# Latest Rasheed trade idea and other ramblings from Mr. Anti-Blazer himself...



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

Rasheed to the Pistons;

Mehmet Okur, Cliff Robinson, the #6 overall pick, and expiring contracts (Zeljko Rebraca, Michael Curry, Hubert Davis) to Portland.

You get a blast from the past, Uncle Cliffy, which is more a PR move than anything AND whose contract expires at the end of the 2004-05 season (assuming Portland declines to pick up the option on the third year). You get a really interesting young player in Okur. You get another really interesting young player with that high 2003 draft pick. And you reduce payroll with those expiring contracts.

Best and most realistic Rasheed trade idea I've seen on basketballboards.net, fellas. A Rasheed trade with Toronto for a top 3-4 pick, not realistic. A Rasheed trade for KG, good god, not realistic AT ALL. A Rasheed trade for Shaq, not realistic.

I also expect Derek Anderson to get packaged with Ruben Patterson somehow in return for a contract or contracts that expire within two years. Why? To give Portland "cap flexibility" as soon as possible.

The reason you want to put together a reasonable payroll is not just because you are trying to save money. It's because you can't make trades with other teams when all of your players are overpaid. Derek Anderson at $5 mil, valuable commodity. Derek Anderson at $8 mil, not a valuable commodity. Dale Davis at $6 mil, valuable commodity. Dale Davis at $9 mil, not a valuable commodity.

Again, this isn't about Paul Allen being "cheap" or whatever, it's about Paul Allen understanding which way the wind is blowing. When everybody on your roster is overpaid, your hands are tied. When you are hopelessly above the salary cap, your hands are tied. Re-signing Bonzi Wells to a reasonable extension last summer was a step in the right direction. Having "cap flexibility" does not necessarily mean that you have a ton of cap room. It means that you have players signed to reasonable contracts. It means that you have players at prices that other teams are actually interested in paying. Portland will never get equal value for overpaid players, so they need to stop overpaying for talent and get rid of current overpaid dudes ASAP. Paul Allen understands that now.

So yeah, I'd look for D.A. and Patterson to get traded somehow (i.e., a Dale Davis may end up getting included in order for the numbers to even out) for at least one large contract that expires within two years (think Dikembe Mutombo) along with a mildly intriguing prospect (think Nenad Kristic) and probably a low first round draft pick (think New Jersey's #22 overall pick this year) AND possibly filler (think another contract that expires within two years, i.e., think Rodney Rogers).

This deal works:

Derek Anderson, Ruben Patterson, and Dale Davis to New Jersey;

Dikembe Mutombo, Rodney Rogers, Brandon Armstrong (filler), the rights to Nenad Kristic, and New Jerseys' 2003 #22 overall pick.

New Jersey will want to get something helpful for Mutombo this summer, and since that team is doing everything it can to win NOW, since they are doing everything they can to make Jason Kidd happy, I'd look for them to take the BEST deal they can possibly get for Mutombo. And this deal with Portland may be the best offer that they can get for Mutombo, unless Miami (Brian Grant?) or Toronto (Antonio Davis?) or somebody else interested in dumping longterm salaries gets involved.

Both D.A. and Patterson are signed for FOUR MORE YEARS, which is an ETERNITY in the NBA. It would be okay if they were signed to reasonable deals, but they're not. D.A. is looking at bringing in around $10 mil/season for the last couple of years of his deal. $10 mil! For Derek Anderson! Ruben Patterson is already making more than the MLE. Take a look at some of the players who are available at MLE money this summer! Much better players (not to mention the fact that they are non-rapists and non-wifebeaters) than Patterson! Juwan Howard will be making less money than Ruben Patterson next year. Think about how ridiculous that is. Derek Anderson will be making more money than Richard Hamilton next season. Think about how ridiculous that is. He will also be making more money than Bonzi. Think about how ridiculous THAT is. So please don't try to convince me that D.A. and Patterson aren't overpaid, because they obviously are.

Regardless of the specifics, I'd look for Portland to take one shortterm step BACKWARD (for at least one year, probably two) in order to take two (or three, or four) longterm steps FORWARD. I'd look for this team to probably miss the playoffs next year, and maybe the year after that. But I like its longterm prospects if the new GM plays his cards right. Portland is in much MUCH better shape than many NBA franchises are these days. I still really like the idea of putting together a nice young nucleus of players with an eye toward making a major splash in free agency in 2005 (which only happens if you dump as many post-2005 contracts as possible). A young nucleus that looks like this:

Zach Randolph
Bonzi Wells
Mehmet Okur
Maciej Lampe/Chris Bosh (#6 overall pick in 2003 draft)
Qyntel Woods
Nenad Kristic (?)
2004 lottery pick (Portland's own pick)
2005 lottery pick (Portland's own pick)
2003 low first round pick (New Jersey's pick?)
2003 low first round pick (Portland's own pick)

That's a REALLY nice young nucleus, obviously! Quality (Bonzi, Zach, Okur, Lampe/Bosh) AND quantity (TEN guys in this nucleus, TEN!).

I find it shocking--SHOCKING--that so many Portland fans want to continue to believe that this current nucleus is a player or two away from making a run at a championship. I find it shocking--SHOCKING--that so few Portland fans are interested in trying something new. That young nucleus up there is a star maxed out player away (Allen Iverson?) from making some serious noise in a post-Shaq/Webber NBA (both players will be well into the decline phase of their careers in 2-3 years). If you hold onto this current nucleus, if you keep adding bits and pieces to it, you're never going to make any headway, and that nucleus will continue to rot, and when that happens, you'll WISH that your team began the rebuilding process much sooner.

Anyway, like I've said, some of you guys are in for some surprises this summer. Scottie Pippen has already apparently been told by management that he won't be back, so again, the writing is pretty clearly on the wall, but some of you may continue to ignore it, for whatever reason!


----------



## talman (Dec 31, 2002)

Haven't we seen this tripe before?

Holy hell your plan guarantees us the lottery for many years to come. Sure many people overestimate the value of Blazer players but you have them being given away for the equivalent of a warm bucket of spit!


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Uh lets not and say we did,ok? We get SCREWED in the Nets deal, Dale is better then Dikembe and DA is better then #22 pick + scraps AND we have to throw in Ruben...NO MAS. We get dominated in the Pistons deal to, no one will be worth taking at #6, too low to get Bosh because he'll be gone and too high to take Ridnour when we could get him by trading down.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

To echo others: um. No.

That the Blazers are in need of rebuilding any more than any other team in the NBA (except the four currently playing) is a false premise.

A fact is that the Blazers won 50 games this year in the regular season. Only 4 other teams won more. 

Another fact is that the Blazers took the team that is on the verge of winning the NBA championship to 7 games in spite of having a variety of injuries (including missing 60% of the starting 5 in game 7).

A final fact is that the Blazers only had three players on their active roster this playoffs that were in their 30s, while they had a 21 year-old tearing people up and another young guy waiting in the wings to contribute.

The Blazers will be fine, irrespective of how badly you want them to go into the lottery, roby. 

Ed O.


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

I like Okur and all, but let me refer to this thread concerning Uncle Cliff in Blazer red-

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31268

Please no Cliff Robinson.

Please.

STuart


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

If you think you weren't safe on the road with the current set of Blazers behind the wheels of 100K cars, bring back Uncle Cliffy to really raise the stakes!:laugh: 

Talking about a guy that is known for off the court problems!


----------



## BBallFan (Jul 13, 2002)

Ignoring how it affects the Blazers, I don't think the Nets or the Pistons would do those deals either.

From the Nets trade, I think people don't realize how much value Mutumbo is going to have soon. Juwan Howard's contract in 2001-2002 got the Mavs Lafrentz (who actually had a decent amount of value in 01-02), Van Exel and a first-rounder, and next year Mutumbo's contract is at the same stage. I can't ever see the Nets giving up Mutumbo's contract (which even if you want to argue doesn't have value now, in 2004-2005 he'll be one of the most tradable commodities in the league), Krstic (skilled 7-footer who people are saying would now be a lottery-pick, in a deeper draft than last years), and a first round pick for players that wouldn't even be a major upgrade over what they have. 

Is Dale Davis better than Mutumbo now? Absolutely. But is he really that much better than Aaron Williams? Is Derek Anderson a good player? Of course. But is he that much of an upgrade over Kittles or Harris (assuming Harris is brought back... if not, I'm sure Thorn will bring in someone else who can fill the role nicely)? As for Ruben Patterson... I'd take my chances that Rogers' shooting bounces back next year over having Patterson. And that's looking at the strictly-now talent side of it, ignoring the loss of Krstic and whoever they draft this year (most likely another young European), and the financial side of it.

From the Pistons side... let's say for the sake of argument that they draft Lampe at #6, and entice Karl Malone to come over in the offseason (everyone's saying he wants to go to the Lakers, Kings, or Mavs... but the Pistons are the best team he can go to where he'll have a realistic shot of getting the alltime points record. The Pistons need someone like Karl Malone as much as Malone needs a team like the Pistons. Another good possibility for Malone would be the Timberwolves, if they don't do something very interesting with Brandon). Would the Pistons really be better off with a lineup of Billups/Hamilton/Prince/Wallace/Wallace and a depleted bench than they'd be with Billups/Hamilton/Prince/Malone/Wallace, with two skilled 7-footers (Okur and Rebraca) on the bench, and a potentially very good player down the line in Lampe?

(if you want to argue that Malone would never go to the Pistons, the Eastern conference, whatever... substitute Juwan Howard or another good mid-level type PF. In my opinion, the Pistons are a very desirable choice for a FA, because they are a good team that still has room for a bigtime offensive player)


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Since I've got a few moments, and in the interests of healthy debate, I'll add to my other post by looking at some of roby's substantive points...



> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> You get a blast from the past, Uncle Cliffy, which is more a PR move than anything AND whose contract expires at the end of the 2004-05 season (assuming Portland declines to pick up the option on the third year).


Robinson would be a PR negative. He wasn't well-liked when he was here (he's a playoff choker and he and his agent were ridiculous about his salary expectations) and he's done almost nothing PR-wise except get into trouble since.



> You get a really interesting young player in Okur.


Okur would be a decent player to get, but he's not valuable enough to trade our best player for.



> You get another really interesting young player with that high 2003 draft pick.


Outside of the top 3 players this year, the rest of the lottery is a crap-shoot. #6 might turn out to be a very good player, or he might not. Considering the quality of player that's been available for the Blazers later in the first round the last couple of years, I don't think #6 has enough value, even when coupled with Okur, to justify moving Wallace.



> And you reduce payroll with those expiring contracts.


This is inconsequential. The team is going to be over the cap irrespective, and if we are concerned about payroll that much we can let Wallace leave. It's possible we'll be able to re-sign Wallace relatively cheaply (say $8m a year) and get to keep our best player AND get salary reduction.



> Best and most realistic Rasheed trade idea I've seen on basketballboards.net, fellas. A Rasheed trade with Toronto for a top 3-4 pick, not realistic. A Rasheed trade for KG, good god, not realistic AT ALL. A Rasheed trade for Shaq, not realistic.


A series of conclusory sentences. Not doing much to convince me. (Not that it's your job to do so, obviously, but just not a lot there for me to debate because your mind is made up.)



> I also expect Derek Anderson to get packaged with Ruben Patterson somehow in return for a contract or contracts that expire within two years. Why? To give Portland "cap flexibility" as soon as possible.


DA or Patterson might be moved, because of Bonzi and PR issues, respectively, but I don't see quicker cap flexibility as much of a priority.



> The reason you want to put together a reasonable payroll is not just because you are trying to save money. It's because you can't make trades with other teams when all of your players are overpaid. Derek Anderson at $5 mil, valuable commodity. Derek Anderson at $8 mil, not a valuable commodity. Dale Davis at $6 mil, valuable commodity. Dale Davis at $9 mil, not a valuable commodity.


