# Blazers extend offer sheet to Wilkins



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

Locke (usually a reliable source) is reporting this on his blog, thought i'd post it here...

http://lockedonsports.blogspot.com/



> According to sources in the NBA the Portland Trailblazers will extend an offer sheet to the Sonics Damien Wilkins. Contract details are not clear, but word on the street is that deal is significant. Translation the Blazers are over paying Wilkins in order to make sure the Sonics don't match the deal.
> The Sonics had Juan Dixon in town all weekend and are hoping they can get him signed. The issue is whether or not Flip Murray and Juan Dixon would be redundant. Murray is a restricted free agent.
> Last season Wilkins averaged just 6 points per game in only 29 games played. In the playoffs he got extended time due to the injury to Rashard Lewis. In the playoffs he averaged 5.6 points per game in 19 minutes per game. Wilkins shot 44% from the field and 27% from three in both the regular season and the playoffs.



No details on the deal, but it sounds like the Blazers are going to overpay to make sure the Sonics don't match.

I don't really get this deal for the Blazers, adding yet another SF ? :raised_ey


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

It doesn't make much sense unless Nate thinks he can play SG. Did he play that spot at all last season for the Sonics?


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> It doesn't make much sense unless Nate thinks he can play SG. Did he play that spot at all last season for the Sonics?


He might have played a little bit of SG, as a defensive specialist. But, he's more of a SF. I don't think his ball-handling or outside shooting is good enough to play many minutes at the SG (unless he's improved from last season).


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Who knows, maybe Nash has a plan to trade 4 or 5 of our stable of SF's for a decent SG. Think the Sonics would part with Ray?


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I think that if this is true then Nash has already found a trade for miles. Just a guess, but if the sonics dont match, look for Miles to be traded within a few days, likely for a front court player.


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

Now i am 100% sure that DA is gone i trust nates judgement on damien i think its a good offer sheet


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

Blazerben4 said:


> Now i am 100% sure that DA is gone i trust nates judgement on damien i think its a good offer sheet


What team would trade for him ? DA's got a terrible contract, and doesn't contribute much on the court. So unless you're taking on an even worse contract (which would go against the direction Blazer management has been heading), no team will touch him. 

Unless you're talking about waiving him ?


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

when can they start making trades real and signing sfs?


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Waive him is exactly right.

The good thing about this is that I trust Nate in wanting wilkins since he has coached the kid last year. It sounds like this is Nate's trade.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Scinos said:


> What team would trade for him ? DA's got a terrible contract, and doesn't contribute much on the court. So unless you're taking on an even worse contract (which would go against the direction Blazer management has been heading), no team will touch him.
> 
> Unless you're talking about waiving him ?


There's been talk of a buyout.


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

well obviously this is Nate's doing. why not screw the Sonics some more Nate.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

myELFboy said:


> well obviously this is Nate's doing. why not screw the Sonics some more Nate.


I know. I'm lovin' it to.. :clap:


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

of course the blazers are gonna go after a guy that had his best games against them lol


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Martell Webster
Travis Outlaw
Darius Miles
Viktor Khryapa
Sergei Monya
Ruben Patterson
_Damien Wilkins_

There has to be a deal on the horizon if we do indeed snag Wilkins from Seattle. This is just way too many swingmen.


----------



## Chalupa (Jul 20, 2005)

In Nate we trust. 
If the coach feels that Damien Wilkins worth bringing on and wants him, then by all means sign him. (As long as the money is reasonable)


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

What do you think a "significant amount" means in relation to DW. Do you think we offered the full MLE, or perhaps less, like 3 mil start for 5 years. I would guess that the sonics would match that, but who knows.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Our roster with Wilkin's:

C-Joel/Ratliff/Ha
PF-Zach/Khyrapa
SF-Darius/Patterson/Outlaw
SG-DA/Webster/Wilkins/Monia
PG-Telfair/Jack

If we cut DA:

C-Joel/Ratliff/Ha
PF-Zach/Khyrapa
SF-Darius/Patterson/Monia
SG-Outlaw/Webster/Wilkins
PG-Telfair/Jack

Not that bad. Plus, Wilkins would be one of our better shooters. I mean if he is open he'll make it, he isn't Peja, but he ain't Ruben. Plus he plays good D and is a good kid.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

thylo said:


> What do you think a "significant amount" means in relation to DW. Do you think we offered the full MLE, or perhaps less, like 3 mil start for 5 years. I would guess that the sonics would match that, but who knows.


