# I guess the "re-building plan" worked



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Anybody still think it was a bad idea to tear this team down and start over? Would you still rather have Wallace and Wells and Stoudamire pissing us off and fizzling out in the playoffs every year, or would you rather have a young team of Greg Oden, Brandon Roy, and LaMarcus Aldridge on the verge of greatness for the next 15 years? Take a moment and think about it if you really need to. 

Personally, I couldn't be happier that we dumped all the crap on this team and started fresh. We not only have a great team now, it's full of great guys that we can be proud of. I'd say the rebuilding plan was a SMASHING SUCCESS.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

This is ridiculous. Like asking if WWII was not a mistake for Germany, since it is dominating the EU today.

I'm happy where we are, but the path we took to get here was a disaster and a low point in Blazers history.

Ed O.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Ed O said:


> This is ridiculous. Like asking if WWII was not a mistake for Germany, since it is dominating the EU today.
> 
> I'm happy where we are, but the path we took to get here was a disaster and a low point in Blazers history.
> 
> Ed O.


Not quite the same thing...but nice try at being an apologist for yourself.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> This is ridiculous. Like asking if WWII was not a mistake for Germany, since it is dominating the EU today.
> 
> I'm happy where we are, but the path we took to get here was a disaster and a low point in Blazers history.
> 
> Ed O.


I'd question what other path would get us where we are today? Your thought process doesn't make much sense, what was done was necessary in being in the position we are now.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Why am I not surprised that two people I have on my ignore list posted immediately after me? I wonder what the odds are that they took personal shots at me?

Haha.

Ed O.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Why am I not surprised that two people I have on my ignore list posted immediately after me? I wonder what the odds are that they took personal shots at me?
> 
> Haha.
> 
> Ed O.


75%. one was, one sort of was but not really.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I'm happy where we are, but the path we took to get here was a disaster and a low point in Blazers history.


Sorry, Ed, but that's crazy talk. The path we took to get here is what made "getting here" possible.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Sorry, Ed, but that's crazy talk. The path we took to get here is what made "getting here" possible.


The path we took is very similar to the one that Atlanta took. That Memphis took. That other teams throughout NBA history have taken.

Very, very few teams have ended up as well off as we look to have.

Am I glad that we bucked the odds? Abso-freakin'-lutely.

Was it wise to do so, given the chances of us remaining in the lottery for years without netting an Oden-like player? I think not.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Am I glad that we bucked the odds? Abso-freakin'-lutely.
> 
> Was it wise to do so, given the chances of us remaining in the lottery for years without netting an Oden-like player? I think not.


Yeah, you're right, Ed. We would have been better off hanging onto Rashweed Wallace and Bonzi Wells and Damon Stoudamire so we could go on being a dysfunctional, underachieving team who's never quite bad enough to have a chance at somebody like Greg Oden.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Anybody still think it was a bad idea to tear this team down and start over? Would you still rather have Wallace and Wells and Stoudamire pissing us off and fizzling out in the playoffs every year, or would you rather have a young team of Greg Oden, Brandon Roy, and LaMarcus Aldridge on the verge of greatness for the next 15 years? Take a moment and think about it if you really need to.
> 
> Personally, I couldn't be happier that we dumped all the crap on this team and started fresh. We not only have a great team now, it's full of great guys that we can be proud of. I'd say the rebuilding plan was a SMASHING SUCCESS.


The rebuilding plan was crap. And plenty of mistakes were made along the way. The fact that all those twists and turns led to an amazing place doesn't make the plan a good one.

Just because a bear ends up chasing you into a cave filled with gold doesn't mean marching into Vicious Bear Canyon, wrapped in meat, was a good plan.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Would our future be nearly as bright if we didn't have the draft that we had last summer? 

I think a lot of teams are stuck in mediocrity because of A) Bad coaching and/or B)Bad management. 

Look at the Boston Celtics, New York Knicks, and Atlanta Hawks. They go through a coaching change just about every year, they have TERRIBLE draft selections, and they make extremely questionable trades and free agent signings. 

Maurice Cheeks, John Nash and Steve Patterson were the worst of all three. It was blind luck that we stumbled onto Kevin Pritchard, who is one of the nicest, most genuine members of the NBA family, and is also one of the best young minds in the league.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I"m very happy we took the path we did and didn't continually try to build on the fly. We just got ourselves to deep in a hole. Many act like it was the end of the world, as if teams never successfully rebuild, and made it sound like we'd always be a cellar dwellers. Many said you can't rebuild through the draft. They were obviously wrong. Now we'll be serious contenders for many years!

Go Blazers!!


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> The rebuilding plan was crap.


Go sell it somewhere else. It's not working here.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Go sell it somewhere else. It's not working here.


It's only being marketed towards people with a grasp of logic. You're not in the target demographic.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

We got lucky. We got very very very lucky. It is a great and wonderful thing that we did.

We bet on a longshot to win, and our horse came in. But that's much different than executing successfully on a good plan. 

barfo


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

mgb said:


> Many said you can't rebuild through the draft. They were obviously wrong.


No one said it couldn't be done. Some of us said that the odds were enormously against it being successful and supported our claims with history (virtually every team that tried it failed and the one that successfully tore it all down in order to find salvation in the draft, Cleveland, suffered for like a decade before it happened).

And we were right. The odds _were_ enormously against it. But bucking 95% odds helps.