Derek Anderson and Dale Davis started for us this year. Starters on one of the top teams in the NBA. If no other team values them as highly as Portland, then the Blazers will simply keep them.



> Again, this isn't about Paul Allen being "cheap" or whatever, it's about Paul Allen understanding which way the wind is blowing. When everybody on your roster is overpaid, your hands are tied. When you are hopelessly above the salary cap, your hands are tied.


Not really. Portland has been above the salary cap for some time and has been able to add players and make trades as often as almost any other team in the NBA. The "wind" is blowing in a different direction, true, but the players that Portland has made committments to are solid players and will add value to the Blazers even if they're coming off the bench. Whether they are making $4m or $8m a year doesn't REALLY make a difference unless (a) you want to trade them, or (b) the bottom line suddenly becomes an issue.

[snip]


> Portland will never get equal value for overpaid players, so they need to stop overpaying for talent and get rid of current overpaid dudes ASAP. Paul Allen understands that now.


Um. So says you. You don't NEED to get equal value unless you're looking to move players. I don't understand why you think that every player has to be able to be traded at any point. They just simply don't.

Even assuming you ARE looking to trade every player all the time, though, there's no reason that you have to be able to get full value when you trade. Look at Derek Anderson, for example. What did Portland do to get him? Trade an aging Steve Smith. They paid DA a bit more to ensure that he'd force a S&T, rather than just stay with SA. Even if Portland only got a fraction of DA's true "worth" (whatever that might be), they'll come out ahead because Steve Smith and his expiring contract were USELESS to Portland (except in the bottom line sense, and that's less of a factor even in the new Allen era than it is for most teams).

Alternatively: look at Ruben Patterson. It didn't cost the Blazers ANYTHING except some Microsoft Money to get him. He's been pretty decent for Portland off the bench, and I'd argue that he's been a good deal because of it. If, however, the Blazers traded him and got anything out of it, it would just be icing on the cake because if they hadn't "overpaid" him, he wouldn't have come to Portland and they wouldn't have received any value for him at all... and the opportunity cost (what they coulda got instead of RP) is a bit confusing because RP was probably the best FA option for the team that summer.



> So yeah, I'd look for D.A. and Patterson to get traded somehow (i.e., a Dale Davis may end up getting included in order for the numbers to even out) for at least one large contract that expires within two years (think Dikembe Mutombo) along with a mildly intriguing prospect (think Nenad Kristic) and probably a low first round draft pick (think New Jersey's #22 overall pick this year) AND possibly filler (think another contract that expires within two years, i.e., think Rodney Rogers).


I don't see this at all. 

[snip]


> Both D.A. and Patterson are signed for FOUR MORE YEARS, which is an ETERNITY in the NBA. It would be okay if they were signed to reasonable deals, but they're not. D.A. is looking at bringing in around $10 mil/season for the last couple of years of his deal. $10 mil! For Derek Anderson!


If $9m is about $10m, then you're right. Unless Hoopshype has the wrong figures for him ($9,093,000, $9,742,500)

About four years being an eternity: you're right, but so, what? A player being signed for 4 more years when they are 27 and 26 years old (as DA and RP are) is GREAT. It means you've got them locked up during their prime.



> Ruben Patterson is already making more than the MLE. Take a look at some of the players who are available at MLE money this summer! Much better players (not to mention the fact that they are non-rapists and non-wifebeaters) than Patterson!


That's not really relevant. Portland can still sign one of the MLE players this summer. Patterson's presence won't prevent that.



> Juwan Howard will be making less money than Ruben Patterson next year. Think about how ridiculous that is.


Howard sucks. Who cares?  45% from the field (all 2's), only 7.8 rebounds in 35.5 minutes a game? 27 blocks in 2700 minutes. Led his team in TOs. He'll be lucky to get the full MLE this summer, and there's a reason for it.



> Derek Anderson will be making more money than Richard Hamilton next season. Think about how ridiculous that is.


Rip Hamilton is still on a rookie scale contract. That's a comparison that just doesn't matter. Even if it were a good comparison, I would still argue it doesn't matter. Not paying DA as much as the Blazers are won't magically improve the team... and offering to pay him less would mean that he'd probably still be playing for SA.



> He will also be making more money than Bonzi. Think about how ridiculous THAT is.


? As big of a Bonzi fan as I am, there's no guarantee that Bonzi would start ahead of DA at the 2 spot if Portland had them up for an open competition. DA's probably a more stable player than Bonzi and might deserve to be paid more at this point in their careers.



> So please don't try to convince me that D.A. and Patterson aren't overpaid, because they obviously are.


I'm not going to argue the point, because it doesn't really matter. 



> Regardless of the specifics, I'd look for Portland to take one shortterm step BACKWARD (for at least one year, probably two) in order to take two (or three, or four) longterm steps FORWARD. I'd look for this team to probably miss the playoffs next year, and maybe the year after that.


Yeah. I think you've kinda said that you think this will happen about 100 times  I don't know that you have any evidence of it, though, beyond what your gut's telling you.



> But I like its longterm prospects if the new GM plays his cards right. Portland is in much MUCH better shape than many NBA franchises are these days. I still really like the idea of putting together a nice young nucleus of players with an eye toward making a major splash in free agency in 2005 (which only happens if you dump as many post-2005 contracts as possible).


I think Portland should continue to be a top team NOW and hope to get a break or two next year in the playoffs (like the Mavs have this year) rather than compete with the current dregs of the NBA for 2005.

[snip]


> I find it shocking--SHOCKING--that so many Portland fans want to continue to believe that this current nucleus is a player or two away from making a run at a championship.


The team is in its prime. They've got several players who have gone deep into the playoffs. They've got good depth, good young players and an owner that's willing to spend money to add pieces. Did you watch the playoffs this year? Have you seen that Portland played Dallas as well as the Kings and the Spurs (so far)? 



> I find it shocking--SHOCKING--that so few Portland fans are interested in trying something new.


My dog vomited the other day and I was SHOCKED that my wife had no interest in smelling it.



> That young nucleus up there is a star maxed out player away (Allen Iverson?) from making some serious noise in a post-Shaq/Webber NBA (both players will be well into the decline phase of their careers in 2-3 years).


That young nucleus is worse than the team we have right now. That young nucleus is inferior to the young nuclei that other teams (Cleveland, Chicago) will have in place in 2005. 



> If you hold onto this current nucleus, if you keep adding bits and pieces to it, you're never going to make any headway, and that nucleus will continue to rot, and when that happens, you'll WISH that your team began the rebuilding process much sooner.


Um. Rotting nucleus. Yep.

Ed O.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>talman</b>!
> Haven't we seen this tripe before?
> 
> Holy hell your plan guarantees us the lottery for many years to come. Sure many people overestimate the value of Blazer players but you have them being given away for the equivalent of a warm bucket of spit!


Mehmet Okur, Maciej Lampe/Chris Bosh (one will be on the board at #6), Nenad Kristic, the 2003 #22 overall pick, and cap room = NOT a "warm bucket of spit," obviously.


> Originally posted by <b>MAS RipCity</b>!
> Uh lets not and say we did,ok? We get SCREWED in the Nets deal, Dale is better then Dikembe and DA is better then #22 pick + scraps AND we have to throw in Ruben...NO MAS. We get dominated in the Pistons deal to, no one will be worth taking at #6, too low to get Bosh because he'll be gone and too high to take Ridnour when we could get him by trading down.


Some of you guys just don't get it. Derek Anderson and Ruben Patterson are signed for FOUR MORE YEARS. This team is REALLY limited in what they can and cannot do because of their bloated contracts. Those are the only two bloated contracts that last beyond the 2004-05 season. So, get rid of those guys, and you're actually going to be able to do some really interesting things within a couple of years, you will have "cap flexibility." Also, either Bosh or Lampe will be on the board at #6 (I'm assuming that one of them goes at #4 and that T.J. Ford goes at #5 here). Luke Ridnour, give me a break, you guys sure are homers!


> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> To echo others: um. No.
> 
> That the Blazers are in need of rebuilding any more than any other team in the NBA (except the four currently playing) is a false premise.
> ...


When an owner fires his GM, it's because he's not happy with the status quo. Paul Allen is not going to fire Bob Whitsitt and hire somebody to do exactly what Whitsitt had been doing. Whitsitt's firing is an obvious signal that Allen wants to take this team in another direction. I just don't know what is so hard to understand about this, it sure does seem pretty transparent to me!


> Another fact is that the Blazers took the team that is on the verge of winning the NBA championship to 7 games in spite of having a variety of injuries (including missing 60% of the starting 5 in game 7).


Bottom line is, the Blazers lost AGAIN in the first round. And if they keep the current nucleus together, they'll lose in the first round next year, too. Seems pretty obvious to me. Also, it's worth pointing out that other teams (Phoenix, Houston, probably even Utah) will start catching up with Portland beginning next season. It's also worth pointing out that when Pippen is not re-signed, this Portland team gets quite a bit worse.


> A final fact is that the Blazers only had three players on their active roster this playoffs that were in their 30s, while they had a 21 year-old tearing people up and another young guy waiting in the wings to contribute.


This is a pretty desperate argument here. The only three dudes with upside on the roster, whose careers are not at a standstill or on the verge of the decline phase, all remain on the roster after those two trades are made. Bonzi, Zach, and Qyntel.


> The Blazers will be fine, irrespective of how badly you want them to go into the lottery, roby.
> 
> Ed O.


You guys are so nuts! You think I want your team to go to the lottery! Why would I want the Blazers to go to the lottery? What?

The Blazers will only lose ground in the West. When Pippen walks, it's hard to imagine them finishing higher than sixth. It's actually pretty hard to imagine them finishing closer to fifth than to seventh-eighth. A $100+ mil roster that cannot make it past the first round of the playoffs is not what I call "fine," and Paul Allen obviously agrees, otherwise he would not have fired his GM.

You guys will see soon enough, and then I suppose you'll be arguing that Paul Allen is "anti-Blazer"! How hilarious! The owner of the team is "anti-Blazer"! Ridiculous!


> Originally posted by <b>s a b a s 11</b>!
> I like Okur and all, but let me refer to this thread concerning Uncle Cliff in Blazer red-
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31268
> ...


Uncle Cliffy is really just trade filler in that deal. He also has a contract that expires ASAP (after two years). Corliss Williamson and Chucky Atkins, their contracts last for at least three more years. That's why Uncle Cliffy makes sense for Portland here. The key to the deal is obviously Okur and Bosh/Lampe.


> Originally posted by <b>BBallFan</b>!
> Ignoring how it affects the Blazers, I don't think the Nets or the Pistons would do those deals either.
> 
> From the Nets trade, I think people don't realize how much value Mutumbo is going to have soon. Juwan Howard's contract in 2001-2002 got the Mavs Lafrentz (who actually had a decent amount of value in 01-02), Van Exel and a first-rounder, and next year Mutumbo's contract is at the same stage. I can't ever see the Nets giving up Mutumbo's contract (which even if you want to argue doesn't have value now, in 2004-2005 he'll be one of the most tradable commodities in the league), Krstic (skilled 7-footer who people are saying would now be a lottery-pick, in a deeper draft than last years), and a first round pick for players that wouldn't even be a major upgrade over what they have.
> ...


Finally, a reasonable person! I actually agree with you, I also don't think the Nets would want to do that deal. That deal is more of a best-case scenario way of getting rid of D.A. and Patterson while bringing in a prospect or two with a chance of being decent someday down the road. You're right, Mutombo's contract is the exact equivalent of Juwanna Man's contract back when Kiki traded away Van Exel, LaFrentz, and crap for that guy. A Mutombo can fetch the Nets something EVEN BETTER than this mediocre Blazers package. All I'm saying is that THAT is the sort of deal that Portland will want to pursue if they are serious about rebuilding, and they are, you know.


