn't afford to wait. Done deal.


----------



## SLAM

Schilly said:


> Getting to the Playoffs means very little, it means you were good enough to get there, and thats it. The playoffs are when players are supposed to step up, not step out.
> 
> Bonzi abadoned his team through his selfish actions at the worst possible time. It's one thing to argue that point if the guy got you there then was injured. but if he was too bloody stupid to self sacrifice just a little for the benefit of the team, he's done nothing thatn get you to the bottom of the steps.
> 
> We always hear the arguments for all time great players and the 1 surefire argument that comes up is how many rings a guy has, not wether he was a contributor in getting his team to the playoffs only to flame out.


A year later Bonzi did just what you asked for. He stepped up his game for the Kings vs. Spurs series and put on one of the most dominant performances of the 2006 playoffs.


----------



## Ed O

sa1177 said:


> The Blazers were desperate they felt they couldn't afford to wait. Done deal.


This is correct. And it was a mistake. Selling from desperation is NOT a good way to operate.

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177

Ed O said:


> This is correct. And it was a mistake. Selling from desperation is NOT a good way to operate.
> 
> Ed O.


It is when you are bleeding money hand over fist and have no major corporate sponsors...Basketball talent wise = not a great move, business wise = the only move.


----------



## sa1177

SLAM said:


> A year later Bonzi did just what you asked for. He stepped up his game for the Kings vs. Spurs series and put on one of the most dominant performances of the 2006 playoffs.


Way to go Bonzi....you had a mediocre generally lackluster season and then managed to have a few decent games in the playoffs....in a contract year no less. 

When signing players you have to look at the entire body of work....not just a couple performances.


----------



## Masbee

sa1177 said:


> Generally you can only trade crap for crap....at that point Bonzi's antics had turned him into crap as a trade asset. Either you wait awhile hope be behaves and trade him after his value improves, or you trade him for another team's crap. The Blazers were desperate they felt they couldn't afford to wait. Done deal.


Generally, when you decide you have to sell TODAY, your only chance is to get crap. No matter the value of the item.

A distress sale nets crap - guaranteed.

We will never know what Bonzi could have been worth if there was no distress sale. So all you "Bonzi was crap and had to go so the fact that we got crap is fine" folk can just stop trying to argue the point.

And please read my original post in this thread, where the entire character issue is addressed. "Cleaning up" the Blazers by dumping Bonzi THAT WEEK, stat, hurry, the life of the team depends on it, was like putting a bandage on a nasty gash, calling it good, and ignoring the arm half severed off and the swelling in the brain. We still had Sheed, Ruben, Damon, Woods, Zach.

By the way, the swelling in the brain, was a reference to Cheeks, who was a key reason Bonzi was dumped. Blazers gave their support to this mediocrity for PR reasons. Look how that costly act of support completely turned around Cheeks floundering coaching accomplishments.


----------



## barfo

sa1177 said:


> While ticket sales are not the strongest they are on a upswing.


This seems to me to be untrue. Weren't ticket sales last season the lowest ever (since the RG opened)? Where is this upswing? Next season? That remains to be seen. 

barfo


----------



## dudleysghost

Masbee said:


> When the first sentence contains deception it isn't a surprise the rest of the post goes downhill from there.
> 
> Nobody is crying about Bonzi being traded. It is being pointed out that the day the trade was announced, several posters complained that it was a crappy trade. Not wanting to get fleeced is not the same as not wanting Bonzi to be traded at all.
> 
> You say the Blazers made some mistakes to get where they are now. If trading Bonzi for crap was not among those mistake, please tell me what were the "mistakes" that led the team from the playoffs to the worst record in the NBA, poor attendance, bankruptcy of arena, and threats to sell and/or move team?


Saying you guys are "crying" is deception? Not really, it's hyperbole. How about "*****ing and moaning", would that be a less deceptive term for you?

If you honestly don't know what things besides trading Bonzi contributed to the decline of this team, you're not nearly as smart as you think you are. I'm not deliberately trying to be rude, but as long as your going to make wierd nonsensical allegations of me being deceptive, I'm going to go ahead and be blunt.

Here's a short list of things that affected the present state of the Blazers, for those who are oblivious to the obvious:


The retirement of Sabonis
Retirement of Pippin
Trading Dale Davis for Jermaine O'Neal
Trading Rasheed for guys who wouldn't contribute in the future
Trading Brian Grant for Shawn Kemp
Not getting any great picks from the draft in recent years
Committing big salary to Miles, Theo and Zach
Injury problems to Miles, Theo, Zach, Joel
Many other things

I hope that answers your question enough so that you will quit implying that trading Bonzi was even a relevant factor in the team's decline. You should also acknowledge that if we had gotten equally as much as Memphis has for Bonzi (Bird rights to Bobby Jackson), we'd also have a whole lot of nothing.


----------



## sa1177

barfo said:


> This seems to me to be untrue. Weren't ticket sales last season the lowest ever (since the RG opened)? Where is this upswing? Next season? That remains to be seen.
> 
> barfo


The number of new season ticket packages sold following the Bonzi and Sheed trades was higher then prior years with the two boneheads on the team. 

Last season I have no idea about.