Not necessairly, they need Flip Murray back, they need Evans back.. I think it's around 2-2.5 mill for 4-5 years. so 4 years 10 million..


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Wilkins is actually not a good shooter. At least he did not show it stat wise last year.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm not opposed to adding Wilkens... but at the right price. I am worried about this, and I'm looking forward to seeing the numbers on the offer.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I love Wilkens, but I'm not sure how he's going to fit in with the current roster playing time wise, if he does indeed come here...

Being that he is only 25, he will be another young valuable piece to put together for our future....

I'm hoping Darius is the odd man out and we can find a team that wants him...


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

25 years old and just finished his rookie year? This is as good as he's going to get. It's not like he's a Ginobili or something.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

HKF said:


> 25 years old and just finished his rookie year? This is as good as he's going to get. It's not like he's a Ginobili or something.


Players peak at different ages...I think it all depends on the situation he's in and the coaching he gets....

I don't expect him to be anything more than Ruben Patterson type energy player off the bench, but if he becomes better than that all the better...


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Damien Wilkins was a top 3 player in the 1999 HS class. Problem was, he just wasn't good enough to justify that ranking. Bob Gibbons foolishly ranked him No.1 at one time.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hey HKF, who's the kid on your avatar?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Hey HKF, who's the kid on your avatar?


Jerryd Bayless, 6'3 180 lbs. PG Phoenix (Shadow Mountain), AZ 2007 HS class


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

HKF said:


> Jerryd Bayless, 6'3 180 lbs. PG Phoenix (Shadow Mountain), AZ 2007 HS class


Probably going to "PG U."......Another in a long list of great ones...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

if they get to sign Wilkins (will this be like the Trenton Hassell signing?) they almost have to get rid of 1 SF AND DA now. Before, we just realistically had to get rid of one, but now the team needs to rid itself of 3 players in the "wing" location.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

can they do a sign and trade w/ the TE?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> can they do a sign and trade w/ the TE?


They can use it to bring IN a player in a S&T (like the Nets did) but they can't package it going out as part of a S&T (like with Damon).

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> They can use it to bring IN a player in a S&T (like the Nets did) but they can't package it going out as part of a S&T (like with Damon).
> 
> Ed O.



although I think they could do better, I wouldn't be opposed to getting Wilkins for the TE (if the Sonics agree) + a future 2nd round pick or some such nonsense.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Wilkins can play SG. IMO he is more of a SG then SF. Too short for SF.

Also of note, don't you have to be in the luxury tax zone in order to do the "Cut one overpayed player" rule? If so, by signing Damien, it would put the team in a position to cut DA.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> although I think they could do better, I wouldn't be opposed to getting Wilkins for the TE (if the Sonics agree) + a future 2nd round pick or some such nonsense.


Why not just sign him outright? That way you'd get to keep the TE and the second rounder.

I guess it's so you could sign him more cheaply with no fear of the Sonics matching, but I don't know if Wilkins would agree to that.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> Also of note, don't you have to be in the luxury tax zone in order to do the "Cut one overpayed player" rule?


This has been speculated by some on this board, but I've never seen the amnesty written up as limited to teams over the threshold... it wouldn't be fair to give a one-time break to teams that are over this year's threshold when some might not be until next year.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Why not just sign him outright? That way you'd get to keep the TE and the second rounder.


In my scenario, we get the 2nd rounder. I think the TE is more valuable than Wilkins. Hell it basically got the Nets Shareef. I would bet the Sonics would not be interested in giving up a 2nd rounder, but they would get a TE which could get them a player + whatever they got for the MLE.



> I guess it's so you could sign him more cheaply with no fear of the Sonics matching, but I don't know if Wilkins would agree to that.
> 
> Ed O.


the thing is, no matter who they sign they're still be putting the team further away from being able to re-sign Joel easily.

So if they do sign Wilkins (for either the MLE or the TE), they really really need to get rid of a contract (Darius, DA or Ruben).


