# Blazers get down on hands and knees for Wallace



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

According to Jason Quick, the Blazer coaching staff has called Rasheed Wallace and asked him if he wants to return to the team next year. And Wallace has not returned their calls.

And to that I say, "_____ you, Wallace!"

Except I can't decide what's worse. That the organization is imploring him to stay ("Oh, please, please, please, Rasheed! Say you'll stay. Pretty please? With sugar on top?"), or that Wallace is snubbing them. If ever an organization and a player deserved each other, it is Rasheed Wallace and the Trail Blazers: A player who basically flips off the very people who pay him outrageous amounts of money, and an organization that doesn't have the balls or good sense to get rid of what is clearly a cancer.

Quick says the coaching staff loves Wallace. They think any day now he's going to turn over a new leaf and become a great team leader. Apparently they can't see what the rest of us can--that the day Rasheed Wallace becomes a true team leader is the day the cow jumps over the moon and hell freezes over.

Until I see different, this NBA organization is still as blind, stupid and dysfunctional as ever.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

i seem to remember several players over the last several years taking their own sweet time returning phone calls, or deciding if they wanted to be in certain cities.

quit letting your irrational hatred for rasheed cloud your mind.

so he didn't return his calls..ever think he's busy?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

My dislike of Rasheed Wallace is perfectly rational. And it is shared by many people in Portland and around the NBA. It's rational to dislike a player who doesn't play hard, refuses to be a team leader, attacks referees, attacks coaches, sets records for technical fouls, gets himself kicked out of games, disappears in crunch time, refuses to stay in shape in the off-season, refuses to speak to the media, gets himself arrested for smoking pot and brings shame to the team, throws a towel in a teammate's face, mocks players for their disabilities, and so on and so on . . .

Yes, I'm sure Rasheed is busy and can't be bothered to return phone calls from the organization that pays him $18 million a year. He's probably playing Nintendo with his kids. Or smoking a doobie in the rec room.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Interesting...you think maybe they are trying to get a hold of him...perhaps because there is a draft day deal on the desk and they want to know where Sheed is at as far as the Blazers are concerned. Dudes under contract for next season, why should they be calling him to find out if he wants to come back?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Good question. I'm afraid that they are simply trying to gauge his attitude and mindset about being a member of the team. In other words, if he isn't really excited about being with the team next year, maybe it's better to move him. But what I object to is that the coaching staff is waiting on him to decide how he feels, instead of making the decision about him themselves. They should be working the phone lines trying to get him traded, not hoping he will favor them with his presence for another season.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

If Sheed is luke warm about the Blazers, maybe they make a draft day deal, but if he is psyched to come out gunning next year, they hang onto him. By not areturning calls to the staff, his answer is lke warm at best if not complacent.

IMO if that's his attitude ...Sheed don't let the door hit ya on the way out. BTW Mas had pictures of Sheed in LO (I think) from yesterday. He's in the area, how hard is it for him to return a call?

Ya think his answering machine say' "Both teams played har'..."


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Interesting...you think maybe they are trying to get a hold of him...perhaps because there is a draft day deal on the desk and they want to know where Sheed is at as far as the Blazers are concerned. Dudes under contract for next season, why should they be calling him to find out if he wants to come back?


Maybe they want to keep him but first want to find out if he is interested in re-signing after the season. The thinking would be that if he isn't, they should try to get something for him while they can.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*VERY WELL SAID TALKHARD*

Is there REALLY anybody out there who thinks he is going to change???

I mean really..
he has been like this for his entire career.

Why on earth is Portland continuing with this charade??

And why are they now crawling on the floor for crumbs left over
to pick for their gm/management/coach/..etc.?

Jeff VanGundy would have been my choice with Petrie as the 
suit.

Every single team has completed what they needed to do.

and they are still calling Rasheed?
to see if he wants to come back???
oh my gosh I hope this isn't true.

Portland is starting to look like a joke.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

What a bunch of complainers.

To act like it's a big deal that a team would reportedly talk to their best player about its future is silly. Teams do it all the time.

It's not begging, grovelling or even bending over backwards. It just makes sense.

Ed O.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

A lot of assumptions are being throwing out here based on one comment from Jason Quick. That single report could be inaccurate. Unless Quick talked to either of the parties directly involved (Rasheed or the coach), it is likely this report is either completely wrong or a misunderstanding. When you get your info third and fourth hand it is almost impossible to get the story straight. Think the telephone game.

I find the report to be a little hard to believe anyway. Why in the heck would Rasheed avoid talking to Mo? What past evidence do we have that they had a strained relationship? What evidence do we have that Rasheed is anything less than congenial, friendly and well liked by those he is close to. So, we are to believe that Sheed is purposefully avoiding Mo's calls, won't return them, even to say, "Hey Mo, yeah I have mixed feelings about the team and all the problems we had this last season. I can't decide if a clean break would be best for all concerned."

Quick's report could be accurate, but since it doesn't make much sense, and since Quick *has been wrong once or twice or twenty times in the past*, maybe jumping all over this because it fits in with blind hatred of Sheed, is something I will pass on until we get a quote in a newpaper from a Blazer coach.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Letting irrational dislike of a player guide your personnel decisions is a bad idea. It's a bad idea that fans can afford to indulge in, because they bear no responsibility, and a franchise's front office can't afford to indulge in.

Their job is to put the best basketball-playing product on the floor that they can. They shouldn't be burning up the lines to trade him just because he didn't return phone calls or because some fans don't like him.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

*reliable source?*

hmmm...maybe someone should consider the source? Quick? Come on!???

He's a Sheed hater and he works for the Oregonian....need I say more? That always puts a nice negative spin on the situation.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

I don't think those of us who would like to see Rasheed moved on are "irrational" in our wishes. I would argue that the people who still want this child around are the irrational ones. Unless, of course, you enjoy watching inconsistent play by a millionaire who embraces mediocrity.


----------



## brewmaster (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> Quick says the coaching staff loves Wallace. They think any day now he's going to turn over a new leaf and become a great team leader.


:krazy:

Today's Friday the 13th . . . NOT April Fool's Day.

Thanks for the article Talkhard. I agree with you all the way. For the Blazers organization to think that Sheed will become a leader is retarded.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

" talk to their best player "
That's the problem in a nutshell.
If he is the best player,Portland will never come out of the West.


He doesn't want to be the best player.
On any given night a bench player on an opposing team outplays him.
He has never taken over a quarter on a must have game.
He has never gotten that one big rebound when we needed it.
He has never outplayed any other "best player".
On many nights he is nowhere to be seen.
He is disliked by the press[no wonder].
He has an ugly scowl on his face[unless he is cheerleading].
He acts lazy,I am not sure why.
Nobody seems to condem him in pubic[like he deserves].
HE IS THE SMALLEST BIG MAN IN THE LEAGUE.
He had never dominated a smaller team..ever.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Their job is to put the best basketball-playing product on the floor that they can....


I agree with you.

That is why I've finally come around to the opinion (actually, my better senses) that, short of brining a no-nonsense, GP-type on-board, the Blazers ought to just go ahead and trade Sheed.

Why?

Precisely because of what you just related. Seems to me that if Sheed, himself, has not challenged himself enough to be _the best basketball-playing talent_, then why should the Blazer organization settle for as much?

Notably, his off-season regimen seems to be lackadaisical at best. Year in, and year out, he's come to fall camp out of shape. Hence, he doesn't set a good example in this regard for the other players, while having to "waste" precious games getting his act together? Is it any wonder that the Blazers start the season a little slow?