Now, I'll probably continue to counsel my friends that the odds suggest that lottery tickets are not the right way to build one's wealth. Maybe one of them will "prove me wrong" by winning the lottery. And then I shall have to acknowledge their wise financial planning, won't I?


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> The rebuilding plan was crap. And plenty of mistakes were made along the way. The fact that all those twists and turns led to an amazing place doesn't make the plan a good one.
> 
> Just because a bear ends up chasing you into a cave filled with gold doesn't mean marching into Vicious Bear Canyon, wrapped in meat, was a good plan.


Couldn't have said it any better myself. Nash/Patterson were a train wreck. Pritchard + PA changing his mind on the team + an amazing amount of dumb luck is the ONLY reason we are here right now. 90% of that "rebuilding" was really senseless destruction with little goal in mind.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> It's only being marketed towards people with a grasp of logic.


According to your own logic it was stupid to rebuild the Blazers even though we got Roy, Aldridge, Rodriquez, and Oden out of the deal. Hey, that's some pretty impressive logic, Minstrel! Good luck with that.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

i absolutely buy that the rebuilding plan was crap. we got here through dumb luck and through a very, very competent gm in pritchard. had we kept nash on as a gm, i can only shudder at the thoughts.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> According to your own logic it was stupid to rebuild the Blazers even though we got Roy, Aldridge, Rodriquez, and Oden out of the deal. Hey, that's some pretty impressive logic, Minstrel! Good luck with that.


I don't think most people got that out of my post(s).


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

What one if forgetting is that we had a NINETY FIVE PERCENT chance of NOT getting the top pick. We lucked out BIG TIME. More often than not, a crappy team remains a crappy team.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

NathanLane said:


> What one if forgetting is that we had a NINETY FIVE PERCENT chance of NOT getting the top pick. We lucked out BIG TIME. More often than not, a crappy team remains a crappy team.


Of course we lucked out. But if we hadn't gone into a rebuilding mode we never would have been in the lottery--and thus wouldn't have had a chance at Oden. Even if we hadn't won the top pick, our rebuilding plan would have still been a roaring success with the second pick.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

I love you.

GO BLAZERS


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Really, without going a few more years we can't say whether the plan worked or not.

But I think it's pretty ridiculous for people on the other side of the fence (who wanted to keep certain players) to say that their's was a better idea. Here's a thought - it didn't happen so we'll never know! And knowing is half the battle...


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> This is ridiculous. Like asking if WWII was not a mistake for Germany, since it is dominating the EU today.


Oden will kick Germany's butt.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

The only way we could build a dynasty is threw the draft. We made a lot of stupid mistakes under Nash but at least the years of pain will be a lot shorter then many other teams, including the Bulls.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Ed O said:


> This is ridiculous. Like asking if WWII was not a mistake for Germany, since it is dominating the EU today.


Poor analogy. There is no built-in "remedy" for a failed state; if you fail, you may never rise again. In the NBA, when you go into a rebuilding mode you do so with full knowledge of the "remedy," which is the draft. The Blazers never would have shipped out Wallace, Wells, Stoudamire, Davis, and Rahim if there wasn't the safety net of a draft (and a lottery).


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

I'll have to ask Oden what WWII was like.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Let me put it this way, if another team wanted to go into rebuilding mode, say the Wolves, would you recommend Blazers plan to them? "Yeah, just overpay for a bunch of questionable players and thugs for a few years, and don't suck completely. Just suck moderately. The type of suck where you end up with the 6th worst record in the NBA in one of the best draft years in the past 25 years and then....you win it. Here, you can have Darius Miles, I just solved the thug and questionable player part, you're already half way there.."

There are certain things in life that you do not try to duplicate. Kind of like that Eddy Curry's 3 to force overtime but you wouldn't want him to take that shot again the next time you're in that position. Just be happy with the results, and forget the rest.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

We were trapped in the NBA no man's land of mediocrity, we didn't have enough talent to compete and we were too good to rebuild through the draft. We were the biggest PR nightmare in professional sports since the Black Soxs, Rip City one of the most zealous basketball towns on the planet had totally turned its back on the team, in every respect the situation was a nightmare. Ultimately we had to rebuild... having Patternash in charge of the process was where our biggest mistake was made.

If you think about where we were last year, and where we are today, we've gone from one of the most hopeless teams in the league to the team with the brightest future, 90% of the rebuilding process has occurred over 2 drafts... that's unprecedented.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Are we once again back to bickering and Talkhard putting words in people's mouths they did not say?

I really doubt if anyone is seriously arguing that the Blazers would be better off TODAY with Bonzi Wells, Damon Stoudamire, Jeff McInnis. Let alone Shawn Kemp. Only Rasheed is still productive of that crew.

But the rebuilding went through a huge detour. The team got halfway decent value for Sheed, but couldn't keep Reef and couldn't keep Theo healthy. Got nothing for Wells, Stoudamire, Reef. Dzrius for McInnis looked good for half a season. Darius and Theo given huge deals is still a headache; it makes it tough to move Darius and the Blazers had to take on Raef LaFrentz' contract. 

With a smarter GM that could have been avoided. But let us not forget the fact that Paul Allen had a hell of a time getting anyone to take on the GM job after Whitsitt; an indication of how far the team had fallen. 

Last year's draft was brilliant. This year's was just plain luck. I'm not knocking it. But it was not due to great planning. Just a bounce of the pingpong balls.