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Hap said:


> In my scenario, we get the 2nd rounder. I think the TE is more valuable than Wilkins. Hell it basically got the Nets Shareef. I would bet the Sonics would not be interested in giving up a 2nd rounder, but they would get a TE which could get them a player + whatever they got for the MLE.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Hap, I think it's time to give up on us resigning Joel easily by getting under the cap. I think if we keep Joel it is either because no other team values him as high as we do, or he agrees to take a one year wink deal, or he just decides that a full MLE is close enough and he loves the town so why not. Any way you slice it, I just don't see the Blazers getting 6 to 8 mil under the cap in time.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Why in the world are we wasting time and energy pursuiting this guy???

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/damien_wilkins/index.html

He has a 62% FT avg and 27% 3FG avg for his 1 year career in the NBA :whoknows:

He might not even be worth the league minimum. I certianly would not pay him more than $1 mil a year. He has only been in the league 1 year, and was not even drafted. The only good thing about him is he is 6'-6" tall


Why are we wasting precious cap money on the Charles Smith's and Wilkens of the world????

If we go get someone.. lets make it worth our while and add some talent. add the 2 together (Smith + Wilkens) .. make it more efficient.. and add a few more $ and get Jasikevicius or Jaric....


and I certainly would not waste a TE or portion of it on him...

It sure will be interesting to see what we end up having in October. They sure must have something up in mind. Way too many SF's.... and still no SG worth a hoot, outside of our potential young guns


What the heck is Nash and Company thinking? :banghead:


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Trader Bob said:


> Why in the world are we wasting time and energy pursuiting this guy???
> 
> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/damien_wilkins/index.html
> 
> ...


Maybe the same thing he thought last year when he signed Joel and most of us slammed him for it.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Joel had at least height... and we NEEDED a big man.. we already have several swingmen.... we need a SHOOTER

Man I hope your right e_blazer1


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Trader Bob said:


> Joel had at least height... and we NEEDED a big man.. we already have several swingmen.... we need a SHOOTER
> 
> Man I hope your right e_blazer1


Has anyone seen anything more that would confirm this as a legitimate deal?

I really don't see why we'd make this move either, unless there are more trades in the works. I would think that if there is truth to it, McMillan must really see some promise in this guy.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

thylo said:


> I think that if this is true then Nash has already found a trade for miles. Just a guess, but if the sonics dont match, look for Miles to be traded within a few days, likely for a front court player.


I don't think it's neccesarily Miles. It could just as easily be Patterson.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

i like the idea....outlaw can play the 2 also...so coulddarius if needed...we have versatile players...its good to have a players that can play diffent positions


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> I don't think it's neccesarily Miles. It could just as easily be Patterson.



could be both...

I think it works, but a NVE + Darius + Ruben for Penny and Tim Thomas wouldn't be bad. We'd get out of Darius and Ruben's contract, and therefore (I think?) be under the cap and be able to re-sign Joel for a reasonable amount of money.

Hell, we could throw in detroits pick next year to sucker...er..entice the Knicks!


----------



## Bookworm (Feb 23, 2005)

Hap said:


> could be both...
> 
> I think it works, but a NVE + Darius + Ruben for Penny and Tim Thomas wouldn't be bad. We'd get out of Darius and Ruben's contract, and therefore (I think?) be under the cap and be able to re-sign Joel for a reasonable amount of money.
> 
> Hell, we could throw in detroits pick next year to sucker...er..entice the Knicks!


 Not both Darius and ruben...Send them DA and Ruben or DA and
Miles..


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Bookworm said:


> Not both Darius and ruben...Send them DA and Ruben or DA and
> Miles..


we'd have to send them people who'd actually play tho, and it's unknown if DA will be able to play a whole season.

Id rather trade 2 SF's than a SF and a SG. That still leaves us with 500 SF's.


----------



## Bookworm (Feb 23, 2005)

Hap said:


> we'd have to send them people who'd actually play tho, and it's unknown if DA will be able to play a whole season.
> 
> Id rather trade 2 SF's than a SF and a SG. That still leaves us with 500 SF's.


 Hardaway isn't the most durable player either..I would rather
have ruben or miles than DA..