----------



## Ed O

dudleysghost said:


> Here's a short list of things that affected the present state of the Blazers, for those who are oblivious to the obvious:
> 
> 
> The retirement of Sabonis
> Retirement of Pippin
> Trading Dale Davis for Jermaine O'Neal
> Trading Rasheed for guys who wouldn't contribute in the future
> Trading Brian Grant for Shawn Kemp
> Not getting any great picks from the draft in recent years
> Committing big salary to Miles, Theo and Zach
> Injury problems to Miles, Theo, Zach, Joel
> Many other things
> 
> I hope that answers your question enough so that you will quit implying that trading Bonzi was even a relevant factor in the team's decline. You should also acknowledge that if we had gotten equally as much as Memphis has for Bonzi (Bird rights to Bobby Jackson), we'd also have a whole lot of nothing.


I can't believe that anyone seriously thinks giving away Bonzi wasn't a "relevant factor in the team's decline".

Was the Rasheed Wallace deal (and subsequent change of direction) a bigger deal? Almost certainly. Were the other things you listed big deals? Almost to a point, they are (although Portland managed to win in spite of many of them, such as the Kemp and O'Neal deals... and the dearth of great draft picks wasn't a new factor, either).

But denying that getting rid of Wells didn't hurt our chances to win and to make the playoffs? That seems totally at odds with reality.

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177

Masbee said:


> Generally, when you decide you have to sell TODAY, your only chance is to get crap. No matter the value of the item.
> 
> A distress sale nets crap - guaranteed.
> 
> We will never know what Bonzi could have been worth if there was no distress sale. So all you "Bonzi was crap and had to go so the fact that we got crap is fine" folk can just stop trying to argue the point.
> 
> And please read my original post in this thread, where the entire character issue is addressed. "Cleaning up" the Blazers by dumping Bonzi THAT WEEK, stat, hurry, the life of the team depends on it, was like putting a bandage on a nasty gash, calling it good, and ignoring the arm half severed off and the swelling in the brain. We still had Sheed, Ruben, Damon, Woods, Zach.
> 
> By the way, the swelling in the brain, was a reference to Cheeks, who was a key reason Bonzi was dumped. Blazers gave their support to this mediocrity for PR reasons. Look how that costly act of support completely turned around Cheeks floundering coaching accomplishments.


I generally agree it certainly was a "distress sale" as you call it....having worked at the RG at the time I can understand why. The arena was empty, people weren't buying a damn thing. Apparently they felt felt they could not afford to wait. While the trade did not bring immediate dividends it did help to bring in more new season tickets holders the next season then the year prior and new corporate sponsorship opportunities. 

As for your "bandage" analogy...I totally agree yet I would counter with..."they had to start somewhere."


----------



## Minstrel

One of a series of bad decisions that reduced the team to rubble on the court.


----------



## dudleysghost

Ed O said:


> I can't believe that anyone seriously thinks giving away Bonzi wasn't a "relevant factor in the team's decline".
> 
> Was the Rasheed Wallace deal (and subsequent change of direction) a bigger deal? Almost certainly. Were the other things you listed big deals? Almost to a point, they are (although Portland managed to win in spite of many of them, such as the Kemp and O'Neal deals... and the dearth of great draft picks wasn't a new factor, either).
> 
> But denying that getting rid of Wells didn't hurt our chances to win and to make the playoffs? That seems totally at odds with reality.
> 
> Ed O.


Put Bonzi on last year's team instead of Monia or Viktor (whichever was picked with Memphis' pick). Do the Blazers make the playoffs? Not even close. Perhaps if we had gotten the supposedly sweet deal that Memphis got and traded Bonzi for Bobby Jackson last offseason ... would we have made the playoffs then? Again no, it's not even close. That's reality for you Ed, and you're welcome to join us in it at any time.


----------



## Minstrel

dudleysghost said:


> Put Bonzi on last year's team instead of Monia or Viktor (whichever was picked with Memphis' pick). Do the Blazers make the playoffs? Not even close.


Your logic is poor. Being _one of a number of relevant factors_ as to why the team is not playoff worthy is not the same as being the _sole reason_ the team is not playoff worthy.

Keep knocking down strawmen.


----------



## Dan

Ed O said:


> Why was Charles Barkley traded? Why was Wilt Chamberlain traded?


oh, well in that case you're right.



> Are you arguing that only unimportant players can be traded? Because, if you are, then you're wrong.


I'm saying that if he was as important as you make him out to be, why would he have been traded twice, for less talent?

OOh yah, because he's a dumb ****.


> Because he didn't get along with Fratello. Why are you asking questions that we all know the answer to and that no one disputes?
> 
> Ed O.


because you seem to fail to be able to grasp the fact that there's a reason why he is hated by fans here, and why he isn't as good as you think he is.


----------



## Dan

Ed O said:


> What did it cost them?
> 
> Was an absent Bonzi worse than a present and productive Bonzi? Of course.


no ****.


> But was an absent Bonzi worse than an absent Person and Viktor? I can't see how it was.


who really gives a **** how he was compared to viktor and wesley?



> In the mean time, in the regular season, Bonzi helped them GET to he playoffs... a lot more than Person's cap savings and Viktor would have.


and he also got suspended by his team, a lot more than person or viktor ever would have.

and he also basically wore out his welcome in his *3rd* nba team.