What makes me really nervous is Talkhard is using the same tone and the same attitude he uses to praise the tremendous "success" of the Iraq war.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

And lets not forget Nash had his hands tied, that's doesn't excuse him for the mistakes he made, but he did what needed to be done and won't get any credit for it.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

I think that most of the people in this thread agree that some kind of process of rebuilding was necessary. Once Rasheed Wallace began playing as if he wasn't very interested in playing with the Blazers (whether or not he verbalized this is not important to me), it was necessary to deal him. And thus began the necessity to rebuild. And I agree with the posters who said we made many mistakes pre-Pritchard and really have ended up where we are mostly through good fortune. It's probably true that if it hadn't been bungled so badly we would not have been in a position to have a 10% chance at Oden or Durant, but it certainly wouldn't be a plan anyone in their right mind would want to emulate.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> Let me put it this way, if another team wanted to go into rebuilding mode, say the Wolves, would you recommend Blazers plan to them? "Yeah, just overpay for a bunch of questionable players and thugs for a few years, and don't suck completely. Just suck moderately. The type of suck where you end up with the 6th worst record in the NBA in one of the best draft years in the past 25 years and then....you win it. Here, you can have Darius Miles, I just solved the thug and questionable player part, you're already half way there.."
> 
> There are certain things in life that you do not try to duplicate. Kind of like that Eddy Curry's 3 to force overtime but you wouldn't want him to take that shot again the next time you're in that position. Just be happy with the results, and forget the rest.


A of course a lot depends on what condition the team is in. If you hadn't dug yourself a deep hole then I'd say you'd probably not best off completely rebuilding, but for us I felt it was the best option.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

This thread is deja spew all over again.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I've probably been one of the bigger supporters of the rebuilding process/plan and I'll tell you right now that untiltehy put their faith in KP a little over a year ago....The rebuilding plan was crap. Of course that is a little tough to call since as far as I can tell there wasn't much of a plan or vision. From the things I've heard Nash had a very short leash to work with and Patterson had all the power from day one. Other things I've heard indicate that part of the reason our team got so bad was because Patterson overvalued our players and held out too long trying to get to much in return. Other GM's started to get reluctant to even call us about deals. Could we have had Baron Davis? Yep...COuld we have had Vince Carter...Yep....But we didn't get them because the biggest problem was we overvalued our players.

Now with all that said...as of today I really don't care what has happened the last 4 years or so. I am way too thrilled with the situation we are in to have sour grapes over last year or the year before.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Guess what? The rebuilding plan is working! 

lmao. 

I can't wait for fifteen years from now when Iraq finally recovers from the debacle of our occupation. TalkHard will be right there saying "Bush was right all along!" 

Incompetence doesn't count if somewhere down the line things finally start looking up. It's all about the long view.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

mook said:


> Guess what? The rebuilding plan is working!
> 
> lmao.
> 
> ...


To be fair theres a big difference between military occupation and the percepption of fans of a sports team.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

If I remember correctly, the plan was to rebuild by getting rid of the bad characters, and rebuild through the lottery. (OK, fine. We didn't do really well the "fiscally responsible" part)

Yes, we got VERY lucky in this draft. But even without this draft, we were well on our way to recovery, and the plan was working. 

Obviously it took luck at different stages, but that is true of every successful team. We shouldn't say it didn't count because we got lucky. I bet San Antonio doesn't feel their plan is crap just because they got lucky in the lottery a few times. 

If you put Oden on many other teams, their future still wouldn't look as bright as ours. So, something must have worked before the blind luck of this draft.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

blazerboy30 said:


> If I remember correctly, the plan was to rebuild by getting rid of the bad characters, and rebuild through the lottery. (OK, fine. We didn't do really well the "fiscally responsible" part)
> 
> Yes, we got VERY lucky in this draft. But even without this draft, we were well on our way to recovery, and the plan was working.
> 
> ...


And all of it came last year, courtesy of Pritchard.

The man who _initiated_ The Plan was John Nash. His contributions to the current success was to get rid of every vestige of talent (except Zach Randolph and Darius Miles, whom he signed to large deals) for nothing. He also managed to blow virtually every draft pick he had at his disposal (while I liked the Telfair pick at the time, it was definitely a mistake).

Telfair over Jefferson.
Webster over Paul.

So, ultimately, Nash's contribution was to make Portland awful, keep them awful by making horrible picks, so that one day Portland could beat 95% odds to land a potential franchise savior.

What a mastermind.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Nash never had a plan.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Well, the plan did succeed in getting Cheeks and Nash fired. It got Sheed a ring. It got Telfair and Webster better contracts than they deserved. That's something - right? :sadbanana:


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

The Rebuilding plan DID work. I don't know why some here are taking the discussion somewhere else. Did we get lucky? Absolutely, but the rebuilding has worked thus far.


----------



## RoyToy (May 25, 2007)

it's almost getting to the point that ill agree with pretty much anything pritchard does.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

blazerboy30 said:


> Yes, we got VERY lucky in this draft. But even without this draft, we were well on our way to recovery, and the plan was working.
> 
> Obviously it took luck at different stages, but that is true of every successful team. We shouldn't say it didn't count because we got lucky. I bet San Antonio doesn't feel their plan is crap just because they got lucky in the lottery a few times.


Bingo! The post of the day. It's ridiculous to say the whole rebuilding plan was "crap" just because there were a few mistakes made along the way. The point is that we put ourselves in the position to rebuild and grow through the draft, which was the whole idea. With a lucky roll of the dice our plan is working even better and faster than we anticipated, but we wouldn't even be where we are today if we hadn't started down the rebuilding road three or four years ago.