> From the Pistons side... let's say for the sake of argument that they draft Lampe at #6, and entice Karl Malone to come over in the offseason (everyone's saying he wants to go to the Lakers, Kings, or Mavs... but the Pistons are the best team he can go to where he'll have a realistic shot of getting the alltime points record. The Pistons need someone like Karl Malone as much as Malone needs a team like the Pistons. Another good possibility for Malone would be the Timberwolves, if they don't do something very interesting with Brandon). Would the Pistons really be better off with a lineup of Billups/Hamilton/Prince/Wallace/Wallace and a depleted bench than they'd be with Billups/Hamilton/Prince/Malone/Wallace, with two skilled 7-footers (Okur and Rebraca) on the bench, and a potentially very good player down the line in Lampe?
> 
> (if you want to argue that Malone would never go to the Pistons, the Eastern conference, whatever... substitute Juwan Howard or another good mid-level type PF. In my opinion, the Pistons are a very desirable choice for a FA, because they are a good team that still has room for a bigtime offensive player)


Well, yeah, I agree, The Mailman would be a terrific fit in Detroit, but I think he ends up re-signing with Utah. I don't think that Detroit can get anybody who can REALLY be a legit frontcourt scorer for them with the MLE. Juwan Howard, your go-to guy, your top inside scoring option? C'mon, man, you don't really believe that the Pistons are a Juwanna Man away from the NBA Finals, do you? In order for Detroit to get a legit inside scoring presence--a Rasheed, not a Juwanna Man--they are going to have to pull off a trade, and they know it.

Also, the bench in that Rasheed trade isn't really depleted, they still have Chucky, they still have Barry, they still have Never Norliss Corliss. The only dude in their nine-man rotation that will need to be replaced via free agency is Okur. Rasheed replaces Uncle Cliffy, Prince replaces Curry.

Malone doesn't "need" Detroit. He WANTS to scare Utah into giving him more than $6.0-$6.5 mil. They seem to be calling his bluff. He'll end up realizing that their offer is better than any MLE offer, that Utah will not budge, that by playing hardball they may end up renouncing him (in which case the best he can do is suddenly the MLE), that he can still make the playoffs in Utah, that his best chance at breaking Kareem's record within two years is with Utah. He'll finish his career in Utah. If anybody wants to bet me on this, PM me. I've seen Malone and Utah fuss over money before, and he always ends up re-signing.

I'm pretty sure that Joe D. understands that this Pistons team's time is N-O-W. And it's not like Rasheed is 35 years old here. They can bring in Rasheed, sign him to a reasonable (i.e., quite a bit less than he's making now, probably a bit less than the max) extension (next summer, not this summer), and they will be THE team to beat in the East for the next 2-3 years. There's no reason to get all caught up in the future when your present is looking as good as Detroit's present is looking. The Pistons are a Rasheed away from being a SHOO-IN for the NBA Finals for the next couple of years, and Joe D. knows it. I'm sure he'd love to bring in The Mailman at the MLE, but it's just not going to happen. And Juwanna Man is not going to propel this Detroit team into the Finals. C'mon. Don't overrate Juwanna Man. Nice player, but c'mon, would he be dominating Kenyon Martin in this series? Of course not! Would Rasheed be dominating Martin? Probably!

Remember, Joe D. drafted Rodney White two years ago, the dude did that team no good, he wasn't good enough to crack the nine-man rotation, he rotted on the bench. Either Bosh or Lampe would rot on this team's bench next season, too. So sure, holding on that pick would be awesome, but it doesn't put Detroit into the Finals. Rasheed WOULD put Detroit into the Finals. The Mailman, maybe he would, too, but like I said, I just can't imagine him signing with anybody besides Utah this summer.

FINALLY: Fellas, I'd love to hear some better ideas about what to do with Rasheed this summer! I'd also like to see you guys start to come around and realize that D.A. and Patterson are NOT key parts of this or any other nucleus. The Blazers are clearly better off getting rid of these two dudes for contracts that expire ASAP. You guys are used to these $100 mil payrolls in Portland. That $100 mil payroll will be closer to $50 mil two years from now, hopefully even less, WAY less, and it will be because the team will make major roster changes during the summer of 2003. D.A. is not a significant difference maker. Neither is Patterson. Neither is Dale Davis. The only significant difference makers on this team at this point are Bonzi, Rasheed, Pippen, Randolph, and Sabonis. Sabonis is on his last legs. Pippen is being let go. Rasheed is definitely a goner, either this summer, next season, or next summer. You hold onto Bonzi and Randolph (and Qyntel, because he's so cheap and so raw), everybody else needs to go, the more cap room in 2005, the better, the more prospects and draft picks you can load up on in the meantime (i.e., prior to the summer of 2005), the better.

Let's hear some new Rasheed ideas already! Let's hear some Anderson-Patterson trade ideas, too, while you're at it!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

The reason we think you want the Blazers in the Lottery is every trade you propose you point out Portlands roster of 3 yearts from now to include Portlands Lottery pick in 2004 and 2005 from losing so bad.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is unlikely that Paul Allen will concede to the blow it sky high theory.

BTW Roby how many players currently in the league make 6-7 mil a year and have 4 years remaining(e.g. Anderson and Patterson)? And if that is such a devastating contract why would someone want to take them on?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> 
> Let's hear some new Rasheed ideas already! Let's hear some Anderson-Patterson trade ideas, too, while you're at it!


OK Roby here's one I propsed a couple of weeks ago.
Portland trades
Rasheed Wallace

Orlando Trades
Grant Hill
Andrew Declerq
2003 1st Rnd Pick (#15)


----------



## BBallFan (Jul 13, 2002)

This is going to get the thread a little off-topic, but I tried to PM the reply to Roby instead, but his inbox was full. So *just read and don't respond that much to this*, as it's not directly related to the Blazers:

You've got a point about Malone maybe looking around to get Utah to up the ante, but you have to figure after pulling in 20million-ish this year, and having more money than he could ever know what to do with... the opportunity to get the record *and* maybe make it to the finals would appeal to him more than an extra 5-10 million over the life of the contract

As for Howard being enough for the Pistons as a legit inside-scorer... I think someone of his caliber is all they really need. Pistons really are loaded with jump-shooters, and Howard for all the criticism he gets for making 20million dollars, is still a good inside-scorer. I'd even be willing to argue that Howard is a better interior offensive prescence than Wallace, since Wallace has slowly but surely started to turn into a Robert Horry "I'll be a very good supporting player" type of player, regardless of the fact that Wallace has infinitely more talent than Howard.

I don't think Wallace on Detroit would make them a shoe-in for the Finals, unless Wallace came with a heart-transplant that would give him the fire to play inside again. He'd be a 7-footer playing on the perimeter, and would just wind up being a younger version of Cliff Robinson.

As for Wallace being able to dominate Martin if he was on the Pistons... have you watched the Blazers play against the Nets?


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> 
> OK Roby here's one I propsed a couple of weeks ago.
> ...



That deal is interesting to say the least. Orlando would get someone who can play center in the East. Gooden and Wallace would be a good frontcourt tandem. Giricek and TMac at the wings, but PG would be spotty.............and thats what they'd have probably addressed in Rd 1. This trade would help them move past Rd 1 and could potentially make them a threat to go a few rounds. 

The question is whether or not Hill comes back or not. If Hill is done, the Magic would do it most likely, because in essence, its the #15 pick for Rasheed. But if Hill comes back, do they still do it? Hill is someone the Magic really wanted to pair up with TMac. They still have some hope for that. If Hill comes back, I dunno if they still do it.

But would Portland do it either way? 

If Hill was back, yes, they'd do it IMO.
But if not, its got to be a case just to unload Rasheed and gain some cap room(Hill's contract will be partially paid for bec. he hasnt played- I believe thats true.)


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Okur would be a decent player to get, but he's not valuable enough to trade our best player for.
> 
> Outside of the top 3 players this year, the rest of the lottery is a crap-shoot. #6 might turn out to be a very good player, or he might not. Considering the quality of player that's been available for the Blazers later in the first round the last couple of years, I don't think #6 has enough value, even when coupled with Okur, to justify moving Wallace.


When we get closer to the draft, guys will start getting hyped up, certain players will start seeing their draft stock skyrocket. That #6 overall pick will look a lot more interesting in a month than it does right now, in other words. And keep in mind that this is the best trade idea for Rasheed I've seen (the best REALISTIC trade offer, that is).


> The team is going to be over the cap irrespective, and if we are concerned about payroll that much we can let Wallace leave. It's possible we'll be able to re-sign Wallace relatively cheaply (say $8m a year) and get to keep our best player AND get salary reduction.


Wallace has GOT TO GO. How can you guys not understand that? How can you not understand that getting maximum return on Rasheed ASAP is the first order of business for the new GM? How can you not realize that Okur and Bosh/Lampe beats nothing (which is what they get if Rasheed walks)?


> DA or Patterson might be moved, because of Bonzi and PR issues, respectively, but I don't see quicker cap flexibility as much of a priority.


Allen does not agree with you, and whoever he hires will not agree with you, either. Cap flexibility is a major priority in today's NBA if you expect to win.


> Derek Anderson and Dale Davis started for us this year. Starters on one of the top teams in the NBA. If no other team values them as highly as Portland, then the Blazers will simply keep them.


Anthony Peeler started for Minnesota. Mark Madsen started for L.A. Raja Bell started for Dallas. The key to winning in this league is to have AT LEAST ONE truly GREAT player, preferably TWO. The Blazers have zero truly great players right now. It's a testament to Pippen's leadership ability and to Mo Cheeks' coaching ability that the Blazers played as well as they did this year. Cheeks deserved to get some COY votes, and I bet he got very, very few.


> Not really. Portland has been above the salary cap for some time and has been able to add players and make trades as often as almost any other team in the NBA. The "wind" is blowing in a different direction, true, but the players that Portland has made committments to are solid players and will add value to the Blazers even if they're coming off the bench. Whether they are making $4m or $8m a year doesn't REALLY make a difference unless (a) you want to trade them, or (b) the bottom line suddenly becomes an issue.


The only thing Portland can do at this point to get better is to either a) luck out and get somebody good late in the first round or b) add one full MLE player per season. You can't get a star this way. And, because these players' contracts are so incredibly bloated, you can't TRADE for a star, either, because nobody wants these Blazers players at these prices. So it DOES make a big difference that D.A. makes $8 mil instead of $5 mil.


> Even assuming you ARE looking to trade every player all the time, though, there's no reason that you have to be able to get full value when you trade. Look at Derek Anderson, for example. What did Portland do to get him? Trade an aging Steve Smith. They paid DA a bit more to ensure that he'd force a S&T, rather than just stay with SA. Even if Portland only got a fraction of DA's true "worth" (whatever that might be), they'll come out ahead because Steve Smith and his expiring contract were USELESS to Portland (except in the bottom line sense, and that's less of a factor even in the new Allen era than it is for most teams).


Look at the Spurs this summer, and look at Portland. Who will get better this offseason? The Spurs, obviously. Why will the Spurs get better? Because of "cap flexibility." That Smith-D.A. trade has a lot to do with that! San Antonio has been shrewdly positioning themselves for the summer of 2003 for 2-3 years. Portland needs to start doing the same thing. Don't think that everybody in the league does not look at San Antonio as THE MODEL when it comes to putting together an NBA franchise. Every GM who gets hired from this point on will be expected to do things the San Antonio/Detroit/Denver way.


> Alternatively: look at Ruben Patterson. It didn't cost the Blazers ANYTHING except some Microsoft Money to get him. He's been pretty decent for Portland off the bench, and I'd argue that he's been a good deal because of it. If, however, the Blazers traded him and got anything out of it, it would just be icing on the cake because if they hadn't "overpaid" him, he wouldn't have come to Portland and they wouldn't have received any value for him at all... and the opportunity cost (what they coulda got instead of RP) is a bit confusing because RP was probably the best FA option for the team that summer.