Regardless of what others say to the contrary, I've always seen him as the "perceived" team leader. (At one point or another, virtually every Blazer teammate has indicated the same type of sentiment, as well.) fact is, He just can't cut that mustard. So, as noted above, either the Blazers get someone of that leadership caliber that can set the example for Sheed and push his butt, or send the big fella packing.

~~~~~~~~~

BTW, I would rather have an employee working for me that is less talented, yet displays a better attitude, desire, and hustle, than the more gifted one that just seems to get by on their talents alone.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Are you trying to say Sheed doesn't have a winners mentality? He's not willing to make the sacrifices it takes to be a champion?

Derek Colemans career numbers are strikingly similar.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Are you trying to say Sheed doesn't have a winners mentality? He's not willing to make the sacrifices it takes to be a champion?
> 
> Derek Colemans career numbers are strikingly similar.


Sadly, interesting.

Yes. I could even live with the dope smoking if I knew the guy was in the gym during the off-season (discounting a few weeks vacation) and doing his darned best to improve his game for the upcoming season.

I just don't see that.

I'm sure you don't remember, but I made a post at the beginning of last season indicating that I was "giving" Sheed ONE more chance to show some heart and desire. I've always known what kind of incredible talent he has. That will always come through. It's just that "other" stuff that keeps letting me down.

I truly believe that Gary Payton's tenacity and passion would rub-off on Sheed. That's why I would love for him to become a Blazer. Short of that, though, we're looking at another same-ol' out of Mr. Wallace.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> BTW, I would rather have an employee working for me that is less talented, yet displays a better attitude, desire, and hustle, than the more gifted one that just seems to get by on their talents alone.


You might want this, but it's not a strategy that makes sense in pro sports. Talented players sometimes hustle more. Less talented players never get more talent. Production, not attitude, is the most important thing out of a player (especially a player who plays a lot of minutes) and Wallace's attitude is only worth putting up with because he outproduces (in terms of on-court play, not statistically) other players.

Whether Wallace is as good as he could be or not isn't very relevant. Judging how good a player COULD be is a guessing game. All we can know with any certainty is how good a player IS.

Wallace is our best player. He's better than any player that's coming into the NBA next year. The odds are that the majority of this year's lottery will never be as good as he is now.

It's true we could trade him for a player that has a chance to SOME DAY be better, but those things are far from guaranteed, especially when you're talking about a 6' PG who can't shoot very well, a 7'5" 18 year old with a history of injuries and no experience playing at a high level, and a 19 year-old who is skinny and wasn't onsidered one of the best players in his prep class merely a year ago.

I am not willing to judge Wallace because he doesn't talk to the media, or because he doesn't smile enough, or because he's too urban (euphemism) for some fans to relate to. I am also not willing to trade him for anything less than full value because he's a 29 year-old who's entering a contract year... and no trades involving Wallace for full value have been seriously talked about on this board.

Ed O.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TP3</b>!
> I don't think those of us who would like to see Rasheed moved on are "irrational" in our wishes. I would argue that the people who still want this child around are the irrational ones. Unless, of course, you enjoy watching inconsistent play by a millionaire who embraces mediocrity.


Teams that have been MORE consistent than the Blazers and Rasheed Wallace since he became the starter and best player:

Los Angeles Lakers - Shaq & Kobe
San Antonio Spurs - Duncan & Robinson

Yeah, too bad the Blazers don't have and never had the opportunity to bring in Shaq or Duncan. But the fans of 26 other teams are SOL too.

Teams that are about the same in consistency the last 5 years as the Blazers and Sheed:

Sacramento Kings - Webber
Minnesota Timbervolves - KG

Are the Blazers a great team? Nope. Are the Blazers a top contender? Not anymore with the decline of Pip and Sabas and the lack of a SuperStar.

Even lacking that SuperStar have the Blazers with Rasheed as their best player on both ends of the floor won more games than most teams? You bet. Even teams with STAR players, all-stars who put up gaudy numbers? You bet. Sheed has NEVER been about numbers. He is a team player, and his team is surprisingly effective for one that lacks a go-to player - a SuperStar.

The whole idea that Sheed is lazy or doesn't try hard, may or may not be true, but a wise man once said about basketball, "don't confuse activity with production". Often, the players who run around like crazy on the court are the least effective.

So your crack about inconsistent play by a millionaire who embraces mediocrity flys in the face of the results. He and the team may not have lived up to your expectations, but that is your fault as you set or embraced those expectations. Get over it.

If you make these comments about Rasheed and the Blazers I can hardly imagine what you would say as a fan of:

The Bucks, when the big three, led by "good guy" Ray Allen, collapses from first to worst, is the worst regular season meltdown. Guess Allen is just a millionaire who embraces extreme losing.

The Knicks, led by Allan Houston and Latrell Sprewell, who have compiled a horrible record the last two years. More millionaires who embrace perpetual mediocrity.

What's with Gary Payton, who couldn't even lead the Sonics into the playoffs two seasons ago?

SAR & Elton Brand who have never been on a winning team.

Vince Carter, Steve Francis, Juwan Howard, Jermaine O'Neal, etc. etc. what is wrong with all the underachievers - ALL of whom are millionaires??

How come there are so many horrible, mediocre players??? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. HELPP MEEEEEE.

Look, if you want Sheed gone because you don't like the way he behaves, just say so.

If you are willing to ship Sheed out and get far less in talent back, AND ARE WILLING TO RISK A TEAM THAT WINS A LOT LESS, just say so. And back it up with a pledge to buy season tickets as soon as he is shipped for something crappy, like say Antonio Davis and the #4 pick.

But this whole idea that Sheed won't be missed anyway because he is an underachieving loser is just a stupid thing to say. Whether you like it or not the moronic coaches for the Blazers keep playing him, starting him, putting him on the best offensive player, keep calling plays for him, keep telling everyone he is Portland's best player.

I will be perfectly happy to replace Sheed with better talent AND character - I have been proposing KG trades for two years. But until that can be worked out, I prefer more wins and fewer loses, when I visit the Rose Garden.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Production, not attitude, is the most important thing out of a player...
> 
> Ed O.


I hate to say it Ed, but that is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

Name me one player with a bad attitude that has ever been the key to a winning team...Just one.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> I hate to say it Ed, but that is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.
> 
> Name me one player with a bad attitude that has ever been the key to a winning team...Just one.


Dennis Rodman. And he's FAR, FAR from alone.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> You might want this, but it's not a strategy that makes sense in pro sports.


OK, so it was a BTW, my bad.  



> Talented players sometimes hustle more. Less talented players never get more talent. Production, not attitude, is the most important thing out of a player (especially a player who plays a lot of minutes) and Wallace's attitude is only worth putting up with because he outproduces (in terms of on-court play, not statistically) other players.


Strictly in regards to Wallace, he's simply not as good as he could be because he doesn't work at it. Hasn't, and I don't believe he will (short of being "driven" to it) Those facts don't lie in my book. Basically, my response to Minstrel was that the Blazers are trying to put the best team on the court that they can. IMO, that also should mean fielding a team that is making itself (individually speaking) be the best that it can be, as well.



> Whether Wallace is as good as he could be or not isn't very relevant. Judging how good a player COULD be is a guessing game. All we can know with any certainty is how good a player IS.


OK, with absolute certainty, yes. However, I think it would be a very easy to conclude that those players that attempt and work hard at make themselve better with hard work, end up becoming just that. (Edison once said, "There's no substitute for hard work.")



> Wallace is our best player. He's better than any player that's coming into the NBA next year. The odds are that the majority of this year's lottery will never be as good as he is now.
> 
> It's true we could trade him for a player that has a chance to SOME DAY be better, but those things are far from guaranteed, especially when you're talking about a 6' PG who can't shoot very well, a 7'5" 18 year old with a history of injuries and no experience playing at a high level, and a 19 year-old who is skinny and wasn't onsidered one of the best players in his prep class merely a year ago.


OK, Ed. I;m not debating that. But, I'm sure Whitsitt & Co. could come up with something a little better than that which you've just eluded to. 



> I am not willing to judge Wallace because he doesn't talk to the media, or because he doesn't smile enough, or because he's too urban (euphemism) for some fans to relate to.


Me neither, Ed. However, I *am* willing to trade him because his time has come. These things happen, you know. Simply speaking, Wallace has outworn his welcome with me. I'm weary of his "act." To be sure, there are many, many equally talented players or sets of players that could come to PDX and lay it all out for me - as a fan. 




> I am also not willing to trade him for anything less than full value because he's a 29 year-old who's entering a contract year... and no trades involving Wallace for full value have been seriously talked about on this board.


Agreed. But, that's why I'm not a GM.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> Me neither, Ed. However, I *am* willing to trade him because his time has come. These things happen, you know. Simply speaking, Wallace has outworn his welcome with me. I'm weary of his "act." To be sure, there are many, many equally talented players or sets of players that could come to PDX and lay it all out for me - as a fan.


I hear you. I'm willing to trade him, too. Just different levels of what we'd accept back  

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

BYW, what I saw from Zach in Games 4 thru 7 of the Dallas series has lent a lot of credence to my recent frame of mind. :yes:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> 
> I hate to say it Ed, but that is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.
> ...


Sorry I'm not Ed, but the list you've requested is pretty lengthy and I'd like to pinch hit. I'm amazed that anyone could question whether a "bad attitude" guy could be a part of a winning team. Wasn't Isiah Rider once the leading scorer on a winning Blazer team? Didn't Isiah Thomas win a few titles dispite being dispised by many of his teammates? I've never heard/read anyone accuse Dennis Rodman of having a great attitude, but he did manage to be a key part of 5 championship teams. I don't think too much of Shaq's attitude either, but somehow his talents overcome whatever shortcomings his character lacks.

Do you really buy into the hype shoveled by the media as to who is or is not a good guy? OJ was supposively a "good guy", so was Kirby Pucket. I think most would agree that it's a blend of qualities that makes up a winning team, but talent is the one that I would start with.

STOMP


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> 