Monia is a tweener 2/3 and khyrapa is the same at 3/4
the only true SFs are outlaw/miles. I want to give Miles
20-30 more gms before I decide what to do with him...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Bookworm said:


> Hardaway isn't the most durable player either..I would rather
> have ruben or miles than DA..


but penny comes off the cap next year. that is key.



> Monia is a tweener 2/3 and khyrapa is the same at 3/4
> the only true SFs are outlaw/miles. I want to give Miles
> 20-30 more gms before I decide what to do with him...


I dont think that Miles is all the sudden going to get it after 5 years in this league.


----------



## Bookworm (Feb 23, 2005)

Yes I like the savings penny brings..

Miles did 2 1/2 yrs in clipper land then Memphis
then came here and had his Job and role yanked
from him...The first half yr we had him he played
pretty good and when he started this yr his numbers
weren't that bad.. I think he needs to know his job
and minutes to be successful..Just like Jermaine did..
Not saying miles is Jermaine, just that you could see
Jermaines potential and knew he needed confidence
that he could play past his mistakes instead of looking
over his shoulder for the hook...

There is no way Wilkins and Smith on a good day are
better than Miles on a avg day.. Miles just needs a firm
hand and rules, something I think Nate can give him..

Remember Miles came out of HS or after freshmen yr.
He has talent and has improved each yr..He just needs
consistency... 15pts 5rbs 2asst 1stl .7blck is what
he should be able to give on every night.. I'm willing
to give it 20 gms for that...if he doesn't come close
to that then ship him out...He is still BYC until sept or
oct. so we really can't move him until then..


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Bookworm said:


> Remember Miles came out of HS or after freshmen yr.
> He has talent and has improved each yr..He just needs
> consistency... 15pts 5rbs 2asst 1stl .7blck is what
> he should be able to give on every night.. I'm willing
> ...


he's BYC till august I believe.

Also, he might be able to "bring it" every night, but so far, even when he started, he doesn't. 

If we didn't have a dozen SF's on the team (or ones that are better shooters than him) I'd be for keeping him, but If the team thinks (and this is mostly what Im going on) that Outlaw is better suited for the team, and they'd rather have Outlaw "blow up" and keep Joel than to hope that Darius would be a better player because of the coach and probably not keep Joel, I'll go with keeping Joel and Outlaw.


----------



## Bookworm (Feb 23, 2005)

Hap said:


> he's BYC till august I believe.
> 
> Also, he might be able to "bring it" every night, but so far, even when he started, he doesn't.
> 
> If we didn't have a dozen SF's on the team (or ones that are better shooters than him) I'd be for keeping him, but If the team thinks (and this is mostly what Im going on) that Outlaw is better suited for the team, and they'd rather have Outlaw "blow up" and keep Joel than to hope that Darius would be a better player because of the coach and probably not keep Joel, I'll go with keeping Joel and Outlaw.


 If you are saying...

Darius and outlaw means no Joel.. And 

Outlaw and Joel means no Darius... Then yes move Miles...

I would prefer all three of them, but yes Miles is probably 
the most expendable...

He is BYC until 1yr after he signed this new contract


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Hap said:


> he's BYC till august I believe.



Darius is BYC until August 31...... according to Storytellers fact sheets


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

The math does not add up 

getting rid of Darius, even without getting anything in return(eccept an expiring contract) is not nearly enough. Joel is going to to be kept or lost on the MLE/one year deal. As long as we keep bringing this false hope of getting under the cap into the picture, if bars us from figuring out how to build a Better team for the future instead of just getting rid of people for monitary reasons. If we do get rid of Miles, and I could go either way on that, We need to bring back some real tangible talent. Not just another pick, or we will never move the rebuilding project onto the next phase - built to last.

If we really want Joel to resign, we need to demonstrate to him that we will be a serious contender within 2 years. Then, If Joel likes Portland, which I think he does, and he likes his teammates, and he likes the direction of the team, and he likes the coaching, then there is a decent chance that Joel will sign for the full MLE full length, or for one year so the Blazers could offer him a bigger deal one year later. If I were Joel, I would sign a five year deal full MLE with the Blazers, but make the last four years player option. That way he gets his money, does not risk losing money over time, and after one year, if he is worth much more, he could negotiate a new contract. (Ido not know if my suggestion is allowed under CBA)


----------



## CrGiants (Dec 4, 2003)

Miles played for Cleveland, not Memphis. Hence why McInnis has been in Cleveland the last year and a half.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

thylo said:


> The math does not add up
> 
> getting rid of Darius, even without getting anything in return(eccept an expiring contract) is not nearly enough.


thats why they trade Darius + Ruben. 