Patterson has been a major mistake. He's been terrible from a PR standpoint. Allen would do anything to make that guy and his terrible contract disappear. C'mon, guy, DUH!


> If $9m is about $10m, then you're right. Unless Hoopshype has the wrong figures for him ($9,093,000, $9,742,500)


$9 mil, $10 mil, a ton and I mean a TON of money, regardless, for a D.A.-caliber player.


> About four years being an eternity: you're right, but so, what? A player being signed for 4 more years when they are 27 and 26 years old (as DA and RP are) is GREAT. It means you've got them locked up during their prime.


Damn, dude, come ON! It ALSO means that you have no cap room! If you had cap room, you could get a D.A.-caliber player at $4-$5 mil, and ANOTHER player for another $4-$5 mil, OR you could get ONE player at $9-$10 mil instead. San Antonio might just get Jermaine O'Neal this summer because of how brilliantly they managed the cap. Portland has no shot at O'Neal or anybody of O'Neal's caliber, all they can offer is the MLE.


> That's not really relevant. Portland can still sign one of the MLE players this summer. Patterson's presence won't prevent that. Howard sucks. Who cares?  45% from the field (all 2's), only 7.8 rebounds in 35.5 minutes a game? 27 blocks in 2700 minutes. Led his team in TOs. He'll be lucky to get the full MLE this summer, and there's a reason for it.


I hope you don't really believe that Patterson is as valuable in this league as Howard. The point is that Patterson at $6 mil is not a valuable commodity, because $6 mil in today's market gets you way more than Ruben Patterson. Patterson has no real trade value because of his contract (among other reasons). The key to winning is to sign players to reasonable contracts, to get bang for your buck. If you overpay for talent, you are really limited in what you can and cannot do via trade and free agency.


> Rip Hamilton is still on a rookie scale contract. That's a comparison that just doesn't matter. Even if it were a good comparison, I would still argue it doesn't matter. Not paying DA as much as the Blazers are won't magically improve the team... and offering to pay him less would mean that he'd probably still be playing for SA.


Rip will re-sign this summer for an extension that will pay him LESS than what D.A. will be getting. That's the point.


> ? As big of a Bonzi fan as I am, there's no guarantee that Bonzi would start ahead of DA at the 2 spot if Portland had them up for an open competition. DA's probably a more stable player than Bonzi and might deserve to be paid more at this point in their careers.


Give me a break, Bonzi is obviously the better player, everybody on the planet, including D.A., understands that. More "stable"? Sure, I'll buy that. But Bonzi is a SIGNIFICANTLY more valuable commodity than D.A. for any number of reasons.
I'm not going to argue the point, because it doesn't really matter. 


> Yeah. I think you've kinda said that you think this will happen about 100 times  I don't know that you have any evidence of it, though, beyond what your gut's telling you.


"This" being that the Blazers will rebuild this summer. Again, the writing is pretty obviously on the wall, if you guys can't read it, that's not my problem. You'll find out soon enough, the rebuilding process begins in about two months.


> The team is in its prime. They've got several players who have gone deep into the playoffs. They've got good depth, good young players and an owner that's willing to spend money to add pieces. Did you watch the playoffs this year? Have you seen that Portland played Dallas as well as the Kings and the Spurs (so far)?


Bottom line, Portland has lost in the first round of the playoffs, what, three years in a row with this nucleus? Again, why do you think Bob Whitsitt got fired? Did he get fired because Paul Allen is in love with the team that he has put together? OBVIOUSLY NOT!


> That young nucleus is worse than the team we have right now. That young nucleus is inferior to the young nuclei that other teams (Cleveland, Chicago) will have in place in 2005.


Of course that young nucleus is worse than the team you have now! Duh! YOU ARE REBUILDING! I'd argue that it is better than Cleveland's nucleus, which I really don't like AT ALL, and I'd also argue that Chicago is going to have problems ever being as good as people think because of the lousy contracts of Jalen Rose and Eddie Robinson.


> Um. Rotting nucleus. Yep.
> 
> Ed O.


That's right, rotting nucleus, rots more and more every single year. Rasheed's numbers get worse and worse every single year. And, if Paul Allen did not think that this was a rotting nucleus, than Bob Whitsitt would've gotten an extension, he wouldn't have gotten fired, DUH!


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> OK Roby here's one I propsed a couple of weeks ago.
> Portland trades
> Rasheed Wallace
> ...


Grant Hill will probably never play again in the NBA. Impossible to believe that someone who is calling me "anti-Blazer" thinks that this garbage is a good idea. You can have either a) Okur, Bosh/Lampe, and Uncle Cliffy, or b) the #15 pick (nine picks later than Bosh/Lampe) and the terrible DeClercq.

BBALLFAN:

I don't know why my PM box is full. I'm looking at it, and it's totally empty. I'm confused!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If hill were to retire due to injury Portland would be allowed to spend 1/2 of Grants contract value to replace him. I also think players who retires due to injury don't cont against the cap.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Yall make some very retarded trade ideas, whatever happened to letting the nucleus gell? Eh, the only things Id do this off season is get rid of the attitudes and create roles. First Id trade Bonzi Wells for Jay Williams and Eddie Robinson. Jay is now our future PG and he is our starting PG, he displayed leadership in Duke and he can do it again just hasn't gotten the opportunity. Trade Damon off for some good role players, a shooter would be great. Get McInnis out of here and resign AD as a backup to Jay Williams. Pickup a Euro in the draft too or that Lang guy tahts like 300 pounds. 

PG-Jay Williams, Antonio Daniels
SG- Derek Anderson, Qyntel
SF- SHEED, Patterson
PF- Randolph, Sheed
C- Dale Davis, Sabas, Draft pick

Let the team gell and balance the team out with young dudes as much as veterans, and veterans that are a good influence. Oh and sign a shooter like Voshon Lenard or Piatowski in the off season for a few mill to backup DA and Q can get like 10 minutes a game. Ruben is too valuable to the Blazers he's a hard worker and energizer so keep him and Sheed's contract ends next season and he is the only one on our team that can guard the Duncans, Webbers, Dirks, and KGs, Zach cant.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> Yall make some very retarded trade ideas, whatever happened to letting the nucleus gell? Eh, the only things Id do this off season is get rid of the attitudes and create roles. First Id trade Bonzi Wells for Jay Williams and Eddie Robinson. Jay is now our future PG and he is our starting PG, he displayed leadership in Duke and he can do it again just hasn't gotten the opportunity. Trade Damon off for some good role players, a shooter would be great. Get McInnis out of here and resign AD as a backup to Jay Williams. Pickup a Euro in the draft too or that Lang guy tahts like 300 pounds.
> 
> PG-Jay Williams, Antonio Daniels
> ...


It's always a good way to make friends, by calling their Ideas retarded.

BTW Welcome abourd, you're trade idea is reasonable IMO, but I doubt Portland could trade Damon for "some decent role players". More than Likely we take a decent role player and a garbage contract.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Sorry about the retarded comment but some of those deals were lol. If Damon went to the right team he could do great, but it is addiction by subtraction, if u can solid citizens to balance the team out by Sheed and Ruby then the youngsters like Zach and Q can develope under good conditions. It seems Q has taken Damon and Sheed's habits up a lil bit with the weed thing and Zach is talkin to the refs a lot. So get rid of Bonzi and Damon, just bring in some good people that can mentor Zach and Q. They don't have to contribute because we already have so much excess talent. We need a shooter or two.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Great points about the character. IMO, Wallace as the tradable commodity represents the teams best chance of getting talent that can be beneficial to the team. Allowing the core to "gel" is a very solid concept. This team has been given 3 years to "gel" and has shown little improvement. It appears as though Rasheed is the dominant personality of the bunch even overshadowing Scottie. Wallace is likable and the other players tend to gravitate to him, plus he has been labeled as the blazers star. Unfortunately that doesn't set a good precedent for the young guys.

Onto my retarded trade idea (I'm playin with ya  ) The trade to Orlando is severely risky. Portland could land Leahandro Barborosa or Luke RIdnour at #15 (more likely Rid) In addition at #23 the should be able to nab a young big body that needs a year or 2 to develop. If Grant Hill remains healthy (huge if) he is our new Pippen type floor leader. If Hill could give Portland 20 MPG (again very risky) then it's IMO a good deal. If not we still have pick #15. Declerq is a rent a center for a season.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

BTW Portland has a young Core in the wings geling, after the Orlando deal. They stay competitive for the time being, but have this young core developing.

PG Ridnour
SG/SF Woods
PF Randolph
C Perkins or Podkolzin

Wells is still young too.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> When an owner fires his GM, it's because he's not happy with the status quo. Paul Allen is not going to fire Bob Whitsitt and hire somebody to do exactly what Whitsitt had been doing. Whitsitt's firing is an obvious signal that Allen wants to take this team in another direction. I just don't know what is so hard to understand about this, it sure does seem pretty transparent to me!


I think you have a basic misunderstanding about things. Whitsitt was NOT fired. He might have been forced out, but if Allen were truly unhappy with the job Bob did I doubt he'd want him to stick around and run the Seahawks. But that's what he's going to be doing.

Allen almost certainly knows that Whitsitt became a huge PR albatross for the Blazers organization. Changing GMs for PR reasons doesn't mean that the team is going to go in an entirely new direction.

Of course, Allen can't talk about continuity because Whitsitt is radioactive in Portland right now, but I don't see how he's suddenly thinking after so many years that his previous course of action in terms of basketball was wrong.



> Bottom line is, the Blazers lost AGAIN in the first round. And if they keep the current nucleus together, they'll lose in the first round next year, too. Seems pretty obvious to me.


OK. So only 2 WC Finals in the last 5 years. Boo-hoo.

The team is still in its prime. There's no reason for, nor evidence of, a big slip.



> Also, it's worth pointing out that other teams (Phoenix, Houston, probably even Utah) will start catching up with Portland beginning next season.


This is what everyone was saying about the Blazers LAST summer. The Clippers would be better. The Rockets would be better. Etc. It didn't happen, and I doubt it will happen next year, either. As far as the Jazz getting better (in spite of losing Stockton and probably Malone): I hope you were kidding.



> It's also worth pointing out that when Pippen is not re-signed, this Portland team gets quite a bit worse.


Worse than when we had a healthy Pippen this year? Sure. Worse than when we took Dallas to 7 games? I doubt it.

An alternative argument would be that when Payton signs for the MLE, the Blazers will be significantly better.

See, 'cause you don't know if Pippen's going, and I don't know if Payton's coming.



> This is a pretty desperate argument here. The only three dudes with upside on the roster, whose careers are not at a standstill or on the verge of the decline phase, all remain on the roster after those two trades are made. Bonzi, Zach, and Qyntel.


It's far from desperate, unless you think the age standards of previous eras in the NBA are still in effect. Players were often considered over the hill at age 32, for example, in the 1970s.

Players often continue to improve into their early 30s. FEW players nowadays get worse when they're 29 or 30. 

I don't know why you would think that Bonzi has upside but Patterson does not... he's only 13 months older. Anderson, McInnis and Wallace will be 29 within 4 months of one another later this year. The age range of 26 to 32 is the PERFECT one to field the most competitive roster. Younger teams rarely do much and older teams generally can't compete athletically.

Wallace (best player) 28. Bonzi (2nd-best) 26. ZR 21. DA 28. Those are our four best players. The Blazers are in the sweet spot for their roster. Tearing it down now doesn't make any sense.



> You guys are so nuts! You think I want your team to go to the lottery! Why would I want the Blazers to go to the lottery? What?


Schadenfreude, I'd guess. Thinking that you know something that the rest of us don't, perhaps. You obviously have no interest in seeing Portland succeed, so I don't know why you care one way or the other.