> Again, your logic is flawed.
> 
> I'm comparing "actual Bonzi" to "no Bonzi", and you're comparing "ideal Bonzi" to "actual Bonzi".
> 
> Your position is like arguing that a guy who weighs 300 pounds isn't heavy because he could weigh 500 pounds.
> You're the one claiming that Bonzi "cost" his teams something... and it appears that your claim was just hot air. I have no idea what you're talking about with "1 individual criteria".
> 
> Ed O.


whatever robot ed.


----------



## dudleysghost

Minstrel said:


> Your logic is poor. Being _one of a number of relevant factors_ as to why the team is not playoff worthy is not the same as being the _sole reason_ the team is not playoff worthy.
> 
> Keep knocking down strawmen.


That's a good point, it doesn't prove that it wasn't one of a number of factors. But there is more information that I've previously pointed out, such as the fact that all Memphis got out of Bonzi was a two years of backup level play and a playoff implosion. They then leveraged that contract into one year of Bobby Jackson with Bird Rights, which they no have nothing to show for (actually less than nothing, since they could have gotten a contributor from the draft pick).

So Minstrel, Ed, Masbee or anyone - would any of you like to argue that we either:

a) would be in a significantly better place right now if we had gotten the same "value" out of Bonzi as Memphis.

-or-

b) would have gotten more value out of Bonzi than Memphis had, which would have put us in a significantly better position than we are now.

Bonzi has been a mediocre player at best, and team distraction at worst, over the last 3 years, except for a nice run in half his contract year in Sacramento, after which we all know he will go back to being mediocre. Why are you guys crying about trading this guy? Seriously.


----------



## dudleysghost

Minstrel said:


> Your logic is poor. Being _one of a number of relevant factors_ as to why the team is not playoff worthy is not the same as being the _sole reason_ the team is not playoff worthy.
> 
> Keep knocking down strawmen.


And by the way, it's not just a strawman. That previous message tied into my earlier assertion that there were numerous more significant events that lead to the decline of the Blazers. Seems to me, if there are enough more significant events, then trading Bonzi becomes effectively irrelevant. Does that make sense to you?

You guys are really quick to assume others make logical mistakes that you turn around and make your own, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised to find smug attitudes on an internet message board.


----------



## Minstrel

dudleysghost said:


> So Minstrel, Ed, Masbee or anyone - would any of you like to argue that we either:
> 
> a) would be in a significantly better place right now if we had gotten the same "value" out of Bonzi as Memphis.
> 
> -or-
> 
> b) would have gotten more value out of Bonzi than Memphis had, which would have put us in a significantly better position than we are now.


Bonzi Wells was a significantly better player with Portland than he was on Memphis or Sacramento. He was a good starter, not quite a star. The team would have been better off simply because they would have been a somewhat better team over the intervening years.

He wouldn't have made the difference between contention and non-contention, but that sort of point is fallacious. You can say that about ten different moves, that each one isn't the difference between contention and non-contention...but you add them all up, and you have the difference between a team that was a threat to get into the second or third round and a team that has been a bottom-feeder for a few years.



> Why are you guys crying about trading this guy? Seriously.


Nobody's crying about the trade. Why are you crying about analysis of a deal after some time to see how things shook out? Seriously.


----------



## Minstrel

dudleysghost said:


> And by the way, it's not just a strawman. That previous message tied into my earlier assertion that there were numerous more significant events that lead to the decline of the Blazers. Seems to me, if there are enough more significant events, then trading Bonzi becomes effectively irrelevant. Does that make sense to you?


I'm afraid not. Just because you make a lot of bad deals, it doesn't make each one effectively irrelevant. That's exactly the same fallacy I highlighted in my previous post. There were some factors that mattered more (trading Wallace) and some that mattered considerably less (losing a finished Sabonis and Pippen).



> You guys are really quick to assume others make logical mistakes that you turn around and make your own


You haven't actually noted one of "my own," but changing someone else's argument to better fit your point is a pretty significant "logical mistake" since it completely undermines honest debate.

I don't see anything "smug" about noting logical errors in debate. I didn't characterize you as an idiot or a bad person, but pointing out where positions are weak logically is pretty much the entire point of debate.


----------



## Masbee

dudleysghost said:


> Saying you guys are "crying" is deception? Not really, it's hyperbole. How about "*****ing and moaning", would that be a less deceptive term for you?


No.



> If you honestly don't know what things besides trading Bonzi contributed to the decline of this team, you're not nearly as smart as you think you are. I'm not deliberately trying to be rude,


Yes you are.

Since I have made dozens of lengthy posts over the years on this very subject, I hardly consider myself clueless or without opinion on the matter. Maybe you want to look some of them up? I was asking to see if YOU had any real clue.

And, I think many of the opinions I have expressed have been more than vindicated by time. Every single move made by the Blazers in the last few years has been strongly backed by a contingent of posters. Can it be that nearly all of the move were "good" when they have coincided with an historic collapse of a once viable sports franchise? It can't.



> but as long as your going to make wierd nonsensical allegations of me being deceptive, I'm going to go ahead and be blunt.


You have already been blunt. No change there. Next time you make an announcement, make sure its newsworthy. As for being overly offended about "allegations", methinks you doth protest too much. But, whatever. The readers of this board can decide for themselves. You don't need to go on about it. Really.