> I hate to say it Ed, but that is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.
> ...


How are we defining a bad attitude here? Would Rodman count? What about some of the guys from the Detroit teams of late 80s and early 90s? For that matter, what about Shaq? Then there's AI who, while he's not won it all yet, has certainly been key on some people's definition of a winning team... we're talking practice?!

I'm at least partly with you, Schilly; attitude is something I place a great deal of value on. Still, overall I think I'm leaning Ed's way on this one.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> BTW, I would rather have an employee working for me that is less talented, yet displays a better attitude, desire, and hustle, than the more gifted one that just seems to get by on their talents alone.


Funny.... it does apply to pro sports.. its the any team can beat any other team, on any give day syndrome. 

And it works..... just ask the 1977 Philadelphia 76'ers.... 
Portland was the lesser talented team, but they worked together with team harmony, and knowledge of what they could do togther. They hustled, had desire, and beat the more tlented team.

:allhail:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> 
> 
> And it works..... just ask the 1977 Philadelphia 76'ers....
> Portland was the lesser talented team, but they worked together with team harmony, and knowledge of what they could do togther. They hustled, had desire, and beat the more tlented team.


The exception proves the rule?

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I too think Sheed can go, but we need to get talent back. I am not in favor of some of the suggested Toronto trades, as I do not see an upside to it from our end. I really think Toronto will keep the pick and get Pavel.... lots cheaper and it fills a need.. center.

I could live with a lot of our teams off court problems more if they had a more consistant effort on the court. They seem to be greatly distracted at times, thus my thinking its a lack of concentration. A lack of mental discipline...

There are not a lot of Jordans, Pippens, Kobe Bryants, Tim Duncans in the lague right now...

but when you compare an off season of what Kobe does versus what Sheed may do. Its not even close. There are players who really want to improve, and be the best they can be... Kobe has a trainer, lifts weights, cross trains.... This develops mental toughness.. but may also be a sign of just plain desire.

Pippen has a trainer lined up already... ready to start in a few weeks. I am sure all of the players do this, but to what extent?

Do these players who want it so badly they spend an off season getting ready translate to better players, perhaps hall of famers?.... possibly?


I am not so sure Sheed has the desire of Kobe? He may of Shaq, but he does not have that overwhelmig physical presence that Shaq does...


If it ws public knowledge all of our players did this I think it would help its PR... if they were seen taking extra practice after practice was concluded I think it would help its public image...

T and DQ were way down.. hopefully this is a sign of maturity. With Sheed, he made gerat strides and he lots a few as well.

We were very fortunate with the suspensions and off court troubles this year. We went 5-2 with Sheed suspended. Although it can be said we are a very deep team, you may be able to rationalize its due to the team being better without him.

Make no mistake... there is a great side to Sheed the media misses most of the time. His coat drive, his family, his love of kids... those are very good qualities in my book. 

On the court he is still 6'-11" tall, a lengthy person, and almost always a good cheer leader for his team on the bench...

It will be interesting to see what he fetches or others do...

I think as far as the Damon Hummer incident.. Sheed may have just been the passenger in the wrong spot at the wrong time... but then again. Its his choice of friends...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> I agree with you.
> 
> ...


Which is fine, if you trade Sheed for someone who *is* better. Take whatever Wallace gives the Blazers, with his passivity and all, and if you can trade him for a player who produces *more*, great. And I would endorse that deal, too.

If you say that you agree that it's about putting the best product on the floor, knock Wallace down a few pegs for not being "the best he can be," to your mind, and then trade him for someone *worse* (not less talented...worse, in terms of pure production) then you are not really agreeing about building the best team, you simply want Wallace gone due to not liking his attitude, even if it weakens the team. Which is fine as an opinion, just one I disagree with.



> BTW, I would rather have an employee working for me that is less talented, yet displays a better attitude, desire, and hustle, than the more gifted one that just seems to get by on their talents alone.


Even if employee two produced more for your company, making it a better company in sum total? To me, valuing principle (when we're not discussing crime, etc) over actual production is not the best way to run a company. You can wonder what that gifted fellow could do if he *really* put his mind to it but if he, despite not giving his all in your opinion, is still the best man at the job...hard to imagine sending him packing for a less able, harder working person, unless you're not running your business to be as profitable as possible.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Even if employee two produced more for your company, making it a better company in sum total? To me, valuing principle (when we're not discussing crime, etc) over actual production is not the best way to run a company. You can wonder what that gifted fellow could do if he *really* put his mind to it but if he, despite not giving his all in your opinion, is still the best man at the job...hard to imagine sending him packing for a less able, harder working person, unless you're not running your business to be as profitable as possible.


That is, unless you consider employee one's potential effect(s) on the other employees. Trust me, I've seen it in practice.

Bad/good attitudes (work ethic?) can be, and many times are, infectious throughout any particular environment.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> The exception proves the rule?
> 
> Ed O.



1990? World Series...

My fave baseball team Cincinnati Reds were very much the underdogs.... but swept the NY Yankees 4-0


----------



## ChiefBlazerManiac (Jun 6, 2003)

*to Sheed hater*



> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> My dislike of Rasheed Wallace is perfectly rational. And it is shared by many people in Portland and around the NBA. It's rational to dislike a player who doesn't play hard, refuses to be a team leader, attacks referees, attacks coaches, sets records for technical fouls, gets himself kicked out of games, disappears in crunch time, refuses to stay in shape in the off-season, refuses to speak to the media, gets himself arrested for smoking pot and brings shame to the team, throws a towel in a teammate's face, mocks players for their disabilities, and so on and so on . . .
> 
> Yes, I'm sure Rasheed is busy and can't be bothered to return phone calls from the organization that pays him $18 million a year. He's probably playing Nintendo with his kids. Or smoking a doobie in the rec room.


Grief man! What is up with you and your hatred for Sheed? I am disappointed he doesnt take more leadership and not for one freaking minute do I believe Paul Allen of the coaching staff is begging him to stay! He doesnt have a choice! If we are going to get rid of him or lose him to free agency lets do a sign and trade deal and be done with it already. There are plenty of gms who will make good trades for Sheed. Quit your hating and figure a way out of this instead.............


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Good point....

instead of complaining, find a solution. Good motto as an arm chair GM or life in general ... :wave:


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

"Find a solution"? "Figure a way out of this"? . . .

What are you guys talking about? None of us on this board can do that. That's the GM's job. But there's no doubt that lots of teams out there would love to have a talent like Rasheed Wallace. Once the organization gets its head out of the clouds and decides Wallace should go, then I'm sure our new GM will have no problem pulling off a trade. In the meantime, I'm not going to waste my time hypothesizing about what that trade should be. It doesn't interest me. I've read hundreds of trade proposals on this board and NONE of them have ever come true.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> "Find a solution"? "Figure a way out of this"? . . .
> 
> What are you guys talking about? None of us on this board can do that. That's the GM's job.


Our job is to whine and complain.



> But there's no doubt that lots of teams out there would love to have a talent like Rasheed Wallace. Once the organization gets its head out of the clouds and decides Wallace should go, then I'm sure our new GM will have no problem pulling off a trade.


That is an interesting thesis, Talkhard. So, Sheed is (I'm paraphrasing previous posts here) a cancer, evil incarnate, and the reason the Blazers will never win a championship, but lots of teams would love to have him? So it isn't just that TraderBob and Paul Allen don't know anything about building a team, lots of GMs in the league don't know anything about building a team? So maybe Portland isn't in such an unusual situation? Maybe there's nothing particularly bad about our team or our team management? Could that possibly be?

It seems at odds with your usual position.

barfo


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> That is an interesting thesis, Talkhard. So, Sheed is (I'm paraphrasing previous posts here) a cancer, evil incarnate, and the reason the Blazers will never win a championship, but lots of teams would love to have him? So it isn't just that TraderBob and Paul Allen don't know anything about building a team, lots of GMs in the league don't know anything about building a team? So maybe Portland isn't in such an unusual situation? Maybe there's nothing particularly bad about our team or our team management? Could that possibly be?


Why do I have the mental picture of a Star Trek-style robot staggering around with smoke coming out of its ear-areas?

Does not compute... does not compute...

:laugh: 

Nice, barfo.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

That's an easy one, Barfo. Lots of teams are willing to take a chance on a talented player with emotional problems. Take the Lakers, for example. They signed Isaiah Rider after both Portland and Atlanta had dumped him. Even Jason Kidd, perhaps the most talented point guard in the NBA, has been traded twice. When he became a P.R. problem in Phoenix, the Nets were only too happy to snatch him up. So teams are always willing to give a guy another chance, especially when he's 6'11 and as talented as Wallace. GMs like to think they can turn a guy around, knock some sense into his head, and help him become a great player.

It ain't gonna work with Wallace, but that's what they think. At any rate, he's had his chance in Portland. Sometimes you just have to move a guy for the good of the team.

I'm sure he'll get a second or third or fourth chance somewhere else. Maybe he'll turn out like Sidney Wicks, who got worse and worse each year and eventually played himself out of the league. That's also what Rider did.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

TH- just wondering... how many threads blasting Wallace do you start each year? You wanted to "Blow up the Blazers" two weeks into the seasons, and claimed they wouldn't reach .500 with a cancer like Wallace on their team. I'm wondering if your constant pessimism would be appeased if they do move Sheed, or if you'd just switch your distain to someone else... and btw... since it's been over two full seasons since Wallace was ejected from a game on T's, I think you could update your rant on him getting constantly tossed... I've pointed this out to you before but here you go again.

The problem with the big decision of sticking with the team as it's basicly constructed and adding Payton, or remaking the team with big moves on draft day, is that the period for Free Agents to sign is well after the draft. Of course they could have an unspoken deal in place with the Bucks, but it is a little unsettling for those of us not in the know.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