> The Blazers will only lose ground in the West. When Pippen walks, it's hard to imagine them finishing higher than sixth. It's actually pretty hard to imagine them finishing closer to fifth than to seventh-eighth.


You're building an argument on a foundation of pure speculative prediction. This is the EXACT same stuff that I was reading almost all last summer from other people, and it was no more true then than it is now.



> A $100+ mil roster that cannot make it past the first round of the playoffs is not what I call "fine," and Paul Allen obviously agrees, otherwise he would not have fired his GM.


Again: it's far from obvious that Allen agrees with your hypothesis.

And in terms of the $100m roster: I don't think it matters whether it's a $30m roster or a $200m roster... the only differences are (a) fan expectations, and (b) the franchise's profitability.

If Allen were not willing to lose money on his $100m roster, then he wouldn't have OK'd the expenditures. There are no sure things in life, and I would be shocked if a 7 game series to a 60 win team made Allen re-evaluate how the basketball side of things should be run. I am NOT shocked that the failure to advance triggered a PR-based move (although I wish it had not).



> You guys will see soon enough, and then I suppose you'll be arguing that Paul Allen is "anti-Blazer"! How hilarious! The owner of the team is "anti-Blazer"! Ridiculous!


This is a straw man. You set us up to say something totally asinine and then mock that anyone would say it.



> FINALLY: Fellas, I'd love to hear some better ideas about what to do with Rasheed this summer!


Keep him. Duh. Or trade him when the team can get real value for him, not some bench players from a team that's not as good as the Blazers.



> I'd also like to see you guys start to come around and realize that D.A. and Patterson are NOT key parts of this or any other nucleus. The Blazers are clearly better off getting rid of these two dudes for contracts that expire ASAP. You guys are used to these $100 mil payrolls in Portland. That $100 mil payroll will be closer to $50 mil two years from now, hopefully even less, WAY less, and it will be because the team will make major roster changes during the summer of 2003. D.A. is not a significant difference maker. Neither is Patterson. Neither is Dale Davis.


It's funny how the Blazers get ripped by some for not having any stars and by others for not having role players. Even funnier that some people do both.

Patterson and Anderson and Davis all have value to the Blazers. Trading them just isn't a priority for the team, IMO.

As far as saying that we're "used to these $100m payrolls", your credibility just took another hit (either for being wrong or so loosey-goosey with exaggerations). The team was over $100m this year for the first time. There's almost no chance that they will be there again next year.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

The #1 player I would trade is Bonzi, he seems very selfish on the court, many times going 1 on 1. And we all know that Grant Hill will not stay healthy. And Im not sure this Ridnour kid can do anything, just look at the hype the kid from Gonzaga got, the kid went to my highschool actually, he's an *** by the way. Im not sold on these white players honestly, very rarely do these white players come through. Id rather get a known commodity in Jay Williams in exchange for Bonzi. Sheed is the only player that can guard Duncan and the rest of the PFs. Every team is going to have questionable guys but keeping it to a minimal is the key, Sheed is one of those players where u really do need him even though u say u dont. The trading Sheed idea for G hill and the pick doesnt do it for me cuz we will be stuck with Hill's crappy contract and if we dont want Sheed then we can let him go after next season. Simple as that. The first guy I trade is Bonzi and that is for a point guard. Jay Will is very realistic and signing a couple shooters in the off season and pickin up a big center would be good. I say keep Sheed, though he isn't living up to his potential he is still one of the best in the league without a doubt.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

I happen to agree with you Sambonius about Sheed. I don't think it would be wise to get rid of him. He plays defense against the best PF's in the league very well. Yet, I do think Portland should keep Bonzi unless there is some kind of deal that couldn't be turned down. Bonzi played out of position the whole year and I think he could put up bigger numbers playing the 2 spot. He was constantly guarding bigger guys and did a decent job. I would like to see him post up other 2 guards and that would create problems for opposing teams. I just don't think a Bonzi for Jay Williams is worth it. Portland needs a point guard but they also need a scorer's mentality at the 2 and Bonzi provides that.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> Yall make some very retarded trade ideas, whatever happened to letting the nucleus gell? Eh, the only things Id do this off season is get rid of the attitudes and create roles. First Id trade Bonzi Wells for Jay Williams and Eddie Robinson.


Wow, this is hard to believe. This guy comes in here, calls our trade ideas retarded, and then proposes a never-going-to-happen-in-a-million-years trade idea in which last year's #2 OVERALL PICK gets traded for the enigmatic, disgruntled, injury-prone, little-or-no-upside Bonzi Wells. Completely laughable.


> Trade Damon off for some good role players, a shooter would be great.


Also completely laughable that anybody thinks that the Blazers can get ANYTHING GOOD AT ALL for Stoudamire and his terrible max contract. Especially somebody who is going to come in here and make fun of other trade ideas. Wow!

ED O.:

I could reply to your reply to my reply to your reply... but it's pretty obvious that we are going around in circles here, I am unable to make you come to your senses, I give up. You and others will see what's up in about two months or so, no reason to keep arguing about it. And, if you are right, well, I guess I'LL come to MY senses!

SCHILLY:

Grant Hill, c'mon, dude, what planet do you live on, seriously? What do players have to do in order for fans to realize that they are permanently damaged goods? How obvious is it that Grant Hill is toast? When will fans finally give up on this guy? I promise you that Orlando has given up on this guy. He will NEVER suit up in a Magic uniform EVER AGAIN. He is worth more to that team permanently injured then he is playing 10-15 games/year. If he is permanently injured, his contract eventually no longer counts for luxury tax purposes. But that only happens if Orlando refuses to play him AT ALL next season, he is eligible to be ruled "physically unable to resume playing" starting in around December 2004. If the goal is to clear payroll, the Blazers would be better off letting Rasheed walk, obviously.

C'mon, dude, don't tell me that I'm "anti-Blazer" and determined to get this team into the lottery ASAP. That Grant Hill trade would send this team straight to a 25-30 win season. Bonzi Wells as the go-to guy? In the Western Conference? Zach Randolph as the #2 scoring option? In the Western Conference? Anybody who thinks that is a playoff team in the West is living in a fantasy world, seriously, guys, give me a break! 25-30 win team right here:

PG Stoudamire
SG Anderson
SF Wells
PF Randolph
C Davis

12th place in the West, behind all of this year's other playoff teams, Houston, Golden State, Seattle, and Memphis. Anybody who thinks that team is better than Memphis, well, I don't know what to tell you. I have no doubt that some of you guys believe that that lineup right there would make the playoffs. Totally hilarious! Seriously!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> 
> When we get closer to the draft, guys will start getting hyped up, certain players will start seeing their draft stock skyrocket. That #6 overall pick will look a lot more interesting in a month than it does right now, in other words. And keep in mind that this is the best trade idea for Rasheed I've seen (the best REALISTIC trade offer, that is).


So because players get hyped, it will be a better deal than it looks now? That's ridiculous. Chris Wilcox, Tsitishvili and others got hyped last year and they were taken too early. Hype and ability to play are different things.



> Wallace has GOT TO GO. How can you guys not understand that? How can you not understand that getting maximum return on Rasheed ASAP is the first order of business for the new GM? How can you not realize that Okur and Bosh/Lampe beats nothing (which is what they get if Rasheed walks)?


You saying something doesn't make it true. You argue on the one hand that cap space is so valuable, but then that Portland should take some guys who won't help them any time soon... while losing cap space. It's silly.



> Allen does not agree with you, and whoever he hires will not agree with you, either. Cap flexibility is a major priority in today's NBA if you expect to win.


"Winning" doesn't include 50 games in the regular season? You're misdefining terms and then attributing your own priorities to them without any basis other than speculation.



> Anthony Peeler started for Minnesota. Mark Madsen started for L.A. Raja Bell started for Dallas. The key to winning in this league is to have AT LEAST ONE truly GREAT player, preferably TWO. The Blazers have zero truly great players right now. It's a testament to Pippen's leadership ability and to Mo Cheeks' coaching ability that the Blazers played as well as they did this year. Cheeks deserved to get some COY votes, and I bet he got very, very few.


It's at LEAST as much a testament to the team's depth as it is to Cheeks's coaching. The Blazers do not have a true superstar. We agree there. But I disagree that taking the team to the lottery hoping to get one is the best way to do it. Other teams are already on that path and the Blazers will be behind the curve there.



> The only thing Portland can do at this point to get better is to either a) luck out and get somebody good late in the first round or b) add one full MLE player per season. You can't get a star this way. And, because these players' contracts are so incredibly bloated, you can't TRADE for a star, either, because nobody wants these Blazers players at these prices. So it DOES make a big difference that D.A. makes $8 mil instead of $5 mil.


The only way that teams that go into the lottery get out are (a) adding a lottery pick and hope that he pans out, and (b) clear cap space and hope that FAs sign with you.

Hrmm... Portland's plan that you outline looks a lot safer to me than the Chicago/Cleveland/Denver route.



> Look at the Spurs this summer, and look at Portland. Who will get better this offseason? The Spurs, obviously. Why will the Spurs get better? Because of "cap flexibility." That Smith-D.A. trade has a lot to do with that! San Antonio has been shrewdly positioning themselves for the summer of 2003 for 2-3 years.


If the Spurs had DA instead of Steve Smith, they would have had a better chance to win it all last year, and they'd have a better chance this year, too. They've cost themselves Robinson's last two seasons, not to mention two years of Duncan, "positioning" for this off-season. They'll hope to replace David Robinson and get a player that fits in without hurting whatever chemistry has been established with Parker, Manu, Bowen and Duncan.

It MIGHT work out for the Spurs, and it might not.



> Portland needs to start doing the same thing. Don't think that everybody in the league does not look at San Antonio as THE MODEL when it comes to putting together an NBA franchise. Every GM who gets hired from this point on will be expected to do things the San Antonio/Detroit/Denver way.


That's a weak argument. You picked three teams, seemingly at random, and claim that the three teams are following a similar path?

The main reason San Antonio is winning right now is Tim Duncan. If the Spurs hadn't lucked out and won him in the lottery, they'd be lucky to be a playoff team this season.

The Pistons haven't done any positioning for the FA market... when was the last time that they added a significant FA not using the MLE? They have like $36m committed in contracts next year, plus a lottery pick (probably) and another first rounder... they will BARELY be able to outbid a team like Portland that has their MLE.

The Nuggets, like the Spurs, MIGHT be a better team after this summer than they would have been if Kiki hadn't blown things up. In the last couple of years, though, the Nuggets have slipped in the city's consciousness and I'm not convinced that Gilbert Arenas is going to get them to the playoffs or into the Denver spotlight any time soon.



> Patterson has been a major mistake. He's been terrible from a PR standpoint. Allen would do anything to make that guy and his terrible contract disappear. C'mon, guy, DUH!


You're just wrong. Patterson has been in trouble ONCE since he's been in Portland. In the mean time, he's considered by many Portland fans to be the only player that consistently hustles on the court. Why is that terrible from a PR perspective?



> $9 mil, $10 mil, a ton and I mean a TON of money, regardless, for a D.A.-caliber player.


No, it's not. Paul Allen is the third-richest person in the U.S. It's a ton of money for either of us, but not necessarily for the Blazers.



> Damn, dude, come ON! It ALSO means that you have no cap room! If you had cap room, you could get a D.A.-caliber player at $4-$5 mil, and ANOTHER player for another $4-$5 mil, OR you could get ONE player at $9-$10 mil instead.


A bad, bad bit of logic. If Portland didn't pay DA what they did, they could have had neither one $4-5m player nor TWO such players. 

Saying "if you had cap room" is such a huge qualifier that it makes your entire statement moot. Of COURSE Portland could sign 2 players to the same $9-10m we're due for DA... but only (a) if there were players worth adding, (b) they were willing to sign for that, and (c) the team was under the cap. 

(c) has been impossible for the Blazers since they signed Brian Grant many years ago.