I'm sure that if we had picked 6th in this year's draft, and happened to pick somebody like Brewer who turned into a superstar that there would be people on this board saying, "Oh, it doesn't count because we got lucky with Brewer."


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

barfo said:


> We got lucky. We got very very very lucky. It is a great and wonderful thing that we did.
> 
> We bet on a longshot to win, and our horse came in. But that's much different than executing successfully on a good plan.
> 
> barfo


Indeed.

Interestingly, I see where Ed O. is coming from here AND where Talkhard et al are coming from, and both have defensible positions. On one hand, taking the route we took made getting this #1 pick possible. On the other hand, it could easily have turned out much different... and much worse... for a much, much longer period of time.

So I think barfos assessment is the most accurate: We got lucky. We got very very very lucky.

And I am content to leave it at that.

PBF


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

I think we were on the right track regardless of getting Oden this year. If we stayed at #6, we would still be well on our way to the playoffs in a year or two.

I mean, we absolutely stunk for a few years, and it was embarrassing, but even without #1, I was still happy with the progress we were making.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

mook said:


> I can't wait for fifteen years from now when Iraq finally recovers from the debacle of our occupation. TalkHard will be right there saying "Bush was right all along!"


And I'm sure that if and when Iraq begins to function smoothly and democracy takes a foothold, you will be the first to scream, "It was just luck!! Pure dumb luck. The U.S. forces had nothing to do with it. It would have happened on its own anyway!"

Heh, heh.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

The PatterNash regime was utterly incompetent. However, it is irrelevant how we got here. We now have the brightest future of any organization in the NBA and we should only look forward from this point.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Could someone tell Talkhard that criticizing the rebuilding plan does not mean we wanted Wallace, Wells and Stoudamire to stay? I doubt he'll listen since he still thinks criticizing the Iraq war means we want another Sept. 11 attack.

The rebuilding plan has not worked - yet. After several years of floundering (whether the fault was Nash's or whether Allen left him few alternatives is not the issue now) last year we finally saw advances. And then got damn lucky. But how can you call it success? The Blazers have not even sniffed the playoffs yet. We can say they are moving in the right direction, finally, and that the future looks promising. And that's a good thing. But IMHO "success" is when the Blazers are serious contenders year after year. Not first round playoff fodder but a team like the Spurs or Pistons who go deep into the postseason every year and hopefully win some titles. 

Admittedly, a lot more likely at this point than democracy and prosperity blooming in Iraq under occupation. Because at least the Blazers ARE moving in the right direction. Let us enjoy it and look to the future but don't overstate where the team is now.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

I honestly can't remember.... Was KP here before PatterNash or did he come afterward?

If he came after PatterNash stared, then there really has to be some credit given to them for bringing in KP. Them bringing in KP seems to be what really got this rebuilding going well. Don't discount that just because he isn't a player that they brought it. That was probably their most important move, and it was a great one. 

There are a lot of people saying it was dumb luck, and that last year was all about KP. Well, KP wouldn't have done any of this if it weren't for PatterNash and their plan to rebuild, because KP wouldn't be here. 

(PS. IF KP was here before PatterNash, then I take back all of the above.) :biggrin:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> The Rebuilding plan DID work. I don't know why some here are taking the discussion somewhere else. Did we get lucky? Absolutely, but the rebuilding has worked thus far.


No, it didn't. The plan was Nash's. Look at where the team was when _Nash_ left and tell me what he succeeded at. He got no value (present or future) for the players he traded away, he blew two key draft picks (and didn't get a Sergio Rodriguez type with his ancillary picks) and he left a team in shambles with _zero_ real assets except Randolph (a Whitsitt draftee).

After that Pritchard came in and cleaned things up. But the plan Talkhard is claiming as a huge success is Nash's (which is clear from his references to Wells, Stoudamire and Sheed, the players Nash got rid of).


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

TLo said:


> The PatterNash regime was utterly incompetent. However, it is irrelevant how we got here. We now have the brightest future of any organization in the NBA and we should only look forward from this point.


+1


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

You could argue that Paul Allen was smarter than anyone gave him credit for. He got Nash and Patterson, told them to cut the payroll knowing that there will be making some stupid Telfair at #13 decisions and it worked like a charm to give Portland the maximum number of ping pong balls for the Oden sweepstakes. Unfortunately, Stern saw through the plan and prohibited players out of highschool to enter the league - so Portland reached the max number of ping pong balls a year too early. Lady luck then punished Stern for the "new coke" ball incident and the rest is history...

How is that for a conspiracy theory?


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I didn't read this 4-page thread, but I'll just chime in to say that if by rebuilding "plan" you mean the Houston (Sampson/Hakeem) and San Antonio (David Robinson/Tim Duncan) plan, I guess you are right. We drafted the best PF/C in the draft one year; and are about to follow it up by drafting a guy widely believed to be one of the best Centers ever to come into the league. Oh, and don't forget to draft a R.O.Y. shooting guard too. It's a simple plan, really. I don't know why more teams don't do it. :biggrin:


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> No, it didn't. The plan was Nash's. Look at where the team was when _Nash_ left and tell me what he succeeded at. He got no value (present or future) for the players he traded away, he blew two key draft picks (and didn't get a Sergio Rodriguez type with his ancillary picks) and he left a team in shambles with _zero_ real assets except Randolph (a Whitsitt draftee).
> 
> After that Pritchard came in and cleaned things up. But the plan Talkhard is claiming as a huge success is Nash's (which is clear from his references to Wells, Stoudamire and Sheed, the players Nash got rid of).