> Here's a short list of things that affected the present state of the Blazers, for those who are oblivious to the obvious:


How sweet.


> The retirement of Sabonis - *how is this a "mistake"?*
> Retirement of Pippin - *how is this a "mistake"?*
> Trading Dale Davis for Jermaine O'Neal
> Trading Rasheed for guys who wouldn't contribute in the future
> Trading Brian Grant for Shawn Kemp
> Not getting any great picks from the draft in recent years - * 1) name a team that has been perfect in their drafts over a multi-year stretch, & 2) so O'Neal and Zach are chopped liver?*
> Committing big salary to Miles, Theo and Zach
> Injury problems to Miles, Theo, Zach, Joel - *how is this a "mistake"?*
> Many other things


So, your argument is, that among other things, trades that occured years before were mistakes more responsible for the stunning collapse of the team than trading away its 3rd best player in the present?

That the retirement of players were "mistakes" more responsible than the "trivial" dump trade of Bonzi?




> I hope that answers your question enough so that you will quit implying that trading Bonzi was even a relevant factor in the team's decline. You should also acknowledge that if we had gotten equally as much as Memphis has for Bonzi (Bird rights to Bobby Jackson), we'd also have a whole lot of nothing.


"So I will quit implying"?

How about you quit your denial?

I already addressed the "all Memphis got was BJ slipping out the back door for Bonzi" line in a previous thread a short while back. If you missed it, try the search funtion.


----------



## dudleysghost

Minstrel said:


> Bonzi Wells was a significantly better player with Portland than he was on Memphis or Sacramento. He was a good starter, not quite a star. The team would have been better off simply because they would have been a somewhat better team over the intervening years.
> 
> Nobody's crying about the trade. Why are you crying about analysis of a deal after some time to see how things shook out? Seriously.


Bonzi was significantly better in Portland than in Memphis.... What year are you talking about? The season he was traded he put up about the same numbers in 13 games for Portland as he did in his time in Memphis, which you Bonzi fans frequently choose to ignore. Why is that? Do you think sending him to Memphis made him a worse player? An alternate explanation, which seems a lot more plausible, is that Blazers management saw how his attitude and production had declined and realized that he wasn't going to be a productive starter anymore. We didn't trade away a tough 17ppg player, we traded away an uninspired 12 ppg player who never seemed to play within the offense or be particularly focused on the game.

Would we have won more games with Bonzi on our team? Probably so, as long as his production improved the team more than his attitude hurt it. But would that production have been _significant?_ No way, he's a marginal player. Why is that so hard for you guys to see? There are plenty of moves management could have made that would have gotten us a couple more wins. We could have drafted Pape Sow instead of Ha Seung Jin, but nobody is crying about that because it's not a major thing, just like losing a 7th man like Bonzi isn't really a major thing.


And yes, you guys are crying about the trade, still after all these years. Not literally of course, but when you continue complaining about losing a 7th man 3 years after the fact, I call that crying.


----------



## Minstrel

dudleysghost said:


> Bonzi was significantly better in Portland than in Memphis.... What year are you talking about?


I'm talking about his career with Portland versus his career after leaving Portland, where he was more marginalized among different, more swing-heavy, personnel.



> Would we have won more games with Bonzi on our team? Probably so, as long as his production improved the team more than his attitude hurt it. But would that production have been _significant?_ No way, he's a marginal player. Why is that so hard for you guys to see?


Because it's not true. Outside of a selective 13 game sample, Wells' production in his Portland career to that point was significantly better than that of a "marginal player." Considering shooting guard was one of Portland's biggest weaknesses the past few years, Wells would have been a good player at a major position of need. That seems quite significant.



> And yes, you guys are crying about the trade, still after all these years. Not literally of course, but when you continue complaining about losing a 7th man 3 years after the fact, I call that crying.


You're the one throwing around the over-wrought rhetoric, when you could simply ignore the thread. If anyone is having trouble controlling their emotions and becoming whiny, it's you. The rest of us are simply analyzing a trade that many people considered significant, whether or not they liked Wells.

Of course, accusing people who disagree with you of "crying" is the sort of smugness one comes to expect on an anonymous internet message board.


----------



## dudleysghost

Masbee said:


> No.
> 
> 
> Yes you are.
> 
> Since I have made dozens of lengthy posts over the years on this very subject, I hardly consider myself clueless or without opinion on the matter. Maybe you want to look some of them up? I was asking to see if YOU had any real clue.
> 
> And, I think many of the opinions I have expressed have been more than vindicated by time. Every single move made by the Blazers in the last few years has been strongly backed by a contingent of posters. Can it be that nearly all of the move were "good" when they have coincided with an historic collapse of a once viable sports franchise? It can't.
> 
> You have already been blunt. No change there. Next time you make an announcement, make sure its newsworthy. As for being overly offended about "allegations", methinks you doth protest too much. But, whatever. The readers of this board can decide for themselves. You don't need to go on about it. Really.
> 
> 
> How sweet.
> 
> So, your argument is, that among other things, trades that occured years before were mistakes more responsible for the stunning collapse of the team than trading away its 3rd best player in the present?
> 
> That the retirement of players were "mistakes" more responsible than the "trivial" dump trade of Bonzi?
> 
> 
> 
> "So I will quit implying"?
> 
> How about you quit your denial?
> 
> I already addressed the "all Memphis got was BJ slipping out the back door for Bonzi" line in a previous thread a short while back. If you missed it, try the search funtion.