> San Antonio might just get Jermaine O'Neal this summer because of how brilliantly they managed the cap. Portland has no shot at O'Neal or anybody of O'Neal's caliber, all they can offer is the MLE.


And imagine how good Portland would be if they had been in the lottery and won Duncan! Wow!

Comparing the Spurs' situation and the Blazers' situation (and where they should go) is a waste of time. The Spurs DO have a chance at Jermaine, but only because their starting center is retiring and they're relying in re-treads and young guys to help Duncan win games for them. They're obviously a very, very good team but it's not like their success is easily reproduced.



> I hope you don't really believe that Patterson is as valuable in this league as Howard. The point is that Patterson at $6 mil is not a valuable commodity, because $6 mil in today's market gets you way more than Ruben Patterson. Patterson has no real trade value because of his contract (among other reasons). The key to winning is to sign players to reasonable contracts, to get bang for your buck. If you overpay for talent, you are really limited in what you can and cannot do via trade and free agency.


Again, you seem to think that trade value determines the value of the player. RP was a free agent. Acquiring him was free. If Portland got ANYTHING in trade for him, it would be a bonus. They have already received a couple of pretty good years out of him and at age 27 his best days are ahead of him.



> Rip will re-sign this summer for an extension that will pay him LESS than what D.A. will be getting. That's the point.


Well, when you make predictions to make a point (and you seem fond of doing that) you should be more explicit. 



> Give me a break, Bonzi is obviously the better player, everybody on the planet, including D.A., understands that. More "stable"? Sure, I'll buy that. But Bonzi is a SIGNIFICANTLY more valuable commodity than D.A. for any number of reasons.


I don't define a player's worth to his team based on his worth to another team. They are not the same thing.



> "This" being that the Blazers will rebuild this summer. Again, the writing is pretty obviously on the wall, if you guys can't read it, that's not my problem. You'll find out soon enough, the rebuilding process begins in about two months.


*yawn*



> Bottom line, Portland has lost in the first round of the playoffs, what, three years in a row with this nucleus? Again, why do you think Bob Whitsitt got fired? Did he get fired because Paul Allen is in love with the team that he has put together? OBVIOUSLY NOT!


I think I addressed this in an earlier post.



> Of course that young nucleus is worse than the team you have now! Duh! YOU ARE REBUILDING! I'd argue that it is better than Cleveland's nucleus, which I really don't like AT ALL, and I'd also argue that Chicago is going to have problems ever being as good as people think because of the lousy contracts of Jalen Rose and Eddie Robinson.


Funny how you only can point to Denver, a team that hasn't accomplished anything, as the team that's "succeeded" using the strategy you are so convinced Portland should employ. You totally might be a prophet, but I think that the rebuilding path has consistently led to repeated lottery appearances and I'll take my chances with a 50-win team in its prime.



> That's right, rotting nucleus, rots more and more every single year. Rasheed's numbers get worse and worse every single year. And, if Paul Allen did not think that this was a rotting nucleus, than Bob Whitsitt would've gotten an extension, he wouldn't have gotten fired, DUH!


Do you think "duh" is a good way to make a point?

And you think that Wallace's number have gotten worse and worse every year? Or are you just being lazy and not looking it up because it helps support yout "rotting nucleus" theory?

And you think that going from 50 to 49 to 50 wins (after making the WC Finals the two previous seasons) is evidence that the team has been rotting?

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> 
> Wow, this is hard to believe. This guy comes in here, calls our trade ideas retarded, and then proposes a never-going-to-happen-in-a-million-years trade idea in which last year's #2 OVERALL PICK gets traded for the enigmatic, disgruntled, injury-prone, little-or-no-upside Bonzi Wells. Completely laughable.
> 
> Also completely laughable that anybody thinks that the Blazers can get ANYTHING GOOD AT ALL for Stoudamire and his terrible max contract. Especially somebody who is going to come in here and make fun of other trade ideas. Wow!


Quick to forget Rodney Rogers was traded for McDeyess who was the #2 overall pick on draft day. Ooh child you have a lot to learn, Bonzi is proven and Jay WIlliams has Jamal Crawford to contend with, the idea is very realistic. Bonzi has plenty of upside, you must have a lazy eye or something not to see that. 

All I want for Damon is some good citizens to surround the young players like Zach and Qyntel. Damon raised his value a lot in the post season and someone like Boston would love to have Damon. Plenty of teams I am sure wouldn't mind to add Damon even at his cost, his contract runs out in 2 seasons.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> 
> Wow, this is hard to believe. This guy comes in here, calls our trade ideas retarded, and then proposes a never-going-to-happen-in-a-million-years trade idea in which last year's #2 OVERALL PICK gets traded for the enigmatic, disgruntled, injury-prone, little-or-no-upside Bonzi Wells. Completely laughable.


Well, I don't ever call people's trade ideas retarded, but I think you are in left field when it comes to perceived trade value, roby... or most of the rest of bbb.net is. I know that many Bulls fans would trade Jay Williams for a deal centering on Ruben Patterson. They might be wrong, but to say that a Bonzi-Jay idea is never going to happen seems wrong.

Also, didn't you say earlier in this thread that Wells was a difference-maker and that he had upside? It seems you're changing your definition of players based on your argument. Which is fine. Just wanted to see if you had a reason for doing it other than being disingenuous.



> Also completely laughable that anybody thinks that the Blazers can get ANYTHING GOOD AT ALL for Stoudamire and his terrible max contract. Especially somebody who is going to come in here and make fun of other trade ideas. Wow!


What did the Mavs get for Juwan Howard again?

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

COme on ROby WHich is it do I overvalue Sheed or Undervalue him? Duuuhhhh...As if any one would think Grant is the Grant of old. If you bothered to read my post you will notice that I repeatedly pointed out the risk that Grant will never play again, even took into consideration that he would possibly retire due to his injuries.

I figured a Sheed for a bunch of dead weight and a mediocre draft pick would be right up your alley. Kinda makes me wonder what your intentions of posting are.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, I don't ever call people's trade ideas retarded, but I think you are in left field when it comes to perceived trade value, roby... or most of the rest of bbb.net is.
> ...


I think Roby thinks he's the only one here smart enough to tie his own shoes. BTW Velcro doesn't count.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

LOL:laugh:


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> 
> Uncle Cliffy is really just trade filler in that deal. He also has a contract that expires ASAP (after two years). Corliss Williamson and Chucky Atkins, their contracts last for at least three more years. That's why Uncle Cliffy makes sense for Portland here. The key to the deal is obviously Okur and Bosh/Lampe.


I wouldn't trade Rasheed, a proven player for an "interesting" Okur, who has had about 15 good games including the playoffs. And Chris Bosh and Lampe, although high-draft picks at 4-6 are still a HUGE dropoff from supposed givens like Lebron, Milicic, and Anthony.

STuart


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

I mean this in the best possible way: anybody who thinks that the Bulls are interested in trading Jay Williams somehow for Ruben Patterson has no idea what he/she is talking about. C'mon, guys. I'm condescending if I think that I know more about the NBA than somebody who thinks that trading Jay Williams for Ruben Patterson is a good idea? Totally idiotic idea. Not an opinion, a fact.

And how can anybody defend Patterson? The dude made his babysitter go down on him, THAT IS CALLED RAPE, and he beat his wife. He's a terrible human being. Portland is a progressive city. Many residents of this city flat out are not interested in rooting for a team with terrible human beings such as Patterson playing for them. You get rid of Patterson ASAP for a million different reasons. Somebody will take this guy. You get whatever you can get for him, you don't haggle.

"Ooh child I have a lot to learn..."--Sambonius

Sambonius, again, if you think that the Bulls are interested in giving up on the #2 overall pick from last year's draft this early, especially for the enigmatic/injury-prone/little-to-no-upside Bonzi Wells, I don't know what to tell you, dude. YOU have a lot more to learn than me, apparently.

ED O.:

Wilcox and Tskitishvili were admittedly projects when they were drafted, they remain projects. We won't know if those two guys were mistakes or not for another couple of years.

Subtract Steve Smith, add Derek Anderson, the Spurs lose to the Lakers last year, they are the favorites this year. Same result if you add Smith, subtract D.A. The Spurs thought Smith had a little bit more in the tank than he did, they were wrong, but at least they didn't have to jeopardize their 2003 cap room in this deal. D.A. is not a difference-maker. Solid role player, but he's injury-prone and incredibly overpaid. The Spurs never looked back, great trade for them.

EVERYBODY:

Man, I'm tired of trying to reason with some of you guys. None of the types of moves that any of us are predicting or not predicting can possibly happen until mid-July, anyway, so maybe we should just postpone any arguing about it until then. I've laid out a plan, I've told you guys what I think is going to happen. Some of you probably realize that what I'm saying could very well happen. Some of you don't. All I can say is that Paul Allen would not have fired Bob Whitsitt (and he WAS FIRED, you know) if he was happy with Whitsitt's results. The largest payroll in the league, and three consecutive first round exits. Not good results. Not terrible results, but not exactly the return on his investment that Allen was hoping for. If Allen liked the way this team was constructed, he would not have fired Whitsitt. I think that this is pretty obvious to the casual observer, and I would think that any NON-casual observer (i.e., ANY HARDCORE BLAZERS FAN) would find it INCREDIBLY obvious, but apparently not!

Rasheed = GONE! He's gone! As soon as they get a nice offer! And it won't be as nice as you guys want it to be, either!

Patterson = GONE! So gone!

Pippen = GONE! Why do you think he's discussing retirement? His team told him they aren't willing to give him the money that he feels he's worth! He's insulted and down on himself right now, he will either end up signing elsewhere or he'll retire, but his Blazers playing career is SO OVER!

Everybody else = remains to be seen, but it's a given that if you trade Rasheed, you'll be getting prospects, draft picks, and expiring contracts in return (it SHOULD be, anyway).

QUESTION: Take away Rasheed and Pippen, replace them with prospects, draft picks, and expiring contracts, and what do you get?

Answer = LOTTERY TEAM!

This is not "anti-Blazer," this is REALITY, fellas!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Roby, are you willing to back up your "prophetic predictions"?

About Rasheed, you are right, he will be gone, but the key word here is nice offer. Now a nice offer is not one that tralent wise will knock our socks off, but it also wouldn't likel be so lopsided that Portland all of a sudden sucks.

About Rueben for Jay Williams...??? No one suggested it. The suggestion was Bonzi Wells. You may be right unless Chicago feels he was a total bust in which case he obviously wouldn't all of a sudden be starting in Portland.

Pippen is done...period.

Portland is stuck with Damon for at least one more year.

You seem to think nobody on Portland has any trade value, well you are indeed wrong.

Portland will IMO slip a little next year, but still make the playoffs as Utah won't even sniff the playoffs, and Seattle or Houston will move up. Of course it is hard to tell being that the draft hasn't happened and neither has any player movement.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> 
> This is not "anti-Blazer," this is REALITY, fellas!


Just as saying "DUH!" and "come ON!" repeatedly is not logic, making a bunch of predictions and then claiming it as the reason you're right is not reality.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ummm...BTW Roby I am very good friends with a person with extremely close ties to the organization...Bob Whitsitt was not fired, hate to burst your bubble.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> 
> And keep in mind that this is the best trade idea for Rasheed I've seen (the best REALISTIC trade offer, that is).


Hilarious. The plan *you* came up with is the one *you* are dubbing the "best trade idea you've seen"? Biased much, you think?

I'm sure the Lakers believe they could referee their own games the *very best* of anyone.

Look, we know you like the "blow it all up and start from scratch" plan. Very few others do and there are really no examples of success for it. Proposing endless "Become crappy and then dominate for years" plans, where you essentially hype a bunch of European players that you think will be great draft picks five years into the future doesn't convince people more.

Point to some teams that actually did this and built a champion. Not teams that are currently doing it, but haven't actually built anything yet and who's GM you've deified (Denver).