How about this for the unspoken deal (I know TH won't like it because it retains Portland's best player)...

Resigned GP, Tim Thomas, their pick #8 for...

Dale Davis, Rube, McInnis, and maybe Portland's #23

Milwalkee gets two starters and a quality backup, and rids itself of TT's big contract. Portland shifts Wallace to center, Zack to starter at 4, and gets down on their hands and knees and begs Sabas to return to the bigger role he reportedly wanted (JR in hoopsworld). Portland then would draft the distributer of their choice with the Bucks pick, and the best player on board (possibly a backup big) at 23.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

...last thought, if Portland keeps Sheed through this season, their flexibility to S &T him for a variety of deals goes way up next offseason. Or to explain it another way, he could be resigned at very different figures depending on who Portland is trying to get back. Team's will still be over the cap and unable to persue him as a strait UFA signing, so S&T will be in his best interest as well. Damon's deal will be down to one year, so Portland may be in much better position to chart it's new direction then if the franchise holds onto it's cards for one more year.

STOMP


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Stomp, I've started several threads on Wallace over the last two years. Is there something wrong with that? I thought a fan forum like this one was a place for us all to vent our feelings (and frustrations) about the team. Where am I supposed to post such messages? On the National Geographic Website?

If you believe in Wallace, and think he is the savior for this team, then by all means make as many posts as you like to that affect. And I'll keep making posts about the things that I believe.

Yes, I predicted that the Blazers wouldn't reach .500 this year. And when I was wrong, I made another post admitting as much. In fact, you probably only remember the prediction because I brought it up myself. I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong (though I certainly wasn't the only one who had serious doubts about this time at the beginning of the year.)

As for my wish to "blow up" the Blazers after two weeks, it's interesting that Paul Allen hinted that he might do as much in this offseason. I should also point out that I wanted to blow up the team BEFORE Wallace and Stoudamire were arrested for pot, BEFORE Patterson was arrested for hitting his wife, BEFORE Wallace threatened a referee after a game, and BEFORE Randolph attacked Patterson in practice. Those unfortunate incidents made a lot of fans think it was time to blow up the team. So, I could even make the argument that I saw the writing on the wall before most did.

And I still believe Wallace is a negative influence on the team. I thought that long before he attacked the referee on the loading dock (something even I wouldn't have predicted!) and I still think it today. However, if you love Wallace and want him on the team, please make your case to all of us. That's what this forum is for!


----------



## ChiefBlazerManiac (Jun 6, 2003)

*Sheed Bashing*



> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Stomp, I've started several threads on Wallace over the last two years. Is there something wrong with that? I thought a fan forum like this one was a place for us all to vent our feelings (and frustrations) about the team. Where am I supposed to post such messages? On the National Geographic Website?
> 
> If you believe in Wallace, and think he is the savior for this team, then by all means make as many posts as you like to that affect. And I'll keep making posts about the things that I believe.
> ...


Ok I have listened to about all of this that I can. The last few years without Sheed we would not have even made the playoffs. You want to blow up the team at what cost? Becoming a lottery team? Do we really want to win 25 games a year? Are you truly a Blazers fan? Doesn't sound like it to me if your jumping off the wagon 2 weeks into the season. Forget the fact that we had major injuries hit all but Sheed during the season and that 3 5ths of our starting line up was out due to injuries in the first round of the play offs yet we still extended Dallas to 7 games. What that doesnt count for anything? I argue that with a healthy team we very well could have made the WCFs. I for one am not willing to completely blow this team up just to get rid of Wallace. And I agree hanging on to him till we can sign and trade him would be advantage Wallace and Advantage Blazers... So unless something wild happens I think Sheed will be with us at least one more year. Maybe he will grow up this offseason and take some cues from Tim Duncan on how to lead his team to victory!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed in response to you're example of Rodman.

He was a key to the teams success, but not the main ingrediant. Maybe I needed to be more specific.

2nd off bad attitude to me is lack of maturity, work ethic, and teamwork.

IMO the only questionable player who has "lead" his team to any kind of success is Allan Iverson. that being sadi though his o n court attitude, and drive to put his team on his back is intense.

So maybe Iverson doesn;t even make the list.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

For anyone who cares...this is what I want.

THE NBA TITLE IN PORTLNAD!!!! 

I am not satisfied with this "always a bridesmade" sense of satisafaction from simply making the playoffs every year.

If missing the playoffs for a year or 2 means we have a better run at the title in 4-5 years, so be it.

I don't think trading Rasheed for a good role player and a high draft pick make portland the LA Clippers record wise. Houston Rockets maybe, but not the Nuggets.

Bring us a title!


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Ed in response to you're example of Rodman.
> 
> He was a key to the teams success, but not the main ingrediant. Maybe I needed to be more specific.
> ...


I hate the Rodman example that bad character can overcome. It is a very weak arguement. Rodman was successful because he was the THIRD best player. Jordan and Pippen were the superstars. If Sheed was the second or third guy, I believe he would be a much more valuable player. I also would like to hear why moving some bad character guys is considered blowing up the team. I don't seem to hear trade Sheed of nothing, or Patterson for the second round pick. I have been very critical of Bonzi, but would give him another chance as long as Sheed was moved. IMO if Sheed is traded (in a good trade) our team would change a lot and still be competitive. We don't need the lottery, but if we fell some slots in the playoffs, I could live with that.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

If Sheed goes to Toronto he's and instant allstar and the Raptors go to the playofffs his first year. Why? Cause he'd be the best PF in the east and with comp like Kmart, Oneal and Pierce he'd be the man. The upside is that Vince would carry the headline attention and Sheed could be the nice #2 he's always wanted to be, playing along side another Tarheel.

This is a great deal for us! Sheed would be happy and not the key guy and the Raptors go back to a playoff contender in the east. 

So why should we make them better you ask? Simple, they're an east team and much like the Nets they have no shot of winning a championship with the talent they'd have including Sheed against a good west squad.

The best west teams are going to reboot this summer and if Sheed is our go to player we'll be one and done again next year. Believe That! Now is a perfect time to go young and get a killer hub of young players. We've got Zach and Q, now let's get a Bosh or Carmello and make this team solid for years to come. We can get some nice role players with the free agency and still compete.

I know LA is going to get a good PF in Howard or Brand, and they are still better than us.

Dallas is going to find a defensive player and they are still better than us.

Sac will get CWebb back and you know the drill.

The Spurs could land Jermaine Oneal this offseason with the kind of money they have to spend and they'll be stronger than us too next year. 

So why are most of you so against letting Sheed go some place he'd be better off, and that wouldn't be a real threat to us ever winning a championship? The Raptors with Sheed and Vince will not bring home a ring but they will put butts in the seats in Toronto and that's what they need there now.

The Blazers need a new direction with coachable players that want to learn, listen and get better. Sheed has been on cruise control for years now. His game is not gotton better! He's bored with this team and it shows with his play and in the west he knows he's not even a top three PF any more! The east would do him good, maybe it would be a rebirth for his career. 

I'll tell ya this if the Blazers bring in GP and leave Sheed, this team will be right where they were at the end of this year and without Patterson maybe even worse. Damon and GP wont be able to exist together past the first month and Sheed knows Zach is breathing down his throat. DA and Bonzi is redundant and Dale isn't getting any younger neither is Pip and Sabas is gone! You just can't put Duct tape on the team any more boys, it's got real holes that every other team can see.

If staying par is all you guys want fine, then say that! This team wont get better though, with this current cast.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

In case you missed it, John Canzano reports in today's Oregonian that Rasheed Wallace's famous refusal to speak to reporters has now officially become an NBA joke. Here's what Canzano says about our star player and spoiled brat:

"Wallace has to be traded. He is the biggest clown in the circus. He represents the loudest laughs. 

Among other things, last season Wallace threatened a referee, tried to climb into the stands to fight a Golden State fan and received probation after being cited for marijuana possession. Be sure that the player Dallas fans dubbed, "Ra- Weed," during the playoffs is not through embarrassing Portland. 

Owner Paul Allen promised a change in philosophy. And unless it was an empty public relations ploy, that change has to include trading Wallace, who enters the final year of his contract."

Canzano is a reporter who regularly follows the Blazers. Jason Quick, who also reports on the Blazers, has said the same kind of things about Wallace. The snowball is growing and turning into a landslide. Is there any doubt that Wallace has to go?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Oh... since Canzano said it, it MUST be bad for Rasheed.

Canzano is a joke. He knows less about the Blazers than several of the posters on this board. He's ridden in on his white horse to clean up the Blazers' organization, and he can't see that the reason what Rasheed said resonates with so many people is because media types like Canzano are idiots and Wallace was giving them what they deserve.

Ed O.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Canzano is a reporter who regularly follows the Blazers. Jason Quick, who also reports on the Blazers, has said the same kind of things about Wallace. The snowball is growing and turning into a landslide. Is there any doubt that Wallace has to go?


Canzano is also an idiot who spews hateful opinion pieces that OFTEN are predicated on the Blazer's owners/manager inability to do the impossible, ie, "just go get themselves a player like Tim Duncan".

Jason Quick also says many, many, many very kind things about Damon Stoudamire. So what?

Both these guys have agendas. So their agenda re: Rasheed happens to match yours. BFD.

The snowball is turning into a landslide?

No. More like the chum has been thrown in the water and the sharks (you and the Snoregonian idiots) are going into a feeding frenzy. Go ahead, have at it. Just don't think everyone is going to jump in the water, because a few do. Happy eating.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Talkhard is allowed to have his opinion just like everyone else on this board. You may not agree with it ED, Masbee, Stomp and so on, but that's what makes this board worth reading. Lord forbid it turns into Lord Of The Flies around here like so many of you want to make it! 