Ok, you don't know what "deceptive" means (dictionary.com will help you, really) and you think that posting on bbb.net for a long time makes you an authority on a subject (lol). While it's obvious how silly these are, I'm sure most people find those topics uninteresting.

What is perhaps interesting is how you assigned the use of the word "mistakes" to me and the list I wrote, when all I said was that it was a list of "things that affected the present state of the Blazers". Do you see the difference? It's also obvious, but the fact that you made that error is notable.

Often, it seems like many people assume that it was only "mistakes" (usually John Nash mistakes) that reduced the Blazers from a WCF team to the worst team. I think this is done because it provides you guys with a simpler way of thinking about the world; anything bad that happens has to be the result of incompetent decision making. But for the Blazers, it's not entirely true. Pippin and Sabonis getting older and retiring (leaving us losing talent without adding any leverage to replace it) and the injury problems we saw last year were not mistakes per se, but they did cause us to win fewer games than we otherwise would have (if Pippin and Sabonis were ageless and all our big men last year were healthy). Of course, those things are obvious too, but the interesting part is the psychology of a person who assumes that anything "that affected the present state of the Blazers" must fit in the "mistake" category.

In any case, Bonzi was a mediocre player when he was traded and still is now, and not worth your tears.


----------



## It's_GO_Time

crandc said:


> Bonzi Wells is a free agent. The indications are that the Kings do not plan to re-sign him and so far neither has anyone else. Apparently, having worn out his welcome in 3 cities has so far overcome his strong playoff performance last April. I imagine sooner or later someone may take a chance on him, provided he does not pull a Sprewell and insist he cannot support his family on the mid level exemption.


 Out of the office all day. Just read your post, thanks for the update . . . will send cookies. Do you like Chips Ahoy?


----------



## dudleysghost

Minstrel said:


> I'm afraid not. Just because you make a lot of bad deals, it doesn't make each one effectively irrelevant. That's exactly the same fallacy I highlighted in my previous post. There were some factors that mattered more (trading Wallace) and some that mattered considerably less (losing a finished Sabonis and Pippen).


Look what you just did. Pay close attention. You changed my words. I didn't say Bonzi was irrelevant because the team made a lot of bad deals. I actually said that Bonzi was irrelevant because there were numerous other factors that had a larger effect on the team. Those are two different things. Now you've set up a straw man, but don't worry, it happens to the best of us and I'm sure you didn't do it on person.




Minstrel said:


> You haven't actually noted one of "my own," but changing someone else's argument to better fit your point is a pretty significant "logical mistake" since it completely undermines honest debate.
> 
> I don't see anything "smug" about noting logical errors in debate. I didn't characterize you as an idiot or a bad person, but pointing out where positions are weak logically is pretty much the entire point of debate.


See above ... now I've noted two of your logical errors. The first was minor, since reading my post out of context would cause a reasonable person to see a straw man. The second, committing your own straw man, is a more significant flaw, especially since you had just tried to assign one to me. What's smug is thinking you have a superior logical proficiency than someone else to the point where it induces hubris and causes you to call out people reflexively for mistakes they never made. Now of course, I'm also being smug because I clearly enjoy pointing out your mistakes, but since that's how you guys operate I should fit right in.


----------



## dudleysghost

Minstrel said:


> I'm talking about his career with Portland versus his career after leaving Portland, where he was more marginalized among different, more swing-heavy, personnel.
> 
> Because it's not true. Outside of a selective 13 game sample, Wells' production in his Portland career to that point was significantly better than that of a "marginal player." Considering shooting guard was one of Portland's biggest weaknesses the past few years, Wells would have been a good player at a major position of need. That seems quite significant.


This is an interesting point. What's a better sample of how much Bonzi _would have_ contributed to the Blazers? His two years previous to the year he was traded, or the 13 games that same year plus the two years following? It's arguable, but I think that since we have a timeframe in question (the time after he was traded), we should use the data from that timeframe. I wasn't just being "selective" by picking those 13 games, I picked them because of their temporal relevance. And Bonzi had a chance to play in Memphis, but according to the news, he was marginalized because he couldn't get along with Fratello. Even in the previous two seasons, his production had _already_ been declining, so another factor in my favor is the observation that his production roughly followed a previously established trend. After following this trend for two years and then reversing it strongly, Bonzi is now getting very little interest around the league, because apparently the NBA teams that still have money to spend or assets to offer Sacramento in a sign and trade don't consider Bonzi to be a "relevant" asset. Go figure.



Minstrel said:


> You're the one throwing around the over-wrought rhetoric, when you could simply ignore the thread. If anyone is having trouble controlling their emotions and becoming whiny, it's you. The rest of us are simply analyzing a trade that many people considered significant, whether or not they liked Wells.
> 
> Of course, accusing people who disagree with you of "crying" is the sort of smugness one comes to expect on an anonymous internet message board.