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Roby, are you willing to back up your "prophetic predictions"?


Who said I'm a "prophet"? I didn't. I'm just giving you guys an alternative scenario and the rationale behind that scenario. Am I willing to back up my predictions? You mean am I willing to bet on it? You come up with the bet, and maybe I will. I am definitely willing to bet that Portland wins fewer games next season than they did this past season. I'm also willing to bet that Payton does not sign with Portland. I'm also willing to bet that, whenever Rasheed does finally get traded, hardcore Blazers fans will not be happy with what they get in return for him. I'm also willing to bet that Pippen's playing career in Portland is over. Anybody who wants to make one of these bets with me, let me know.


> About Rasheed, you are right, he will be gone, but the key word here is nice offer. Now a nice offer is not one that tralent wise will knock our socks off, but it also wouldn't likel be so lopsided that Portland all of a sudden sucks.


Well, you guys aren't going to get a great offer for Rasheed. Rasheed is not the most desirable commodity in the world right now. Now, you could hold onto the dude and hope he has a career year next year. If he knows what is right for him, he WILL have a career year, because there is a LOT of money riding on next year for Rasheed.

Also, Okur and Bosh/Lampe, not a bad offer right there. You get two very nice young players with a ton of upside. What do you think you're going to get for Rasheed? A great veteran? If a team has a great veteran, why would they trade him for Rasheed Wallace? I like Rasheed, I actually think the dude will really benefit from a change of scenery, but he's not "great." If you think he's "great," then you are using that term very VERY liberally. MAYBE you guys get a Shareef Abdur-Rahim for Rasheed via trade, but fellas, SAR is not going to take this team to the promised land (i.e., the second round or beyond), anybody who thinks that is living in a fantasy world.


> About Rueben for Jay Williams...??? No one suggested it. The suggestion was Bonzi Wells. You may be right unless Chicago feels he was a total bust in which case he obviously wouldn't all of a sudden be starting in Portland.





> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> ...I know that many Bulls fans would trade Jay Williams for a deal centering on Ruben Patterson...
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> Well, you guys aren't going to get a great offer for Rasheed. Rasheed is not the most desirable commodity in the world right now. Now, you could hold onto the dude and hope he has a career year next year. If he knows what is right for him, he WILL have a career year, because there is a LOT of money riding on next year for Rasheed.


Rasheed already had his career year a couple years ago. I wouldn't hold my breath for it to happen again.



> Also, Okur and Bosh/Lampe, not a bad offer right there. You get two very nice young players with a ton of upside. What do you think you're going to get for Rasheed? A great veteran? If a team has a great veteran, why would they trade him for Rasheed Wallace? I like Rasheed, I actually think the dude will really benefit from a change of scenery, but he's not "great." If you think he's "great," then you are using that term very VERY liberally. MAYBE you guys get a Shareef Abdur-Rahim for Rasheed via trade, but fellas, SAR is not going to take this team to the promised land (i.e., the second round or beyond), anybody who thinks that is living in a fantasy world.


SAR is indeed not a step up, but that is a more likely talent level that Portland fans would be interested in.




> Allen, in his comments following the Whitsitt firing, asked fans to be "patient." You guys may not know what that means, but I do!


Prophetic statement. 



> Have you people ever heard of reading between the lines? That's right, Bob Whitsitt wasn't "fired," he was "let go," or he "decided that he should step down." When somebody is fired, that person and his/her employer often choose to avoid negative terminology such as "fired." When things get ugly, then we see terms such as "fired" getting thrown around.


Ok you may be right except 1 thing. Allen did retain Whitsitt as GM of the Seachickens errr..Seahawks. Not exactly what you would expect if indeed he was fired due to performance as GM.

I'm going home catch yall tomorrow.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> Will Portland blow things up this summer? I don't know. I'm just arguing that they MIGHT, that it is AN OPTION.


I don't know. Your tone suggests that it's obviously going to happen and when will the rest of us wake up and see the Truth that you've already understood. 



> I think they SHOULD. I think it's worth the gamble. Some of you guys don't think it's worth the gamble, and that's fine.


Fair enough. However, I can point to more 50-win teams that hit a lull and then re-tooled to become a championship contender than I can point to teams that blew it all up and subsquently built a championship contender.

So, the odds suggest that Portland, as a 50-win team, is better off maneuvering a bit, trying to upgrade where they can and looking for a shot to go all the way then they are disassembling the talent they do have and hoping that they climb from nothing to a championship contender.

To address a point you made about Portland's "hands being tied" by both being over the cap and having overpaid players, I'd note that the three most intriguing talents the Blazers have added over the past few years, Jermaine O'Neal, Zach Randolph and Qyntel Woods, have come out of that same situation. The Blazers have played the draft beautifully and proven that great value can be gained from that source. One doesn't need to become horrible in order to find excellent talent in the draft. It's entirely possible, even likely, that whoever Detroit gets with the #6 pick that you tout so highly won't even be as good a player as Randolph will be.

Further, with teams increasingly worrying about the luxury tax, Portland has the ability to add an interesting player every so often with the mid-level exception.

I think the problem with your plans is that you undervalue Portland's young talent and overvalue other teams' young talent. Perhaps that's why you're labelled "Anti-Blazer," (I don't label you as such, I have no idea your feelings about the Blazers).

Most Portland fans see a current 50-win team with some good young talent and some talents in their primes. They see that as a good springboard to higher levels, with the right movies. You seem to see an old team with no terribly worthwhile talents, ones that Portland desperately would want to get rid of but other teams don't really want.

Those alternate views lead to radically different opinions on how to proceed. You've made your (many  ) pitches that reflect your view. If you *really* want to debate these issues with primarily Portland fans, perhaps you should give the alternate viewpoint some thought.



> But to argue that blowing it up is not even an option, well, that's ridiculous, because it obviously is.


It's always an option, even for the Lakers or Spurs. The question is, what are the *odds* that such an approach will work, since after the fact it's too late to undo it. Going by history, the odds are really poor. A key issue is that something that sounds nice in theory but has yet to work in practice could simply be mostly unworkable, due to factors you don't consider. Consider Communism.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Ummm...BTW Roby I am very good friends with a person with extremely close ties to the organization...Bob Whitsitt was not fired, hate to burst your bubble.


I know you won't see this till tomorrow Schilly, but I don't have any close ties to the organization..but thanks anyway!


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> If Damon went to the right team he could do great, but it is *addiction* by subtraction, if u can solid citizens to balance the team out by Sheed and Ruby then the youngsters like Zach and Q can develope under good conditions.


Freudian Slip or typo?:laugh:


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Robby is incredibly funny, just because he typed out some long azz parapraphs he is right? Hey Robby, wake up buddy, u aint Nostrodamus. None of what u said in your posts means anything. Ur opinion on players doesn't mean much coming from a fan, u don't hold any more credibility than me or the next guy, we aren't GMs.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> Rasheed already had his career year a couple years ago. I wouldn't hold my breath for it to happen again.
> 
> ...


Depends on what you define as a step up. SAR is more consistent than Sheed. He is less of a headache than Sheed. He has more experience playing SF....which makes him a better partner for Zach.

Of course, there are arguments on the other side (EG Sheed's defense).......but this would not be a "dump" deal.....and that is what many of us are rabid to avoid!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> 
> Of course, there are arguments on the other side (EG Sheed's defense).......but this would not be a "dump" deal.....and that is what many of us are rabid to avoid!


This is an excellent point. While I would rather keep Rasheed than acquire SAR, it's at least a deal that I could see the Blazers making for basketball reasons, rather than other (more purely PR) ones. Throw in Ratliffe (plus balancing contracts from Portland's side, as needed) and Portland gets a couple of good players while the Hawks get a lot of salary relief...

Ed O.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> This is an excellent point. While I would rather keep Rasheed than acquire SAR, it's at least a deal that I could see the Blazers making for basketball reasons, rather than other (more purely PR) ones. Throw in Ratliffe (plus balancing contracts from Portland's side, as needed) and Portland gets a couple of good players while the Hawks get a lot of salary relief...
> ...


I haven't hide the fact that I really like SAR. I would love a Sheed and filler for SAR and Ratliff. It fills I think both sides of the keep, or trade Sheed argument. I think Sheed has more talent, but bad for our lockroom. SAR is a downgrade talent, but has a good work ethic. Theo has a bad contract, but give Portland a shot blocker which they need. We need another athletic tall defender if Sheed is traded. While ED O and I don't agree on many things around Sheed, I agree we need to get a good deal to move Sheed and I like this one.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

This trade sounds fine to me. I only have one question. What kind of filler would we need to throw in to make it work?


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>gambitnut</b>!
> This trade sounds fine to me. I only have one question. What kind of filler would we need to throw in to make it work?


It was actually hard to make a deal that sounds fair to both teams. Here are the two I came up with.

Atlanta trades: PG Jason Terry (17.2 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 7.4 apg in 38.0 minutes) 
PF Shareef Abdur-Rahim (19.9 ppg, 8.4 rpg, 3.0 apg in 38.1 minutes) 
C Theo Ratliff (8.7 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 0.9 apg in 31.1 minutes) 
Atlanta receives: PF Rasheed Wallace (18.1 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 2.1 apg in 74 games) 
SF Ruben Patterson (8.3 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 1.3 apg in 78 games) 
PG Jeff McInnis (5.8 ppg, 1.3 rpg, 2.3 apg in 75 games) 


The other one is almost the same.



Portland trades: SF Ruben Patterson (8.3 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 1.3 apg in 21.2 minutes) 
PF Rasheed Wallace (18.1 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 2.1 apg in 36.3 minutes) 
Portland receives: C Theo Ratliff (8.7 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 0.9 apg in 31.1 minutes) 
PF Shareef Abdur-Rahim (19.9 ppg, 8.4 rpg, 3.0 apg in 38.1 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: +2.2 ppg, +5.1 rpg, and +0.5 apg. 

Atlanta trades: C Theo Ratliff (8.7 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 0.9 apg in 31.1 minutes) 
PF Shareef Abdur-Rahim (19.9 ppg, 8.4 rpg, 3.0 apg in 38.1 minutes) 
Atlanta receives: SF Ruben Patterson (8.3 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 1.3 apg in 78 games) 
PF Rasheed Wallace (18.1 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 2.1 apg in 74 games) 
Change in team outlook: -2.2 ppg, -5.1 rpg, and -0.5 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED

I'm not sure which trade if any is fair. I like the first one, but it might not be ok with Atlanta.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

*I just went to RealGM*

According to them, there is a HUGE difference between the salaries the two teams exchange in that trade. It took Patterson to even things up. Would you still do the trade? As I said in another thread, I think we will have to trade Patterson for PR, but, again, I'm not sure if this is the fairest trade we can get with him.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

*Re: I just went to RealGM*



> Originally posted by <b>gambitnut</b>!
> According to them, there is a HUGE difference between the salaries the two teams exchange in that trade. It took Patterson to even things up. Would you still do the trade? As I said in another thread, I think we will have to trade Patterson for PR, but, again, I'm not sure if this is the fairest trade we can get with him.



I would do both of the trades I posted. SAR, Ratliff and Terry for Sheed, Ruben and McInnis I like best. 