Does Nash get credit for bringing in Pritchard? I don't think its fair to not give credit for something he did, that has essentially turned this franchise around. You can't pick and choose which things you credit Nash for, and which ones you want to ignore and pass off as pure luck. 

I am willing to bet that if you gave our roster to any other GM at the time Nash took over, we wouldn't have the same upside or as bright of a future as we do now. 

I personally never liked Nash, and didn't like most of his moves. But, I have to admit that we are better off now than we would have been with ANY other GM taking over at that point. (and yes, we got VERY lucky)


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

blazerboy30 said:


> Does Nash get credit for bringing in Pritchard? I don't think its fair to not give credit for something he did, that has essentially turned this franchise around. You can't pick and choose which things you credit Nash for, and which ones you want to ignore and pass off as pure luck.


If Nash hired Pritchard, he gets credit for a good personnal hire. It's absurd to give Nash indirect credit for anything Pritchard does, though.

Let me put it this way: as far as basketball decisions go, Nash was a complete wash-out. He hired a good assistant, though (he didn't hire Pritchard as a GM, obviously, so one can't say, "Nash had the vision to let Pritchard remake the franchise").


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

TLo said:


> The PatterNash regime was utterly incompetent. However, it is irrelevant how we got here. We now have the brightest future of any organization in the NBA and we should only look forward from this point.


I want to echo your sentiment fully, and say that not only do we have the brightest future....The 2nd brightset future team isn't even in the rear view mirror.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> If Nash hired Pritchard, he gets credit for a good personnal hire. It's absurd to give Nash indirect credit for anything Pritchard does, though.
> 
> Let me put it this way: as far as basketball decisions go, Nash was a complete wash-out. He hired a good assistant, though (he didn't hire Pritchard as a GM, obviously, so one can't say, "Nash had the vision to let Pritchard remake the franchise").



I'll agree with the second point. 

But your first point is not logical. If you won't give Nash indirect credit for how Pritchard performs, then you can't give Nash indirect credit (discredit) for how the players he brought in perform. 

Whether he is "hiring" players or GM's or assistants or whatever, some credit / critisism has to find its way back to the person that hired them. And that credit should be based on how they perform and what they contribute to the franchise.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

blazerboy30 said:


> But your first point is not logical. If you won't give Nash indirect credit for how Pritchard performs, then you can't give Nash indirect credit (discredit) for how the players he brought in perform.


You're saying that if a CEO destroys his company, gets fired and his assistant restores the company to prominence, then the original CEO deserves a lot of credit? Logically? 

Nash doesn't get credit for how Pritchard performs as a GM because he didn't hire him as a GM. He _did_ "hire" the players to play basketball, so their performance as basketball players is on him.

As I said, Nash gets credit for hiring a good assistant. He gets blame for destroying the franchise.

Pritchard, elevated to GM by Paul Allen, gets credit for (so far) being a fantastic GM who turned around a destroyed franchise.

To me, that seems like proper accounting.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

How could anyone be happy with the way that the Blazers rebuilt. This is a team that was an NBA powerhouse and recently until now, there were talks of moving the team. That is not a good rebuilding plan. Last years draft was excellent and because of that one draft the Blazers are back on the map. Winning the lottery this year was a freak occurance and not in anyone's plan. Management cant be given any credit for landing the #1 draft pick, in the most important lottery in years, when they hardly had a chance to win. This was not planned. 

Either way it happened, and now the Blazers are probably the most exciting young team to watch. Assuming all those young players get along and arent too greedy, this is a team to be rivaled for the next decade and may just restore some of the greatness that a once elite NBA franchise covets.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

elcap15 said:


> How could anyone be happy with the way that the Blazers rebuilt.


Uh, that's easy. Three years ago we had a sullen, underachieving malcontent power forward in Rasheed Wallace, a punk small forward named Bonzi Wells who liked to spit on people, and a tiny point guard by the name of Damon Stoudamire who couldn't even hit a layup. They were the core of a team that flamed out in the playoffs on a regular basis, and had we continued to pin our hopes on them we would right now be a slightly better than average team with no hopes of a title and no chance at the lottery.

Today, only 3 years later, we have the best young core of players in the NBA and are on the verge of dominating this league for a decade. I'd say it's pretty damn easy to be happy with the way the Blazers rebuilt.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Nash had the hardest GM position in basketball.

"Cut payroll, bring in good characters, field a winning team"

There is no way you can meet all three of those points as well as other teams if the other teams only have to focus on one aspect. Then there was the 25 point pledge. I don't think anybody would have succeded with the mission he was given. When he made the Bonzi or Sheed trades he met 2 of the 3 criteria, what other options were out there to meet all three?

Kevin Pritchard would have had trouble if he was GM immediately after Whitsitt. John Nash should get some credit for having Kevin P around. John Nash should get some credit for Pryzbilla and Blake.

We'll never know for certain what really was tried by Nash, but we've all heard he made efforts to acquire Vince Carters, Jason Kidds, Baron Davis, dump an overpaid Miles to NY, only to be overruled by Patterson/Allen. Allen was in love with Theo and Miles after their first half year here and wanted them resigned, those are two of Nash's biggest failures but how much was really his fault? Miles was an unrestriced free agent that summer and there were rumors of Denver having strong interest. Adonal Foyle had just gotten a $10mil a year contract. If your billion dollar owner wants you to make sure a player is resigned what kind of bargaining position does it put you in?