I could ignore the thread, but what would be the fun in that? Instead, I decided to tell you what I think, which is that you are feeling an inordinate amount of regret about the trading of Bonzi Wells. I expressed that as "crying about it" because I chose to use the well-worn internet message board technique called hyperbole. It probably wouldn't have been a big deal, except overly sensitive individuals took offense to it. And yes, I am being smug, as I previously stated, but IMO it's warranted by now.


----------



## blakeback

Pain5155 said:


> wow, the kings forum hasnt even mentioned this.


This is an old thread that got bumped so that someone... actually, I'm not sure why.


----------



## Minstrel

dudleysghost said:


> Look what you just did. Pay close attention. You changed my words. I didn't say Bonzi was irrelevant because the team made a lot of bad deals.


And I didn't say you did. I said that the logic plays out the same...a series of consequential moves, none of them decisive by themselves, do not each become irrelevant. It's a class of fallacy, that you twice committed.



> See above ... now I've noted two of your logical errors.


Both times incorrectly. I understand now: you were angry because you felt, incorrectly, that you had a very strong grasp of logic and my implication otherwise bothered you.

The way to combat that isn't to prove your poor grasp of logic conclusively.

In any case, you've amply proven that your aim is not really to debate in good faith, but to try and play semantics games (and display misplaced smugness, apparently, by your admission). I'm sure others will enjoy engaging you in that, I'll stick to people who are interested in making solid points.


----------



## Masbee

dudleysghost said:


> Ok, you don't know what "deceptive" means (dictionary.com will help you, really)





dudleysghost said:


> You guys are silly, crying about Bonzi being traded.


Obnoxious, indiscriminate AND deceptive.



alternate universe dudleysghost said:


> You guys are silly, crying about Bonzi being traded for crap.


Obnoxious, indiscriminate. Not deceptive.



dudleysghost said:


> and you think that posting on bbb.net for a long time makes you an authority on a subject (lol). While it's obvious how silly these are, I'm sure most people find those topics uninteresting.r


As uninteresting as your rants?
I mentioned it as I, unlike yourself, have a large body of posts on this site that can be referenced. My opinions going years back are all there. No hiding. Doesn't make me an authority. Never said I was.



dudleysghost said:


> What is perhaps interesting is how you assigned the use of the word "mistakes" to me and the list I wrote, when all I said was that it was a list of "things that affected the present state of the Blazers". Do you see the difference? It's also obvious, but the fact that you made that error is notable.





dudleysghost said:


> The Blazers made some mistakes to get where they are now, but dumping Bonzi is a triviality.





Masbee said:


> You say the Blazers made some mistakes to get where they are now. If trading Bonzi for crap was not among those mistake, please tell me what were the "mistakes" that led the team from the playoffs to the worst record in the NBA, poor attendance, bankruptcy of arena, and threats to sell and/or move team?


If you can't follow along, is that my fault?



dudleysghost said:


> Often, it seems like many people assume that it was only "mistakes" (usually John Nash mistakes) that reduced the Blazers from a WCF team to the worst team. I think this is done because it provides you guys with a simpler way of thinking about the world; anything bad that happens has to be the result of incompetent decision making. But for the Blazers, it's not entirely true. Pippin and Sabonis getting older and retiring (leaving us losing talent without adding any leverage to replace it) and the injury problems we saw last year were not mistakes per se, but they did cause us to win fewer games than we otherwise would have (if Pippin and Sabonis were ageless and all our big men last year were healthy). Of course, those things are obvious too, but the interesting part is the psychology of a person who assumes that anything "that affected the present state of the Blazers" must fit in the "mistake" category.
> 
> In any case, Bonzi was a mediocre player when he was traded and still is now, and not worth your tears.


Priceless. I never cried for Bonzi. Was really only a "fan" of his PowerGuard game early in his career. After he drifted away from that that I dreamed of ways to trade for McGrady and others. But that's all in the old posts.

And you clearly have no clue about my opinions on Nash. "You guys". Who is that? Some new poster?

Of course, you know me so you can talk with authority about my phychology. Get the **** out of here.


----------



## dudleysghost

Minstrel said:


> And I didn't say you did. I said that the logic plays out the same...a series of consequential moves, none of them decisive by themselves, do not each become irrelevant. It's a class of fallacy, that you twice committed.


You just denied saying something, then repeated it again. I said that the trading of Bonzi was irrelevant because there were numerous _more_ significant events that caused the team to go from WCF to worst. That's different from what you said, again. Do you not see the difference? Here it is again:

I said that trading Bonzi is insignificant because there were plenty of other factors that made a _greater_ difference.

You accuse me of not arguing in good faith, but you stubbornly refuse to see what I'm clearly saying because it deflates the position you've worked so hard to build up. I invited you to argue about the point of this thread. I asked you if you wanted to defend the idea that we somehow could have gotten more value out of Bonzi in the 2003-2005 period despite the fact that he was a marginal player in that timespan, but you basically declined, offering only an assertion that his poor play was due to being "marginalized" in Memphis. I even offered a counter and possible point of real discussion to that by saying that it seemed like there was a trend in Bonzi's production preceding the trade, and that his actual play during the timeframe in question seems like the best indicator of what we could have expected, but you didn't want to respond to that. So I'll agree with you on one point; this is a waste of time.