I for one get a little tired of seeing everyone on this board being happy with a very average team year after year, after year. It's time to shake it up with the Blazers and get some new blood in here. Live a little people, no one will remember or care if Portland make the playoffs again next year if they lose in the first flipping round AGAIN!!!!!! I'd say alot of people will probably remember how many times the Blazers have lost in the first round, would be my guess. 

Sheed, Bonzi, Damon and Pip are just not an elite team together. Somewhere else maybe, but history has taught us, it's not here and not together.

Sheed was a punk at UNC, a punk in DC, and he's been a huge punk in Portland. His career has been tainted with his terrible temper and that wont change. I for one would like to give Cheeks some new young faces he can mold instead of some arss clown that thinks the world owes him something while making 150K a night.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Talkhard is allowed to have his opinion just like everyone else on this board. You may not agree with it ED, Masbee, Stomp and so on, but that's what makes this board worth reading. Lord forbid it turns into Lord Of The Flies around here like so many of you want to make it!
> 
> I for one get a little tired of seeing everyone on this board being happy with a very average team year after year, after year. It's time to shake it up with the Blazers and get some new blood in here. Live a little people, no one will remember or care if Portland make the playoffs again next year if they lose in the first flipping round AGAIN!!!!!! I'd say alot of people will probably remember how many times the Blazers have lost in the first round, would be my guess.
> ...



I don't agree that Portland is a average team. Our current roster is a top 10 team IMO. I do agree that I would like a little change. If Sheed and Ruben go, I'll consider it a start for this organization. If Paul Allen is willing to spend above what most of the other owners are, than we can expect to be a playoff team almost every year. I would like to see some new blood, and Sheed IMO is the key,


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

I believe the real chum is any thought fed to the sharks on this board on trading Sheed. Post a trade Sheed thread and see how many teeth you see around here.

A team is about positive energy too, and Sheed has a ton of negative energy that I know over the years has zapped the strength and good will out of certain Blazers from Sabas to Pip to Smith to even the coaches. 

If Sheed goes this team will perk up like a plant that has been in desperate need of some water, wait and see. 

His departure might also make a few players step up their game and be the players they really are. Guys like Bonzi, Q and Zach!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> I for one get a little tired of seeing everyone on this board being happy with a very average team year after year, after year.


What team is very average? You can't be talking about the Blazers, unless you have an incredible misunderstanding of "average".

The Blazers won 50 games this year. Only *four* teams in the NBA won more games. Out of 29. That is not average.

Last year the team won 49 games. That is not average. The year before? 50 wins. Not average. The year before? 59. The year before? 35 (out of 50... the equivalent of over 57 games).

An average team might have had one or two seasons like that in the last 5, sprinkled in with a few 30-something win seasons. The Blazers have gone 5 for 5.

That is not average. It's a straw man to say that the people who disagree with you are happy with an average team.

Ed O.


----------



## blazerbraindamage (May 5, 2003)

And how many first round exits?

And how disappointing is it that this team just doesn't care enough to put forth a solid effort when everybody knows they've got the talent to be better than they've shown us in that time but they just don't care at all about it?

That puts them back at average in my opinion.

They may be above average in talent and record but they are well below average in heart and character.

Add to that the fact that they are above average in underachieving and you arrive at exactly AVERAGE and boring!

my 2cent$


----------



## blazerbraindamage (May 5, 2003)

They are AFRAID to take CHANCES !!!!!


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Let me put it this way ED, the Blazers can't beat the Lakers, Spurs, Kings, Mavs, TWolves,Nets, I question if they can beat the Suns in a best of 7 right now. So if they can't beat two team in their own division and they can't beat six in the west, I'd say that's an average team. 

The big thing is that they can't get out of the first round and winning the west with their current players seems very, very remote. Every team in the west that worth a crap will reload this summer or add that final piece to make them that much better than our boys, so how do you think we will compete?

LA gets a PF and then they are a top two again. That's a fact!

The Spurs will get someone amazing to go with Tim so how do we beat them?

Dallas will get a defensive player and with the talent they already have that makes them better than us.

The Suns can beat us already cause Steph just kills us.

The Rockets will be only getting better and Cwebb will be back for the Kings.

Maybe you see something I don't, but this looks to me like Portland will be lucky to finish #8 with or without Sheed. So why keep him and make this season that much harder for the fans? Try something new! Can it really hurt at this point?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blazerbraindamage</b>!
> And how many first round exits?


3. Are you saying that it's average to make it out of the first round more than 40% of the time? If you ARE saying that you need to either do research or be more intellectually honest.



> And how disappointing is it that this team just doesn't care enough to put forth a solid effort when everybody knows they've got the talent to be better than they've shown us in that time but they just don't care at all about it?
> 
> That puts them back at average in my opinion.


I find it a bit disappointing, but they still are well above average.



> They may be above average in talent and record but they are well below average in heart and character.


Ah... who cares?



> Add to that the fact that they are above average in underachieving and you arrive at exactly AVERAGE and boring!
> 
> my 2cent$


So you're counting what they do on the court once but intangibles (which are purely your opinion) double? That's cool, but it's not a standard way of defining "average".

Ed O.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Maybe you see something I don't, but this looks to me like Portland will be lucky to finish #8 with or without Sheed. So why keep him and make this season that much harder for the fans? Try something new! Can it really hurt at this point?


The answer is, yes, it can hurt. Unless you really think 50-32 and
32-50 are both 'average' records, and there is no reason to prefer one over the other.

barfo


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

If Portland is a top ten team, then we are screwed cause the top 7 teams are in the west right along with us. That means we are the Clemson of the ACC in hoops!


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blazerbraindamage</b>!
> The are AFRAID to take CHANCES !!!!!


Who the? The Blazers are afraid to take chances? Were you saying that when we got Kemp? Qyntel? I thought one of the big complaints about Whitsett was that he made too many trades and took too many chances. Now he makes too few? We sure are hard to satisfy sometimes.

barfo


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> 
> Who the? The Blazers are afraid to take chances? Were you saying that when we got Kemp? Qyntel? I thought one of the big complaints about Whitsett was that he made too many trades and took too many chances. Now he makes too few? We sure are hard to satisfy sometimes.
> 
> barfo


I think Barfo just coined the new slogan for the forum..

"Blazer fans...we're schitzos!"


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Let me put it this way ED, the Blazers can't beat the Lakers, Spurs, Kings, Mavs, TWolves,Nets, I question if they can beat the Suns in a best of 7 right now. So if they can't beat two team in their own division and they can't beat six in the west, I'd say that's an average team.


Even ASSUMING you're right on all counts (and I think it's silly to say they're not better than the Suns, and I think they're better than the Wolves, Nets and maybe Lakers, too), that makes them 8th-best in the NBA. Out of 29.

That's not average.

They might be average in the small set that you're established (the best teams in the NBA), but by that measure it's easy to make an argument that Mark Cuban is only average in wealth because Gates, Buffett, Allen, and others live West of the Mississippi and are much richer than he is.



> The big thing is that they can't get out of the first round and winning the west with their current players seems very, very remote. Every team in the west that worth a crap will reload this summer or add that final piece to make them that much better than our boys, so how do you think we will compete?


The Blazers almost beat the Mavs, in spite of having 3 starters hurt in Game 7. They have only 3 players over 30 years of age. They have a potential stud in ZR who's ready to step into a big role.

Why are the Blazers just treading water if they add a FA, but every other team in the West gets better? It's faulty logic to say that.



> LA gets a PF and then they are a top two again. That's a fact!


Um... ok. We have different definitions of "fact", just like "average", I guess.

But so what? Even if the Lakers are top-2 again, that doesn't make the Blazers average.



> The Spurs will get someone amazing to go with Tim so how do we beat them?


We match up well with the Spurs. They are losing David Robinson, who had a nice Finals, and other than Duncan they're a bunch of Munchkins. Even if they add Jermaine, they won't be that much better than they were this year, IMO.



> Dallas will get a defensive player and with the talent they already have that makes them better than us.


They weren't much, if at all, better than the Blazers this year. And if they add a defensive player to the team that'll be a first.



> The Suns can beat us already cause Steph just kills us.


Gee. OK.



> The Rockets will be only getting better and Cwebb will be back for the Kings.


The Rockets will probably be better. But only probably. Taking the step from ~40 wins to ~50 is a big one, especially with a new coach and lacking any veterans.

Vlade Divac (35) is older than Dale Davis. Doug Christie is 33. They might not be able to keep Clark. They'll be a good team, but they won't be better.



> Maybe you see something I don't, but this looks to me like Portland will be lucky to finish #8 with or without Sheed. So why keep him and make this season that much harder for the fans? Try something new! Can it really hurt at this point?


Yes, it sure can. It can hurt big-time. One small example: Blazers fans had one of their most exciting experiences in recent years in Game 6 of this year's playoffs. If the team had traded Rasheed last summer they almost certainly would have missed the playoffs and the fans would've missed out on that.

This time last year, people on FanHome were saying that the Clippers were as good as the Blazers and that the team was old/washed-up/had peaked. What happened? The team was BETTER than the year before, in spite of having more injuries and other incidents limiting player availability.

If the team were filled with 32 or 33 year olds, I could see making a big change. As it is, the team is packed with players 26-30 years old, and moving the best player now would be punting on 3rd down (which is a good idea in the CFL, but not so much in real football)...

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> If the team were filled with 32 or 33 year olds, I could see making a big change. As it is, the team is packed with players 26-30 years old, and moving the best player now would be punting on 3rd down (which is a good idea in the CFL, but not so much in real football)...
> ...


wow..Ed O. with the unnecessary diss of the CFL..


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

So barfo what you are saying to me is it's better to get a C average than an F average, right?

But I'd respond to you neither will get you into a kick arss grad school. So why not ace your classes by putting in the time as an undergrad so that you have something to be proud of in a few years when grad school comes around? You can't just keep hoping for extra credit and take home exams!