In retrospect with 20/20 vision I would not change a single decision the blazers did because maybe we would not be where we are now. But as others have said it feels more like getting lost driving in a big city, taking 6 wrong turns and ending up at your destination! If someone asks "what should I do if I get lost?" do you say "go make 6 wrong turns." Of course not. But you wouldn't try to go back in time and change your route because it worked perfectly that one time.

Did Nash's decisions for the three extensions and the three years of draft picks lead us to where we are now? Yes. But that doesn't mean its a good choice based on info at the time. If you play Blackjack and hit on 20, netting 21 and beating the dealers 20, did you make a good play or did you get lucky? Maybe some people would argue yes it was a good decision because you won the hand. Ok fine if thats how you approach decision making good luck, for me I have to be more logical.

If anything the John Nash era prove to me how bad a decision making process is if you have a committee of GM, Pres, Owner, and Vulcans trying to make decisions.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

Talkhard said:


> Uh, that's easy. Three years ago we had a sullen, underachieving malcontent power forward in Rasheed Wallace, a punk small forward named Bonzi Wells who liked to spit on people, and a tiny point guard by the name of Damon Stoudamire who couldn't even hit a layup. They were the core of a team that flamed out in the playoffs on a regular basis, and had we continued to pin our hopes on them we would right now be a slightly better than average team with no hopes of a title and no chance at the lottery.
> 
> Today, only 3 years later, we have the best young core of players in the NBA and are on the verge of dominating this league for a decade. I'd say it's pretty damn easy to be happy with the way the Blazers rebuilt.




No, you are happy THAT the Blazers decided to rebuild. You cant be happy HOW they did it. Unless you really think Zack randolf is worth 50 million for the next 3 years and you enjoyed being in the cellar. Getting the 1st pick was dumb luck and cant be credited to management's rebuilding plan.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Draco said:


> Nash had the hardest GM position in basketball.
> 
> "Cut payroll, bring in good characters, field a winning team"
> 
> There is no way you can meet all three of those points as well as other teams if the other teams only have to focus on one aspect. Then there was the 25 point pledge. I don't think anybody would have succeded with the mission he was given. When he made the Bonzi or Sheed trades he met 2 of the 3 criteria, what other options were out there to meet all three?


He didn't meet two of the criteria. He MIGHT have met one (good character). The team got consistently worse with his moves, and he actually spent MORE money (to the tune of tens of millions of dollars) than a monkey would have by letting Bonzi, Rasheed, and Damon just walk.

Ed O.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Uh, that's easy. Three years ago we had a sullen, underachieving malcontent power forward in Rasheed Wallace, a punk small forward named Bonzi Wells who liked to spit on people, and a tiny point guard by the name of Damon Stoudamire who couldn't even hit a layup. They were the core of a team that flamed out in the playoffs on a regular basis, and had we continued to pin our hopes on them we would right now be a slightly better than average team with no hopes of a title and no chance at the lottery.
> 
> Today, only 3 years later, we have the best young core of players in the NBA and are on the verge of dominating this league for a decade. I'd say it's pretty damn easy to be happy with the way the Blazers rebuilt.


Ok we know you are and were very glad to see Sheed/Bonzi/Damon leave. I understand the business, financial, sponsor and media pressure the team was under to break ties with them. I can totally understand why people still believe those moves were good decisions.

But Talkhard, do you believe the 3 contracts given out by the re-building management to Miles/Zbo/Theo is part of a good plan? Do you believe the three draft picks of Outlaw/Telfair/Martell were good selections?


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Ed O said:


> He didn't meet two of the criteria. He MIGHT have met one (good character). The team got consistently worse with his moves, and he actually spent MORE money (to the tune of tens of millions of dollars) than a monkey would have by letting Bonzi, Rasheed, and Damon just walk.
> 
> Ed O.


How much of the decision did Nash have on those contracts? I'm not really sure any of us know, but you could say the blame mostly rests on Allen. He has a history of overpaying, look at Damon's contract when he first came here. He was made the highest paid PG from an extension after a few months of very mediocre play in Portland.

If you could trade ZBo's contract for an expiring deal would you do it? I wouldn't. Could Nash have done some better bargaining to get a better price on a Zach deal. Perhaps, but you can say that about a lot of contracts out there. It was somewhat of a mistake but not a horific one.

edit: Also there is no might about the good character criteria, you have some valid criticisms from managment financial and talent acquisitions but in the eyes of the people who had an issue with bad character, the rebuilding management absolutly made high quality character decisions.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

IMO, there's no doubt that Nash and Patterson bungled the initial rebuild plan, which as has been stated above, was to rebuild on the fly while accomplishing the three part (and contradictory) mission. Too much hope was placed on getting something for SAR in a sign-and-trade, which turned out in reality to be getting nothing. Too much was invested in Miles and Randolph. Tradeable assets (Damon, Bonzi, NVE) were allowed to walk for no return. Poor draft choices were made. At that point, no GM in the history of the league could have righted the ship without delving into the lottery and hoping for the best. Thus, the second rebuilding plan, one based almost exclusively on rebuilding from the draft, was born. Fortunately, KP guided things last summer so the Blazers got three excellent picks (probably the top two picks of the draft). Getting the top pick of this year's draft probably cut three years off of the rebuilding cycle.