----------



## Minstrel

dudleysghost said:


> You just denied saying something, then repeated it again. I said that the trading of Bonzi was irrelevant because there were numerous _more_ significant events that caused the team to go from WCF to worst. That's different from what you said, again. Do you not see the difference?


No, I don't agree that you said something that differs materially from what I attributed to you. My comment that, "A series of consequential moves, none of them decisive by themselves, do not each become irrelevant," does not assume all the moves are precisely equal as you seem to think it does.

Even if you believe all those moves were more significant (and, clearly, losing two players in Sabonis and Pippen who retired due to ineffectiveness are not as significant as losing a decent player in his prime, to take just two quick examples), it doesn't change the logic of what I said. Very few people would agree that the Wells deal was of little significance. It was a consequential deal in recent Blazers history, and doesn't become irrelevant simply because other consequential things (some more consquential, some less) also happened.



> I even offered a counter and possible point of real discussion to that by saying that it seemed like there was a trend in Bonzi's production preceding the trade, and that his actual play during the timeframe in question seems like the best indicator of what we could have expected, but you didn't want to respond to that.


Actually, I missed that, due to our conversation having become split into two parallel post sequences. I'll respond to it now:



> but I think that since we have a timeframe in question (the time after he was traded), we should use the data from that timeframe.


My contention was that Wells' effectiveness dropped significantly in his post-Blazers career due to being on teams with different personnel, which were particularly perimeter-player heavy.

Since that's true of the "time after he was traded," using that time frame doesn't isolate out the effect that I believe came into play.



> Even in the previous two seasons, his production had already been declining, so another factor in my favor is the observation that his production roughly followed a previously established trend.


I don't see a similar trend. Here are his PER for the four years previous (which was his whole career since he began playing a significant number of games per season):

2000: 17.3
2001: 18.8
2002: 18.4
2003: 15.7

He improved a bit, held steady and then had one poor season. I wouldn't call that a trend.

There is some possible overlap between our theories (yours that Wells' attitude effected a decline in his production and mine that joining teams with more depth at his positions did), which is that, observationally, Wells seemed to perform better when given more time and opportunities. On Memphis and Sacramento, he was given less time and volition, so it's conceivable that his production suffered even for the time he got.

Yet, I would still say that that doesn't change expectations had he stayed in Portland. Portland had virtually no valuable depth on the perimeter and Wells would have received lots of time and shots. So if that's what he needed to perform up to his fringe-star production of 2000-2002, he would have gotten it.


----------



## dudleysghost

Masbee said:


> Obnoxious, indiscriminate AND deceptive.
> 
> 
> Obnoxious, indiscriminate. Not deceptive.
> 
> As uninteresting as your rants?
> I mentioned it as I, unlike yourself, have a large body of posts on this site that can be referenced. My opinions going years back are all there. No hiding. Doesn't make me an authority. Never said I was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't follow along, is that my fault?
> 
> 
> Priceless. I never cried for Bonzi. Was really only a "fan" of his PowerGuard game early in his career. After he drifted away from that that I dreamed of ways to trade for McGrady and others. But that's all in the old posts.
> 
> And you clearly have no clue about my opinions on Nash. "You guys". Who is that? Some new poster?
> 
> Of course, you know me so you can talk with authority about my phychology. Get the **** out of here.


Deceptive means:

1) intending to cause belief in something that isn't true, or
2) apt to cause belief in something that isn't true.

Since it was already well know that you think trading Bonzi was a bad idea because you feel that we got "crap" in return, why do you think my statement was intended or apt to cause anyone to believe otherwise? What other possible reason do you think my statement might be implying? Since I don't see any possible reasonable answer to that question, I think you were just calling me "deceptive" just to be rude. I wasn't trying to misrepresent your opinion on the matter, and nor do I see how a person would even interpret it that way, but go ahead and explain it if you like.

As for me not following along : I did change the parameters of discussion in my post, from "mistakes" to just any events. Is that not allowed now? Does Masbee get to limit the terms used in discussion only to those pre-approved? I think not.

I did you, Masbee, to a group of people that assumes the changes in winning percentage over a given timeframe are due to "mistakes", and I do find that interesting because clearly a team just changes over time. It wasn't just mistakes in the 2000-2006 timeframe that led us to where we are now, some of it was due to structural problems in the team (not much quality youth) that preceded that timeframe, and some of it was due to just luck (injuries to our four best players last season). If you don't like having your posts and your reasoning dissected, then don't post on internet message boards. 

As for me getting the blank out of here, it sounds like you are the one who is getting way overheated. If you really find my rants uninteresting, then don't read them. Right now I honestly couldn't care less whether you do or don't.


----------



## dudleysghost

Minstrel said:


> My contention was that Wells' effectiveness dropped significantly in his post-Blazers career due to being on teams with different personnel, which were particularly perimeter-player heavy.
> 
> Since that's true of the "time after he was traded," using that time frame doesn't isolate out the effect that I believe came into play.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a similar trend. Here are his PER for the four years previous (which was his whole career since he began playing a significant number of games per season):
> 
> 2000: 17.3
> 2001: 18.8
> 2002: 18.4
> 2003: 15.7
> 
> He improved a bit, held steady and then had one poor season. I wouldn't call that a trend.
> 
> There is some possible overlap between our theories (yours that Wells' attitude effected a decline in his production and mine that joining teams with more depth at his positions did), which is that, observationally, Wells seemed to perform better when given more time and opportunities. On Memphis and Sacramento, he was given less time and volition, so it's conceivable that his production suffered even for the time he got.
> 
> Yet, I would still say that that doesn't change expectations had he stayed in Portland. Portland had virtually no valuable depth on the perimeter and Wells would have received lots of time and shots. So if that's what he needed to perform up to his fringe-star production of 2000-2002, he would have gotten it.