The same is true for these Blazers. It's time for a new freshmen class to put in the work and get the results down the road.

Take the risk, rebuild we've got the right owner, enough money, and the right city to do it in!

Tell me the fans here wouldn't rather talk about the growth of some new young bucks rather than the stale drama year in and out that we expect from these current Blazers?

I would suggest to you also that the Bulls forum is kicking our arss and they have a very young team that is turning it around, and hasn't been to the playoffs in a while.
They have something to get behind and grow with.

However if you'd like to sit in your comfortable Buick instead of building a kick arsss sports car, be my guess. That goes for the rest of you comfort seekers!:grinning:


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> So barfo what you are saying to me is it's better to get a C average than an F average, right?


No, I'm saying an B+ (current blazers) is better than a D (blazers w/o Sheed).



> But I'd respond to you neither will get you into a kick arss grad school. So why not ace your classes by putting in the time as an undergrad so that you have something to be proud of in a few years when grad school comes around? You can't just keep hoping for extra credit and take home exams!


No, that's not what you are saying. You are saying, why not blow off classes for a couple of years (aka rebuild), because it is only the upper division classes that matter in the end. Or maybe you are saying blow off all four years, in hopes of acing the GREs. Doing your best every year is NOT what you are advocating. You are advocating partying now and hoping to catch up later.



> Tell me the fans here wouldn't rather talk about the growth of some new young bucks rather than the stale drama year in and out that we expect from these current Blazers?


Well, I find I can talk about the growth of Zach and Q just fine with them sitting on the bench most of the time. If they were starting, we'd be talking about how much they suck, and oh, isn't it too bad we don't have any decent players.



> I would suggest to you also that the Bulls forum is kicking our arss and they have a very young team that is turning it around, and hasn't been to the playoffs in a while.
> They have something to get behind and grow with.


Hmm. I'd rather have the wins, frankly. 



> However if you'd like to sit in your comfortable Buick instead of building a kick arsss sports car, be my guess. That goes for the rest of you comfort seekers!:grinning:


I've never been that fond of kit cars. And they've been in the garage for how many years now? Meanwhile we've been doing just fine picking up girls in the Buick. Buick? It's a yellow Hummer!

barfo


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed that last example of yours is just bad! I tell ya we can't fight our way out of our own neighborhood and you tell me we are still better than the Cavs. Who gives a rip? We wont be playing the Cavs in the playoffs we'll be getting our arss kicked off again by the neighborhood bullies, called the Lakers, Spurs, Mavs and Kings, not to mention their little brother the Wolves and the Suns?


Our team is being measured by its conference and it's coast and we are average there and not a contender in anyones book!

I guess it's like being UCLA in football in the Pac 10. Sure they have a good team that could beat some teams in the Big 10, Big 12 and ACC but they are measured by USC, UW, OU, OSU and Stanford, not by beating up on Duke, Purdue, or Colorado! You see what I mean? At the end of the season their just another Pac- 10 team, kind of the way the Blazers are just another good west coast team. Not great but good. 

I think it's time to change that and make this team a real contender and most of the time that means you have to rebuild and get some new energy and pride on your team.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

No Barfo, what I'm saying is put in the hard four years right now and get a real team with real chemistry so in four years "or less" we have a hell of a hub for a real shot at a championship. This team is not championship material right now and GP wont make a difference. 

You've got a young classy coach with a ton of energy in Cheeks, let him mold some talent the way he did AI in Phili. Let's see if our coach can do his job, and at the same time have some guys out there that don't quit half of the time when they just "DON'T FEEL LIKE PLAYING" that night.


----------



## blazerbraindamage (May 5, 2003)

I think we could be good sooner than 4 years if we traded every 
single player on the current roster.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blazerbraindamage</b>!
> I think we could be good sooner than 4 years if we traded every
> single player on the current roster.


No question about that. For example, if we traded our current roster for Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, KG, and Kidd, (and some filler) we'd be better immediately. It all depends on who you trade for. 

Me, I'm not opposed to trading anyone on the roster if we get someone ACTUALLY better back. Trading for potential is an iffy proposition - we can just keep the current team if we want unfulfilled potential, right?

barfo


----------



## ChiefBlazerManiac (Jun 6, 2003)

*Talkhard is allowed to have his opinion*



> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> just like everyone else on this board. You may not agree with it ED, Masbee, Stomp and so on, but that's what makes this board worth reading. Lord forbid it turns into Lord Of The Flies around here like so many of you want to make it!
> 
> I for one get a little tired of seeing everyone on this board being happy with a very average team year after year, after year. It's time to shake it up with the Blazers and get some new blood in here. Live a little people, no one will remember or care if Portland make the playoffs again next year if they lose in the first flipping round AGAIN!!!!!! I'd say alot of people will probably remember how many times the Blazers have lost in the first round, would be my guess.
> ...


Hey lets look at this logically. WE have shaken up this team EVERY single year that BOBO Whitsitt was in Charge. There will be changes no doubt but isnt it time to let one of these teams GELL together instead of bringing in new players every year?


----------



## ChiefBlazerManiac (Jun 6, 2003)

*Terrible*



> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Ed that last example of yours is just bad! I tell ya we can't fight our way out of our own neighborhood and you tell me we are still better than the Cavs. Who gives a rip? We wont be playing the Cavs in the playoffs we'll be getting our arss kicked off again by the neighborhood bullies, called the Lakers, Spurs, Mavs and Kings, not to mention their little brother the Wolves and the Suns?
> 
> 
> ...


 You dont think we are any better than the cavs? PLEASE dude where ya been the last 20 years? We have made the playoffs EVERY year where were the Cavs.. oh yea at home. Your comment that we are not considered a contender is REDICULOUS]
If this team had been healthy thru out we would have easily advanced thru the second round of the Playoffs. But since you forgot let me remind you. Derrick Anderson OUT Pippen missed what 4 games? Dale Davis Missed a game or two. Put those guys back in the mix and what happens????? Come on man! Get real and quit posting these TERRIBLE posts.... And instead of whining about uis being average lets hear your brilliant ideas to improve this team.. you cant just say oh lets blow up the team and bring in some new players. Back it up give us some players to talk about Otherwise I really dont believe your much of a Blazers fan if thats all you think of them.


----------



## ChiefBlazerManiac (Jun 6, 2003)

*Trade all the Players?*



> Originally posted by <b>blazerbraindamage</b>!
> I think we could be good sooner than 4 years if we traded every
> single player on the current roster.


Come on man! You are dreaming or smoking something really good!


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

No Chief, we should all stop complaining and next year when the fans stop coming to the games "AGAIN" you can get a better seat along with the rest of the loving par posters on this board. 

This is a money game Chief, and Portland last year and its owner lost a ton. Why? Cause Portland is tired of this team and so is the rest of the NBA. Maybe you didn't see all the empty seats, if this team stays the way it is, next year will be twice as bad. Allen can see the writing on the wall and that's why this team will get shaken up this off season. I don't think he wants to take another bath on guys like Sheed who show up 1 out of every3 games. 

I didn't say we were not as good as the Cavs, read it again before you go on the warpath rookie. I said we are better than the Cavs but can't get out of our own neighborhood.

Since you brought up players and you have so much to say, DA is always out, where have you been? Two of the last three playoffs he's been on ice and last year he had the squirts or maybe you missed that. DD is not the man to rest our playoff hopes on now or ever! Sheed was a non factor and for the most part so was Bonzi and they played the whole series and are the two best players on our team. Pip is old he wont be getting any younger next year and he shouldn't have returned to these playoffs, his timing was completly off and it showed. Sabas is all but done here. 

Zach was the only bright spot to this playoff run. He, Patterson and Q are the only ones I care about returning the rest are over paid chokers. 

BTW- Want a solution that works? trade Sheed for Bosh or Carmello, start Zach and play Q real minutes next year behind DA "build that young hub", grab Bobby Jackson and Turk for Bonzi. Start playing Boumtje behind Dale all season long to get him ready for the playoffs. 

See if we can't trade Damon to the new Charlotte franchise, for cash and future picks.

So your new team looks like this:

PG Bobby Jackson
SG DA
SF Turk
PF Zach
Center Dale

Bench: Q, Bosh, Boumtje, Pip, Jeff and Patterson and whatever pick we get or trades we can make.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

darn, i thought this was going to be a thread about Jason Quicks "man-love" of Damon Stoudamire.

:sigh:


----------



## ChiefBlazerManiac (Jun 6, 2003)

*I may be a rookie here*



> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> No Chief, we should all stop complaining and next year when the fans stop coming to the games "AGAIN" you can get a better seat along with the rest of the loving par posters on this board.
> 
> This is a money game Chief, and Portland last year and its owner lost a ton. Why? Cause Portland is tired of this team and so is the rest of the NBA. Maybe you didn't see all the empty seats, if this team stays the way it is, next year will be twice as bad. Allen can see the writing on the wall and that's why this team will get shaken up this off season. I don't think he wants to take another bath on guys like Sheed who show up 1 out of every3 games.
> ...


 Good points terrible... Why didnt you say that in the first place? Bonzi I think we should keep. Sheed I agree should go and probably will(heard rumors about trading him to Torronto not sure for what) Damon I hate to see go but it just isnt going to work out for him here. Dale Davis we need to DUMP plain and simple, the guy is worthless after the first 20 minutes of the game. Oh and you want Ruben back? This guy is a PR night mare. While I will agree the guy flat out can play but if this team truly is going to turn the character corner he needs to go. You didnt mention AD are you assuming that he is going via free agency? BY the way Damon was also a bright spot in this years play off run, he stayed ready and came thru bigtime when called upon. OH and on the losing money issue. Paul Allen has known all along by bringing in these high salaried guys he was going to lose money so that was no big surprise to anyone. I went to 30 games I didnt see that many empty seats so I hardly think that is part of the decision making process for Allen. I do realize I am a rookie here but I have been a diehard Blazers fan for nearly 30 years so I do know what I am talking about.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: I may be a rookie here*



> Originally posted by <b>ChiefBlazerManiac</b>!
> I went to 30 games I didnt see that many empty seats so I hardly think that is part of the decision making process for Allen.