I would however trade Ruben and Sheed for Ratliff and SAR.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I read these posts earlier and was going to comment, but both Minstrel and Ed, pretty much said what I was going to say. The "blow it up plan" is unproven AT BEST, in fact there is not ONE team you can point to and say that strtegy worked for. Everyone loves Kiki now, but folks DEN still sucks, HORRIBLY SUCKS. I highly doubt, Nene and Sketa aren't going to win them a title 4-5 years from now. Now if DEN gets lucky and draws the #1 slot and gets LeBron, well then Kiki MIGHT look like a genuis. Its really all about timing, why are the Spurs so good? Well, they happened to get LUCKY and get the #1 pick when Tim Duncan came out, too bad for WAS there weren't any Tim Duncans available. If DEN falls out of the top 3, it WILL be another GRUESOME year in DEN, and make no mistake, there is a timetable for Kiki, he can get away with a few years of BAD basketball, but sooner or later if he doesn't turn it around, he will be gone. As for Cap room and Free agency, athletes want the best of both worlds Roby, they want the jack AND they want to win. So DEN may be able to offer more than most teams, but I'd be surprised if any marquee free agents landed there. Why sign with DEN, when you can force your team to deal you in a S & T, to a better team? So far very few teams have blinked at this ploy, hell even Whitsitt fell (miserably) for it with B.Grant. 

The draft just has so few guarnatees anymore, and the ones that are, are (Duncan, Shaq, LeBron??) so few and far between. Its either that or hope that you hit it right on your pick (see Nowitzki, McGrady, Kobe), and that is the most unexact science there is. Look around these boards, ill bet there is a post on about 20-25 other players, whom someone is SURE will be the next superstar. We know that isn't true, someone outside the top 3 will be, but your guess is as good as mine.

As for Wallace, I don't see POR trading him for what your offering, I don't believe they are desperate to get rid of him, therefore they will wait until they see a deal they like, or they will hold onto him. Personally I'd like to see Sheed go, but a frontline of Davis, Sheed and Zach could be very good next year. I just hope our scouts keep up the great work they are doing, and if we do stay at #23, hopefully we can pull out an O'Neal, Zach, Q instead of a Childress.


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> This is an excellent point. While I would rather keep Rasheed than acquire SAR, it's at least a deal that I could see the Blazers making for basketball reasons, rather than other (more purely PR) ones. Throw in Ratliffe (plus balancing contracts from Portland's side, as needed) and Portland gets a couple of good players while the Hawks get a lot of salary relief...
> ...



i think that that last sentence is perfectly representative of the trade proposals we see involving the blazers here (at least the ones i've seen to date). the perception is that the blazers primarily need talent in return and their counterparts primarily need to improve their respective financial states (vis a vis the cap, the luxury tax or a combination of both).

"and portland gets a couple of good players while the (insert) get a lot of salary relief".

it's a double standard, i'm just not aware that it's been acknowledged- or will be in the future.

peace


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

*I checked the trade with McInnis and Terry at RealGM*

It works as well. Can Terry play Point guard or is he another small shooting guard? By the way, I posted both that trade and the one without McInnis and Terry on the Hawks Board.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

I don't think the Nets are gonna trade Nemad, some say if he waited until this year, he would be a lottery pick. With another low low pick this year, why would they give up on someone like that?

-Petey


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ballocks</b>!
> 
> i think that that last sentence is perfectly representative of the trade proposals we see involving the blazers here (at least the ones i've seen to date). the perception is that the blazers primarily need talent in return and their counterparts primarily need to improve their respective financial states (vis a vis the cap, the luxury tax or a combination of both).
> 
> ...


Sure it's a double standard. So what? It's also realistic.

Why is it a double standard? Because one team can take on talent while absorbing big salaries, while the majority of the rest of the league cannot.

Why is it realistic? Because Portland's owner is the third-richest person in the U.S. Because he's been willing to pay more than double the salary cap. Because there's never been any rumor of the Blazers making a salary-cap move (other than buying out Shawn Kemp, which is entirely different than a trade to move salary).

Let's look at Atlanta: terrible attendance. Bad revenue streams. Not a terribly wealthy owner. Reportedly considered trading both SAR and Ratliffe at the trade deadline in salary-dumping moves... (and NOT reported by Portland fans or media, either). A team that's going nowhere even in a weak conference. A prime candidate to make salary-dumping moves.

Add in the fact that the Hawks would be getting the best player in the deal and I don't see how you can say with a straight face it's not a deal the Hawks would consider.

Even if you DO disagree, though, that it's a basically fair swap, acting like Portland fans have some unreasonable expectation that their team can take on talent while absorbing big salaries when the recent histories of the NBA and the Blazers indicate that these things ARE realistic shows me that you don't pay very close attention to how things work.

Of course, I could be wrong. Please feel free to tell me why.

Ed O.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

*Here is something I just posted on another thread, in case you missed it...*

I don't think the Blazers will be signing any big name guys this summer. I don't think they'll spend their entire MLE on one dude, in other words. They may add an interesting player or prospect at a bargain salary, but I think that'll be about it.

Let's say Portland makes that deal I'm suggesting with Detroit (Rasheed for Okur, Uncle Cliffy, Memphis' #6 overall pick, Michael Curry, Zeljko Rebraca, and Michael Curry). And that they also make that longterm salary-clearing trade with New Jersey (D.A., Patterson, and Davis for Mutombo, Rodney Rogers, Brandon Armstrong, and New Jersey's #22 overall 2003 draft pick). The Blazers will have a pretty full roster, take a look (dudes are in no particular order):

1 Mehmet Okur
2 Clifford Robinson
3 Maciej Lampe/Chris Bosh (#6 overall pick)
4 Michael Curry
5 Zeljko Rebraca
6 Hubert Davis
7 Dikembe Mutombo
8 Rodney Rogers
9 Brandon Armstrong
10 Boris Diaw? (#22 overall pick)
11 Josh Powell? (#23 overall pick)
12 Damon Stoudamire
13 Jeff McInnis
14 Bonzi Wells
15 Zach Randolph
16 Qyntel Woods
17 Arvydas Sabonis

The Blazers would have to waive two dudes (probably Armstrong and either Rebraca or Davis) just to make room for 15 dudes (12 active roster dudes plus 3 IR dudes)! In order to make room for a free agent, they'd have to waive an ADDITIONAL dude!

They could always bring back Antonio Daniels (who can be had for CHEAP, around $1.5 mil) and waive Armstrong, Rebraca, AND Davis. Let's say that happens, here is their potential 2003-04 roster:

Starting lineup

PG Damon Stoudamire (36 mpg)
SG Bonzi Wells (36 mpg)
SF Michael Curry (20 mpg)
PF Zach Randolph (36 mpg)
C Mehmet Okur (36 mpg)

Key reserves: Antonio Daniels (16 mpg), Clifford Robinson (16 mpg), Arvydas Sabonis (16 mpg), Qyntel Woods (16 mpg), Jeff McInnis (12 mpg)

End of the bench (no PT): Maciej Lampe/Chris Bosh (either dude is too raw to touch the floor as a rookie), Rodney Rogers (odd man out)

Stashed on the IR: Dikembe Mutombo (this guy's career is effectively over), Boris Diaw (too raw), Josh Powell (too raw)

Waived (all three contracts expire at the end of the 2003-04 season, anyway*): Hubert Davis, Zeljko Rebraca, Brandon Armstrong (and, if he's signed through 2003-04, Ruben Boumtje-Boumtje)

*NOTE: Portland MIGHT be able to turn around and include these expiring contracts in a trade with a team looking to dump payroll. A team does not have to trim its roster down to 15 until the preseason, so Portland could maybe move these dudes somehow for something interesting. If not, they can just waive them, obviously.

This team is not a playoff team, but the team will have "cap flexibility" in two years (summer of 2005), and, in the meantime, you have quite a few blue collar types who should really help win back some alienated fans. No reason for you guys who think I'm Mr. Anti-Blazer to tell me how much you think this idea sucks, TRUST ME, I ALREADY KNOW, I just thought you might be interested to see how I visualize the 2003-04 Blazers roster after my imagined and hated trades!

If there is a team (or two!) that is worried about losing a key player via free agency (just as Minnesota is worried about losing KG as we speak) anytime from July 2004 through February 2005, the Blazers will have an ENORMOUS amount of expiring contracts to play around with, take a look at whose contracts will expire at the end of the 2004-05 season:

1 Dikembe Mutombo
2 Damon Stoudamire
3 Arvydas Sabonis
4 Clifford Robinson
5 Rodney Rogers
6 Jeff McInnis

I don't think you guys realize how much money these guys COMBINED will be making in 2004-05. We're talking $50-$55 mil here! A team like, say, Philly may be worried about losing The Great Allen Iverson, for example. Portland could bail Philly out on an unwanted contract (Keith Van Horn, for example, whose contract would expire the following summer, the summer of 2006) and acquire Iverson for $35ish mil worth of expiring contracts plus, say, Lampe/Bosh, Woods, and a draft pick or two. That leaves another $15-$20ish mil of expiring contracts to play around with. The Blazers could THEN acquire ANOTHER player whose team is worried that he's going to walk, another potential 2005 free agent.

If Orlando loses in the first round next season AGAIN, then we may start seeing Tracy McGrady start making threats. If that happens, if T-Mac suddenly becomes somewhat available, well, wouldn't you like your team to be able to make a nice offer? Right now, Portland cannot make a nice offer for ANY top 10-15 player, either because their contracts are all bloated, they don't have any REALLY good cheap young players (Randolph is GOOD, but not REALLY good, in my opinion), many of their players come with a significant amount of baggage. Portland cannot make a decent offer for KG. With some roster restructuring, that can change.

See, you don't have to just let expiring contracts expire, you can use them to acquire nice commodities from teams that are having payroll/luxury tax problems, teams that are wanting to rebuild, teams that are worried about losing a star player via free agency with no compensation whatsoever. I don't know if an Iverson will be available. Maybe not. But there are ALWAYS players available, there are ALWAYS teams here in the luxury tax era who are willing to cough up something good for expiring contracts, prospects, and draft picks.

The problem with all of these KG offers that we've been seeing is that the Timberwolves generally end up with a bunch of unwanted overpaid dudes (such as Jalen Rose and Eddie Robinson), they end up trading away their perennial MVP candidate and they are STILL stuck with a $60ish mil payroll. If a team had not only cheap, interesting young prospects and draft picks but ALSO EXPIRING CONTRACTS (and a LOT of expiring contracts!), Minnesota would be way more tempted. If a team could swoop in with $35-$40 mil worth of expiring contracts--if Minnesota could reduce its payroll in 2004-05 from $60 mil the previous season to $20-$25 mil (!)--then I GUARANTEE YOU that Minnesota would be way more interested. 

If Minnesota is going to trade KG, they are going to suck, and if you're going to suck, you don't want to have a $60 mil payroll, you don't even want to have a $45-$50 mil payroll, you want that payroll down as low as it can get. If Portland was in the position this summer that they COULD be NEXT summer, they could reduce Minnesota's payroll by $35-$40 mil (by trading for not only KG but also unwanted overpaid dudes such as Joe Smith and Marc Jackson) AND give Minnesota some interesting players (Randolph, Lampe/Bosh) and draft picks (Portland would have a high to mid lottery pick if they played an entire season with the suggested 12-man roster, that team would NOT be good).

However, the only way Portland can make such an offer is if they make a couple of moves to significantly restructure their team. Both trades I suggest accomplish this goal, and the KEY members of the nucleus all remain EXCEPT for Rasheed (D.A., Patterson, Davis = NOT KEY MEMBERS OF ANY TEAM'S LONGTERM NUCLEUS!).

Again, just trying to offer a different perspective of the direction Portland can go in starting THIS SUMMER and why it's not such a disastrous idea to give The Kiki Plan or a variation on The Kiki Plan a shot!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Here is something I just posted on another thread, in case you missed it...*



> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> ...why it's not such a disastrous idea to give The Kiki Plan or a variation on The Kiki Plan a shot!


It's not the "Kiki Plan." Kiki Vandeweghe did not come up with it. It's older than dirt. You act like this is some clever innovation by Vandeweghe.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Here is something I just posted on another thread, in case you missed it...*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> It's not the "Kiki Plan." Kiki Vandeweghe did not come up with it. It's older than dirt. You act like this is some clever innovation by Vandeweghe.


Fair enough, you guys give it another name, and I'll start using that name instead.


----------