These are good points. I cut off the first part of your post not as a snub, but just to let that part of the discussion drop. I think we would both agree that the basketball related stuff is better discussion material, and I realize that I like many are apt to get hung up on tangential topics in a format like this, but it's not very productive.

I notice that you left out of your PER trend the start of the 2004 season when Bonzi was a Blazer. I know it was only 13 games (although that's 15% of a season), but I think it does have significance. He played really badly. My guess is that his bad play in those games probably factored heavily into the decision to trade him. He was playing the same number of minutes those games as his previous two seasons average, so it wasn't a lack of PT holding him back then. I bet if he had come out and played well in those 13 games, the team would have been more reluctant to trade him.

Would he have improved his play if we kept him? Or would he possibly have attracted better offers at a later date while maintaining the same level of play? We can't say for sure, so of course it's debateable, but my guess is no. It appears to me that a player's attitude does affect his level of play and his value to a team strongly. We've seen it in Darius Miles recently. When he was fairly happy, he was fairly effective. When he has been unhappy, his play got worse. It seemed like Bonzi's attitude was deteriorating before the trade (in the 13 games, and the previous season), and it didn't seem to improve while in Memphis. He stepped his play up in his contract year, but that seems to be a common trait among bad attitude players. Based just on that available information, it seems unlikely to me that he would have played any better as a Blazer if we hadn't traded him.

Also, one other point I'd like to bring up that was lost previously is that the 23rd pick in the 2004 draft wasn't totally "crap". We ended up picking Monia, who was pretty crappy, but that was a separate mistake on the Blazers part. There were other better players available at the time. The next picks were: Delonte West, Tony Allen, Sasha Vujajic, Beno Udrih, David Harrison and Anderson Varejao, with later players taken including Chris Duhon and Trevor Ariza. Those are all real NBA players, and some of them could have contributed to our team as well. I just don't think the trade was "crap" just because we ended up flubbing the draft pick, since those were discrete decisions.

In any case, I appreciate your willingness and initiative to bring the discussion back to basketball. I'll try to do that more often myself in the future.


----------



## Minstrel

dudleysghost said:


> Would he have improved his play if we kept him? Or would he possibly have attracted better offers at a later date while maintaining the same level of play? We can't say for sure, so of course it's debateable, but my guess is no.


Fair enough. My belief is that the team was scuffling and Wells scuffled with them. I don't think it was a good decision to jettison him then, and that given some time to distance himself from that frustration and given playing time, he'd have gotten back to his old play (which was only a bit over a season before...not years before).



> Also, one other point I'd like to bring up that was lost previously is that the 23rd pick in the 2004 draft wasn't totally "crap". We ended up picking Monia, who was pretty crappy, but that was a separate mistake on the Blazers part. There were other better players available at the time. The next picks were: Delonte West, Tony Allen, Sasha Vujajic, Beno Udrih, David Harrison and Anderson Varejao, with later players taken including Chris Duhon and Trevor Ariza. Those are all real NBA players, and some of them could have contributed to our team as well. I just don't think the trade was "crap" just because we ended up flubbing the draft pick, since those were discrete decisions.


That's a very good point. The pick did prove to be valuable, even if it was used poorly.



> In any case, I appreciate your willingness and initiative to bring the discussion back to basketball. I'll try to do that more often myself in the future.


I think we both prefer civil debates, even if annoyance peeks through once in a while.


----------



## Ed O

blakejack said:


> This is an old thread that got bumped so that someone... actually, I'm not sure why.


I posted why I bumped it.

Ed O.


----------



## Oldmangrouch

I have never really cared that we traded Bonzi, as I was less than impressed with his skill set (the whole "I'm a shoter, not a shooter" nonsense). I have 3 problems with the way it was handled.

A) He was traded when his value was rock-bottom. Panic moves rarely pay off.

B) I believe Cheeks was pushing for the deal. Given his own ineptitude, that should have been a red flag.

C) You can't make moves to satisfy the hectoring harridans of public morality, because those folks *can't be satisfied*. They will always find *something* to complain about and will *never* support the team. 

There is only one segment of the community a team can influence: the fans who will pay to watch a winning/exciting team, but not a losing/boring one. Any trade that ignores that fact will wind up being, at best, a waste of time.


----------



## blakeback

Ed O said:


> I posted why I bumped it.


O RLY?



Ed O said:


> barfo's comment about the Zach thread being one of the top-viewed threads of all time made me revisit some of the classics.
> 
> December 3, 2003. The date that my optimism for the Blazers began its hibernation.
> 
> It's a bit less painful now to read this thread since the team appears to be headed in the right direction...


In reading the post-bump posts, (FWIW) it seems to me like your reason was to show how wrong you think other people were/are. 

I guess that's what message boards are for, though. :biggrin:


----------