You didn't see that many, because there wern't many. I don't know what the final tally was but mid-way through the season, Portland had sold out 98% of their seats, well ahead of the NBA average (including the good guy champs Spurs). I also heard that they finished top 5 in the NBA in gross average of fans per game too. 

As far as Paul losing money on the Blazers I heard an interesting annalogy that puts things in prospective... Paul could heat his mansion by throwing 90+ mil (roughly the yearly Blazer salaries) in his fireplace every night for 3 years. Of course not only does he pay the Blazer salaries, but good fans like Chief pay him back by purchasing tickets to games and various merchandise. If you look at both sides of the ledger, he's doing A-OK.

STOMP


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Rasheed Wallace to the Bucks for Gary Payton, Tim Thomas, and change.

PBF


----------



## marshall (Jun 18, 2003)

as a blazer fan who lives in dallas i thought i would share my opinion....The Blazers were a healthy Scottie/DA away from beating the mavs in 6. I think that with the core of Sheed, Bonzi, DA, and Zach along with an on the court leader like Scottie they are a team to be reckoned with. They were rolling after the all-star break with Scottie at point. Just looking at Sheed on the court he is inconsistent, but I think he is valuable. He hit that game winning 3 over the Lakers on a primetime Sunday afternoon game when the Lakers were hot, the 3 from the corner in game 5, and after a 0 point 1st half scored 12 in the 4th in game 7. He has his moments. And Bonzi showed what he can do by dropping 45 in the playoffs and hasnt reached full potential. So I think a litte re-tooling without blowing it up could make for a contender......but those are observations from a distance.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> 
> So your new team looks like this:
> 
> ...


Okay, so finally, at long last, I understand you. You don't want Portland to spin its wheels. You want them to get *worse*. I guess you see reducing the team to a 40-win team as "less boring" than the same old 50-win team.

While I finally understand what you're looking for, I can't say I agree. I'd rather build on the 50-win team and try to *improve* it, maybe make it a 55-60 win team. Perhaps bridge that small gap between Portland and San Antonio. Making the team worse would not be as interesting to me.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

If "WORSE" you mean a young hub of players that really want to make a name for themselves and a PG in Jackson who I think could start anywhere, yes. Sure Minstrel this team might not win as many games in year 1, but after these new guys get a feel for one another the sky is the limit. 

Are you telling me that if Q got some real time he wouldn't be a star?

Didn't we see that with Zach? Q and Zach are best friends on this team, that's a good start for a great hub. 

Throw in some young under appreciated guard like Turk who can hit the three like we sooooo much need and a 6"11 and 1/2 guy in Bosh who's only 19 and still growing, and can block shots and you've got a team down the road. A high energy team that doesn't coast like three out of five of our current starters do every flipping night.


The Blazers will not win it all next year with this current group! There is no question in my mind about that. If this team stays in tact they'll be worse and older. So develop a team for two or three years down the road that can win. Taking a step back to take three steps forward is not always the wrong thing to do. 

Sheed, Bonzi, Damon and Dale are over! They've had four years to prove they can't get it done, while being pampered to death in city that bent over backwards for them. Pip is non factor now, even you can agree with that Minstrel and Sabas is gone. 

What nobody on this board is thinking who wants to keep it the same old song understand is that all the other teams that we'll see in the playoffs are going to be better in the offseason with trades. 

I'd love the par posters to respond to how we will beat the Spurs, Kings, Mavs and Lakers next year when they acquire their upgrade pieces?


LA picks up Howard or Brand and maybe GP

Dallas picks up Malone

San Antonio picks up Oneal or Kidd

Kings get CWebb back.

Now at the same time we got beaten by the Suns three games out of four last year and the Rockets are getting better too. So do you see how staying PAR might be below average next year?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Terrible, you're making a lot of sense. You've pointed out a fact that a lot of people have missed--that Bonzi Wells is probably not going to get any better. I'm afraid that, for all his talent, he's going to be another Wallace, always teasing us with his huge potential, but delivering on it only sporadically. 

I think Wells has been poisoned by Wallace, and that the Blazers would be better off getting rid of both of them. And if we do it now, while their value is high, we can get some nice young players in return. And, as you point out, Davis, Pippen and Sabonis are over the hill. We probably can't do anything about Sabonis, but I'll bet we could still get some value for Davis and Pippen.

This is a great time to start rebuilding. We've already got Zach and Quintel to build around, and with some canny drafting and trading we could be back near the top very soon. 

I hope our new GM sees it this way!


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Let's hope cause another year of Sheed and Bonzi could turn anyone into a Spurs fan.

Going young with this team is exciting for me, I just don't understand why everyone thinks that Sheed and GP would make such a big difference here? It's a poor mans Sonics when Kemp ran the show with less talent surrounding them.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> 
> Are you telling me that if Q got some real time he wouldn't be a star?


It's certainly not guaranteed, as you imply.



> Sheed, Bonzi, Damon and Dale are over! They've had four years to prove they can't get it done


Yeah, and David Robinson proved for a decade that he couldn't get it done. Oh, wait...he now has two championships?

How many years did Olajuwon prove he couldn't get it done before he finally won a couple titles?



> Pip is non factor now, even you can agree with that Minstrel


If by "non-factor," you mean the Blazers played top-four seed ball with him and were barely .500 without him, then yes...even I can agree.



> I'd love the par posters to respond to how we will beat the Spurs, Kings, Mavs and Lakers next year when they acquire their upgrade pieces?


Oh, I see. It's guaranteed that those other teams will get upgrades and equally guaranteed that the Blazers won't get any of those upgrades.



> LA picks up Howard or Brand and maybe GP


Brand? Do you even pay attention to the rules? Brand is a restricted free agent. This means that the Clippers can match any offer for him. Considering most believe they might even offer him a max deal, they would obviously match what LA can offer him, which is the mid-level exception. There is no way in any fevered dream that the Lakers can get Brand. So please stop inventing impossibilities to "prove" the Blazers will be out-classed.

The Lakers could certainly add Howard, but not Howard *and* Payton. They have the MLE...splitting it would mean that Payton plays for less than $4 million a year. Good luck with that one. Might as well just say that the Lakers will add Tim Duncan and Jason Kidd for the veteran's minimum each.



> Dallas picks up Malone


Possible, but hardly guaranteed. And Malone, in his declined state, would be a situation of diminishing returns for Dallas. The more scorers you pack on a team, the less significant any particular one becomes. Malone has ceased to be a dominating franchise player. He's now a good scoring threat, a decent rebounder and an average defender. Hardly a world-changer on a team with plenty of good - excellent scoring threats already. There's only one ball...Malone's offense will simply come at the expense of someone else's scoring.



> San Antonio picks up Oneal or Kidd


Neither is likely. Kidd and O'Neal can both make more with their current teams. If the CBA has done anything, it's vastly reduced the chances of major free agents changing teams. Chris Webber acted like he wanted to be anywhere but Sacramento and ended up right back in Sac-town.



> Kings get CWebb back.


Oh, getting a player back that they already had last year is an upgrade now. I guess the Spurs will also upgrade by re-signing Tim Duncan. Frightening.

Again, the bottom line is that the Blazers weren't quite good enough this year, but they were close. They were a non-injury or one more good quarter away from beating the 60-win Mavericks in round one. The Mavericks gave the Spurs pretty much all they could handle without even having Dirk Nowitski for three games. The Kings lost Webber, certainly, but Webber was injured in the later stages of a game where the Mavericks were just *destroying* the Kings.

So, nothing from these playoffs suggests the Blazers were far off anyone else. If the Blazers added Payton, for example, they would *probably* improve more than any other Western team. If the Spurs got O'Neal, then they would improve more, but the Spurs getting O'Neal, as I said, are not high.

You're intentionally overstating the powers of every other team in the West and overstating their chances of getting better (essentially adding free agents to each one as if they've already signed) while intentionally understating the abilities of the Blazers and understating their chances of getting better.

While I see that doing that makes your argument *sound* better, it doesn't actually make it stronger in reality. If offering impossible dream sequences (like the Lakers adding Brand and Payton) as fact for next season impresses you, check out this Portland re-tooling:

Portland trades Stoudamire for Kevin Garnett
Portland trades Zach Randolph for Tim Duncan
Portland signs Jason Kidd
Portland signs Jermaine O'Neal
Portland signs Kobe Bryant

Portland roster:

PG: Jason Kidd
SG: Kobe Bryant
SF: Kevin Garnett
PF: Rasheed Wallace
C: Tim Duncan

Bench: Bonzi Wells, Dale Davis, Derek Anderson, Qyntel Woods, maybe draft LeBron James to groom off the bench or something


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Portland roster:
> 
> PG: Jason Kidd
> ...


I'd prefer more younger players. Maybe trade Rasheed and Bonzi for Chris Bosh?

Also: not enough role players. WAY too much talent. Kevin Garnett has showed repeatedly that he can't get out of the first round. Jason Kidd is an evil wife-beater. Tim Duncan is boring and a bit undersized to play the 5. Kobe's a crybaby, and maybe he'd be better to bring off the bench since he has the same first initial as Garnett. And would Qyntel Woods be getting enough minutes?

Ed O.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd prefer more younger players. Maybe trade Rasheed and Bonzi for Chris Bosh?
> ...


ROTFL

:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed, in a couple of years that roster will be totally ready to be torn down. 80 wins a year would be getting passe, we can blow it all up and build around Qyntel and James. Adding a bunch of bench players around them that we can get for KG, Duncan, Bryant, etc. Maybe some draft picks, too.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

AHHHH, the par posters have all spoken. Welcome to another 1 and done year fans. :laugh: :laugh: 

Hey Minstrel, you don't think that GP would take a pay cut for a ring or two in LA? 

You also don't think Oneal would leave and go to the Spurs for a chance at being part of a dynasty with Tim? 

As for the Clipps maybe you have not read but they don't like to pay their players + they run that team like crap.

As for you Ed and your son Masbee, I'd expect you all to say this and laugh at anyone who disagrees with your theory of how the Blazers should be run. 

You're the kind of guys who are still holding on to Kmart Stocks and telling yourselves that they'll turn around once the new Jaquelyn Smith collection takes off!

:laugh: :laugh: 

Yawn, yawn the par boys are playing through!


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Nothing like taking the high road, eh?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> AHHHH, the par posters have all spoken. Welcome to another 1 and done year fans. :laugh: :laugh:
> 
> Hey Minstrel, you don't think that GP would take a pay cut for a ring or two in LA?