I certainly don't think that anybody is going to hold the Blazers' rebuilding efforts up as a prime example of how to turn a franchise around. There were too many mistakes and too much relied on luck. That said, I know that most of us are really happy that luck just happened to scoop this franchise up and get us back on track to becoming a top-tier team again.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

When Oden slams home a dunk in Shaq's grill and screams in his face, then rebuilding will be complete.:biggrin:


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

elcap15 said:


> No, you are happy THAT the Blazers decided to rebuild. You cant be happy HOW they did it.


Oh yes I can. The first move (and the best) was getting rid of all the malcontents and attitude problems. Lots of teams don't have the balls to do that, but Allen and Patterson did it. It was like a breath of fresh air around here as soon as Rashweed Wallace and his gang were gone.

The second great move was deciding to rebuild through the draft rather than through trades. That was a decision that the organization has stuck with right up until this year's great success in the lottery. Had the Blazers decided to bring in some vets to give us 10 more wins last year, we wouldn't even have been in the lottery this year.

The third good move was deciding to build the team around guys with great character. That played a central role in all of our acquisitions in the last three years. No matter how much losing we had to endure, we didn't have to apologize for the behavior of our new players. And it led to the picks of Roy, Aldridge, and Rodriquez, all great character guys.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> You're saying that if a CEO destroys his company, gets fired and his assistant restores the company to prominence, then the original CEO deserves a lot of credit? Logically?



I think there are MANY business cases where a CEO, or founder has or would have ran his company into the ground. But a huge part of being the CEO or founder is finding the right people to run the company. If the CEO does a good job at that, he can cover up a lot of his own lack of ability or lack of business sense etc, and still get credit for having a great company. 

Take Google, for example. The founders never made a dime. They aren't the ones who were able to monetize the system, but they hired the right person, and we all know what has happened since. Without that particular hire, Google would not exist, and would have been run out of business very quickly. I'm pretty sure the Google founders' plan is NOT thought of as crap. :biggrin:


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I doubt Oden screams much.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

blazerboy30 said:


> I think there are MANY business cases where a CEO, or founder has or would have ran his company into the ground. But a huge part of being the CEO or founder is finding the right people to run the company. If the CEO does a good job at that, he can cover up a lot of his own lack of ability or lack of business sense etc, and still get credit for having a great company.
> 
> Take Google, for example. The founders never made a dime. They aren't the ones who were able to monetize the system, but they hired the right person, and we all know what has happened since. Without that particular hire, Google would not exist, and would have been run out of business very quickly. I'm pretty sure the Google founders' plan is NOT thought of as crap. :biggrin:


You are missing the point (as well as not giving Brin and Page enough credit).

Nash didn't hire KP as GM. Paul Allen did.

If Nash had, he'd deserve the credit. But he didn't. 

In your analogy, Nash didn't "hire the right guy to run the company". Nash hired an assistant, and kept running the company himself. Or are you claiming that Nash's plan all along was to have KP replace him? 

barfo


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

barfo said:


> You are missing the point (as well as not giving Brin and Page enough credit).
> 
> barfo


I'm not missing the point, and I am giving them enough credit. Trust me, I know quite a bit about Google.  If you would like to, PM me and we can talk in more detail about Google, its history, etc.



barfo said:


> Nash didn't hire KP as GM. Paul Allen did.
> 
> If Nash had, he'd deserve the credit. But he didn't.
> 
> ...



I'm not debating who made KP GM. I'm saying that there were interviews and a search for an assistant GM. I'm SURE that part of the hiring criteria was to bring in somebody that would help with the plan that was already in place. Guess what, we got KP. There is absolutely no way that you can decouple the hiring of KP and the rebuilding plan. If KP hadn't shared in the vision of the plan, he would not be part of the Blazer organization right now. 

I'm claiming that: I'm sure that Nash didn't decide to bring in an assistant that had a completely different vision or plan than himself. Unless KP is a really good interviewer / manipulator / liar.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

blazerboy30 said:


> If KP hadn't shared in the vision of the plan, he would not be part of the Blazer organization right now.
> 
> I'm claiming that: I'm sure that Nash didn't decide to bring in an assistant that had a completely different vision or plan than himself. Unless KP is a really good interviewer / manipulator / liar.


Clearly KP agreed to follow Nash's lead while he worked for Nash, and Patterson's lead when he worked for Patterson. However, it is quite a stretch to say that because KP worked for them, all he's done since is follow their plan. Especially since they never had one to begin with.

barfo


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

barfo said:


> Clearly KP agreed to follow Nash's lead while he worked for Nash, and Patterson's lead when he worked for Patterson. However, it is quite a stretch to say that because KP worked for them, all he's done since is follow their plan. *Especially since they never had one to begin with.*


Nonsense. This is the kind of unthinking, reflexive criticism that gets tossed around all the time by those too lazy to stop and think. I'm sure Nash and Patterson had a plan, and I'm pretty sure it revolved around developing young players with lots of potential who could play an up-tempo game. That's why they drafted the extremely athletic Outlaw and the lightning quick Telfair. They wanted to build an exciting young team through the draft and give the Blazers a new identity that fans would be attracted to. It didn't work out quite the way they wanted, but it's unfair and innacurate to say they didn't have a plan.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

barfo said:


> Clearly KP agreed to follow Nash's lead while he worked for Nash, and Patterson's lead when he worked for Patterson. However, it is quite a stretch to say that because KP worked for them, all he's done since is follow their plan. Especially since they never had one to begin with.
> 
> barfo



I agree that KP probably hasn't ONLY followed their plan. However, KP's plan seems to also be to rebuild through the draft, put a VERY large emphasis on character, and be fiscally responsible. That plan is the same as Nash's, in a general sense. 