Yes, so many people have done that. Remember all the rumours that Ewing, Malone, Barkley, etc. would take pay cuts to play with Jordan and Pippen on the Bulls, just to win rings? That sure happened. On a smaller scale, Oakley, Amaechi and Gill spit on the Lakers' offer to take a paycut to win a ring, and they wouldn't have been nearly as underpaid as Payton would be.

With all your faux-ghetto talk of "getting out of your neighborhood," here's a straight-forward rule for you: Ching-ching nearly always wins out over the bling-bling.



> You also don't think Oneal would leave and go to the Spurs for a chance at being part of a dynasty with Tim?


Play second-fiddle *and* get paid less. Yes, I imagine all young players dream of that.



> As for the Clipps maybe you have not read but they don't like to pay their players + they run that team like crap.


Matching a freaking mid-level exception for Elton Brand *is* "not paying their players." Retaining his best player for a pittance would be Donald Sterling's wet dream.



> Yawn, yawn the par boys are playing through!


Well, that's as good a way to say, "I don't have a logical argument," as any...


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

GP doesn't need the money Minstrel anymore than Pip would to be a Laker. For GP it would be an easy way to get a ring and be in the ultimate high lights, every night before he's to old.

Better he be a Blazer make a bit more money and lose again. Hell he could stay put in Buck land and have that same fate!

Malone has said he would like to be a Mav cause he thinks they can win it all with his inside presence and I believe he knows he's not the man there. Will he take a pay cut, I'd think so.

You say Jermaine would have a problem being second fiddle to Tim and yet you're the biggest Pip fan here! Amazing! Guess Pip thought being part of a dynasty was more important than being "The Man" for a team that had no shot like the Pacers. Maybe Jermaine will use some of Pip good sense, it seemed to work for him a number of times!

 


As for your my ghetto talk, I'd thought you'd appreciate it being the die hard Blazer fan that you are. Oh that's right you keep mistaking the sounds of Ching Ching with WOO OWW WOO OOWW WOO and another one of our players getting arrested. 

Simple oversight I'm sure!


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> GP doesn't need the money Minstrel anymore than Pip would to be a Laker. For GP it would be an easy way to get a ring and be in the ultimate high lights, every night before he's to old.
> 
> Better he be a Blazer make a bit more money and lose again. Hell he could stay put in Buck land and have that same fate!


I've seen in previous threads here that what he really wants is 12.5 million per year. I could see him taking the MLE for a championship, but not splitting it!



> Malone has said he would like to be a Mav cause he thinks they can win it all with his inside presence and I believe he knows he's not the man there. Will he take a pay cut, I'd think so.


He also wants to be able to score enough to break the scoring record.



> You say Jermaine would have a problem being second fiddle to Tim and yet you're the biggest Pip fan here! Amazing! Guess Pip thought being part of a dynasty was more important than being "The Man" for a team that had no shot like the Pacers. Maybe Jermaine will use some of Pip good sense, it seemed to work for him a number of times!


Pippen didn't have a choice, he was traded here.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

"Pippen didn't have a choice, he was traded here."

Yes and he never left until Phil and MJ did! Though he was a few years younger than MJ, he was smart enough to see just how good that team was going to be and how special MJ was. So maybe your saying Jermaine is not that bright or his ego is way to big to handle being behind Tim. I don't see Tim having the kind of ego that MJ has, if I was Jermaine I'd jump all over that chance to be part of the next great thing.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> "Pippen didn't have a choice, he was traded here."
> 
> Yes and he never left until Phil and MJ did! Though he was a few years younger than MJ, he was smart enough to see just how good that team was going to be and how special MJ was. So maybe your saying Jermaine is not that bright or his ego is way to big to handle being behind Tim. I don't see Tim having the kind of ego that MJ has, if I was Jermaine I'd jump all over that chance to be part of the next great thing.


If the money is anywhere close to equal, I'd probably do the same thing. I guess it comes to how much more Indiana offers and what is most important to him. Since he's still young and still has plenty of years left to get a championship, I'm betting on the money.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

If Jermaine is offered the spot and doesn't take it, he's making a career mistake. A guy like Duncan will only get better year after year and he doesn't have an ego that I can tell. MVP two years in row over guys like Shaq and Kobe, this is a train you don't want to miss! 

Tim can only make Jermaine a better player and a more focused one too.

If I've got 20+ million in the bank already and a chance to be a major player on a team that could win for years, I don't think twice! It's not like the Spurs are going to pay him with food stamps and toys.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> If Jermaine is offered the spot and doesn't take it, he's making a career mistake. A guy like Duncan will only get better year after year and he doesn't have an ego that I can tell. MVP two years in row over guys like Shaq and Kobe, this is a train you don't want to miss!
> 
> Tim can only make Jermaine a better player and a more focused one too.
> ...


I actually agree with your thinking but I don't think very many players do.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

I would suggest to you that a guy who can't see that great of an opportunity staring him in the face, wont ever be a superstar on his own.

The smart guys in the NBA who last knew the right waves to ride. Guys like Pip, Horry, David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Kevin Mchale,Dumars,Kareem and Worthy.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> GP doesn't need the money Minstrel anymore than Pip would to be a Laker. For GP it would be an easy way to get a ring and be in the ultimate high lights, every night before he's to old.


You talk like a fan new to sports. How many times has, "Of course he'll sign for less! He doesn't even need the money anymore!" been said? Instead of assuming your personal preferences hold sway, why don't you think, for a second, about whether this *actually* happens.

After the first year of a huge contract, athletes no longer "need" money. They're set for life. Do any of them then say, "Okay. I've got my cash. Now it's time to play for less so that my money can be given to others, allowing our team to get better?" Obviously not. Maybe Payton will be the big trend-setter, but athletes throughout time have shown that your sentiment of "He's made enough, now he'll settle for close to nothing by athlete's standards" is simply wrong.



> Malone has said he would like to be a Mav cause he thinks they can win it all with his inside presence and I believe he knows he's not the man there. Will he take a pay cut, I'd think so.


Malone would be retired if there weren't a scoring record to go after. Dallas isn't the best place to get that scoring record, as there are about four other players desperate to take his shots.

As for paycut, see above. Ewing, Barkley, Malone in the past...they never did that.



> You say Jermaine would have a problem being second fiddle to Tim and yet you're the biggest Pip fan here! Amazing! Guess Pip thought being part of a dynasty was more important than being "The Man" for a team that had no shot like the Pacers. Maybe Jermaine will use some of Pip good sense, it seemed to work for him a number of times!


Actually, players like Pippen are rare. I guess that's why I'm the "biggest Pip fan here" and not the "biggest Jermaine O'Neal [or other athlete name] fan here."

Further, you can factor in what's known about O'Neal, how he whined about playing time when he hadn't earned any, didn't practice hard because he was sulking, refused to play summer league. Yes, sounds like another Pippen in the making, an unselfish, exceptional worker willing to partner with a greater player *for less money*.


----------



## ChiefBlazerManiac (Jun 6, 2003)

*Re: Re: I may be a rookie here*



> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> You didn't see that many, because there wern't many. I don't know what the final tally was but mid-way through the season, Portland had sold out 98% of their seats, well ahead of the NBA average (including the good guy champs Spurs). I also heard that they finished top 5 in the NBA in gross average of fans per game too.
> ...


Hey Stomp,
LOL well in the past I ALWAYS paid but I get corporate tickets now so I dont pay for a darn thing. We have the choice of Suite tickets or Preferred tickets at mid court. Vip Parking the whole nine yards. I figure its payback for all the money I have spent in the last 20 some years. But your point is correct on the fans. Money was never an issue with him and this team. I think that is about to change though at least salary cap wise. Damn Give me just 3 fire place fulls and I would be happy for awhile.!


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Minstrel Pip has had his problems too on every team he's been with. The Bulls, the Rockets and to some extent the Blazers. 


Pip never sat on the bench with the Bulls, Rockets or Blazers either so how would you know how he would handle being a bench player with a ton of talent, sitting behind a player like Grant?

I've seen Pip sulk when he doesn't get his way and that's being a starter, wonder how he would have felt backing up DA or Bonzi for a few years?

In football Minstrel players will sign for less to be on a great team. The Ravens had a bunch of players that could have played elsewhere but wanted a shot at a ring.

One of the big reasons that Portland has not gotten over the hump is greed and players who feel they can rest once the contract is signed. Bonzi comes to mind right off the bat and Kemp does too. 

However I think that attitude in Portland is about to change! Once Sheed and Bonzi are given their walking papers, new players will realize that the free ride is over. Your character, effort and heart will be what's rewarded not your temper and big arss ego. I for one am glad!


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Some things may appear to be what they are not! As for the fans of the Blazer games, did you see the kind of PR the Blazers put on to get fans in the door? Family packages, food and drinks for very decent prices. When the Blazers were rolling in the early 90's you couldn't get a decent set of seats for five together for under a 100 bucks and drinks, hats and a poster, cup and key chain to boot! If Portland had another sport like Hockey, the Blazers crowds would have really thinned out with the kind of product the Blazers have been offering as of late.

Last year Portland games were hardly on TV, a good portion of Blazer fans had to listen to games on the radio. Meanwhile in cities like LA all the games are on TV. 

Allen was taken the fans in Portland for a ride with his cable company and blacked out games and the fans said fark off! That's why the "One fan at a time!" promo went crazy this year. The fans outside of this board wanted a different team they could be proud of that didn't give Portland a black eye every other night and then Paul lost a ton of cash and his cable company and he saw the writing on the wall. A bunch of my friends who live in Portland companies cancelled their season tickets. Hell even the advertisers there are pulling out of the team till it gets cleaned up. 

So when Portland limped into the playoffs after a year of off the court nightmares again, and let the Lakers and Wolves pass them a change had to be made. One and done and a loss of a crap load of money has gotten TBOB yanked, and a new direction is at hand. 

IF all you guys are saying is true about fans support and so on, the games would still be blacked out, Paul's cable company would still be going and ticket prices would still be high. TBOB would still have his job and virtually the whole team wouldn't be on the trading blocks like you see now! How you justify everything is fine in Portland after all these steps have been taken baffles me!


----------