Luckily, KP has just been MUCH MUCH MUCH better at executing the plan, probably largely due to his greater ability for evaluating talent. :clap2:


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Nonsense. This is the kind of unthinking, reflexive criticism that gets tossed around all the time by those too lazy to stop and think. I'm sure Nash and Patterson had a plan, and I'm pretty sure it revolved around developing young players with lots of potential who could play an up-tempo game. That's why they drafted the extremely athletic Outlaw and the lightning quick Telfair. They wanted to build an exciting young team through the draft and give the Blazers a new identity that fans would be attracted to. It didn't work out quite the way they wanted, but it's unfair and innacurate to say they didn't have a plan.


You are "sure" that they had a plan, and you are "pretty sure" that it revolved around developing young players. Oh, ok, that proves it then.

They drafted Outlaw? Didn't they disclaim credit for Outlaw, saying that that pick was already in the works at the time Patterson came on board? 

Is Ratliff young and athletic? If they had a plan, they either changed it repeatedly, or didn't stick to it. Or maybe they didn't have a plan at all. But as long as you are sure, then all is well. 

barfo


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> And I'm sure that if and when Iraq begins to function smoothly and democracy takes a foothold, you will be the first to scream, "It was just luck!! Pure dumb luck. The U.S. forces had nothing to do with it. It would have happened on its own anyway!"
> 
> Heh, heh.


If, if's and but's were candy and nuts.....


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Getting were we are today is a component of Nash sucking enough to get canned so KP could step up, and a lot of luck.

If the draft last year had not been given to KP last year, instead of Roy and Aldeidge Nash would have most likely gone with Morrisson or T Thomas and the trade for Telfair and all the selections we view today as wonderful likely would not have happened. With Morrission and Telfair instead of Roy and Aldridge, we would have likely had the worst or second worst record this year, and would have followed the path the Celtics had. Irked that we didn't get Oden.

So without Allen passing the drafting tourch to KP and later the GM position, We would most likely have a starting lineup next year of:
Telfair
Morrison
Webster
Zach
Joel
With Yi, Horford or B. Wright on the bench.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Thanks, Nate. Now I'm going to have nightmares.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

barfo said:


> You are "sure" that they had a plan, and you are "pretty sure" that it revolved around developing young players. Oh, ok, that proves it then.
> 
> They drafted Outlaw? Didn't they disclaim credit for Outlaw, saying that that pick was already in the works at the time Patterson came on board?
> 
> ...


And you're "sure" they didn't have a plan...

Can't we just all agree that the sky periodically appears blue and that life in the universe probably exists on Triton?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> And you're "sure" they didn't have a plan...


 No, actually I'm not sure. It's my opinion that they didn't have a plan. 

As I mentioned, they might have had a plan but not stuck to it. Or they might have changed plans repeatedly. 

Or their plan might have been irrational. 

barfo


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

blazerboy30 said:


> I think there are MANY business cases where a CEO, or founder has or would have ran his company into the ground. But a huge part of being the CEO or founder is finding the right people to run the company. If the CEO does a good job at that, he can cover up a lot of his own lack of ability or lack of business sense etc, and still get credit for having a great company.


Yes, but that's not what happened. In those cases, the CEO is strong in certain aspects and makes hires to cover his weaknesses. In this case, Nash _did_ "run the company into the ground" because he basically failed in every basketball-related decision.



> Take Google, for example. The founders never made a dime. They aren't the ones who were able to monetize the system, but they hired the right person, and we all know what has happened since. Without that particular hire, Google would not exist, and would have been run out of business very quickly. I'm pretty sure the Google founders' plan is NOT thought of as crap. :biggrin:


The Google founders (Sergey Brin and Larry Page) didn't have much of a "plan." They had an idea and built a company around it. They hired the "plan people" and even then, the Google model is one that is hotly contested as to how viable it is/was. It's not one that very many people would do well to copy (build a business around an idea that is very hard to monetize).

Even then, it's not a good comparison...the founders had a great idea and were creative, innovative engineers. They simply weren't the greatest businessmen, but were smart enough to hire good businessmen. Nash didn't have a great idea or plan, nor was he creative or innovative. He was a failure all around.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> And you're "sure" they didn't have a plan...


I think the fact that none of us can be sure whether there was a plan, nor can anyone describe a plan that explains all of Nash's moves is some evidence that there wasn't any consistent plan.

Nash certainly never elucidated one (beyond that multi-point declaration that wasn't a basketball map, but an organizational culture thing). Nor do his moves follow much of a pattern (and pointing to Telfair, Webster, Khryapa, etc, as "youth" doesn't mean much...it's hard to get anything but youth from the draft).


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

So Nash's plan was to move the club back at least one step back in most every basketball decision, drive attendance to all time lows, and ultimately lose his job? He's clearly demonstrated what he can do in a decision making role and I doubt he ever works in a NBA front office again because of his performance. Posters trying to credit him for Portland's unbelievable luck since he hit the curb is pretty funny... I can only guess that they are embarrassed by their past support for Nash and his many mistakes and are still trying to save face.

STOMP


----------