Darius + Ruben is about 15 million coming off the cap, which would put us about 43ish I think. More than enough, I think, to re-sign Joel to a reasonable contract.



> Joel is going to to be kept or lost on the MLE/one year deal. As long as we keep bringing this false hope of getting under the cap into the picture, if bars us from figuring out how to build a Better team for the future instead of just getting rid of people for monitary reasons. If we do get rid of Miles, and I could go either way on that, We need to bring back some real tangible talent.


not necessarily. The Suns got rid of a pick just to save $$ and sign Nash. I think the same could be done here, cept it's to re-sign a player. Obviously, it'd be nice if the Knicks threw in a pick, but that's not realistic. 

And if we have (and remember, this is if the team thinks he's worth supplanting Darius) Outlaw, I dont think that we're really losing that much. 

Like I said earlier, Piscapo would never bring it like Eddie murphy did.



> Not just another pick, or we will never move the rebuilding project onto the next phase - built to last.
> 
> If we really want Joel to resign, we need to demonstrate to him that we will be a serious contender within 2 years. Then, If Joel likes Portland, which I think he does, and he likes his teammates, and he likes the direction of the team, and he likes the coaching, then there is a decent chance that Joel will sign for the full MLE full length, or for one year so the Blazers could offer him a bigger deal one year later.


you run the risk of the NBA being hard on you, like they were with the Twolves tho.

no *wink* deals.



> If I were Joel, I would sign a five year deal full MLE with the Blazers, but make the last four years player option. That way he gets his money, does not risk losing money over time, and after one year, if he is worth much more, he could negotiate a new contract. (Ido not know if my suggestion is allowed under CBA)


it'd probably be something the league would frown upon.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Hap said:


> it'd probably be something the league would frown upon.


Actually, unless something changes in the new CBA, that idea is not permissible. According to Larry ****'s FAQ page, there are two types of player options permitted: 1) An Early Termination Option, which lets the player opt out of a contract, is only available after the fifth season of a six or seven year contract; and 2) Player Option, which lets a player decide whether or not to play the last year on a multi-year deal. You can only have one option year per contract. So, if I'm understanding this correctly and as things stand now, the best deal that the Blazers could offer Joel next season would be a MLE for two years with the second year being a player option. That way Joel would have some protection against injury with a two year contract, but could decide to opt out after the first year in hopes that the Blazers would give him a bigger contract once they get his Bird rights.


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

hmm, it'll be interesting to find out what Portland actually offered Damien. I know this is all nate's doing, but if the management offers him more than $2.5 a year that's craziness. I think he has potential, but until he gets more regular playing time, paying him big bucks just to steal him from the Sonics is stupid.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

myELFboy said:


> hmm, it'll be interesting to find out what Portland actually offered Damien. I know this is all nate's doing, but if the management offers him more than $2.5 a year that's craziness. I think he has potential, but until he gets more regular playing time, paying him big bucks just to steal him from the Sonics is stupid.


Agreed, but I'd substitute 1.0 in for 2.5.

Ed O.


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Agreed, but I'd substitute 1.0 in for 2.5.
> 
> Ed O.


lol, yeah, i guess you have a point there. i don't know though, Isiah gave Jerome James, the biggest(literally) underachiever out there who happens to be 30 a 5yr deal, so this offseason no ridiculous contract surprises me anymore. no to mention Cuttino Mobley signed for how much he was signed for--that was plain stupid.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Blazers extend offer to Damien Wilkins?*

http://lockedonsports.blogspot.com/

???

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Scinos said:


> Unless you're talking about waiving him ?


That appears to be the plan (waiving him on the new CBA's Amnesty provision).

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap said:


> could be both...
> 
> I think it works, but a NVE + Darius + Ruben for Penny and Tim Thomas wouldn't be bad. We'd get out of Darius and Ruben's contract, and therefore (I think?) be under the cap and be able to re-sign Joel for a reasonable amount of money.
> 
> Hell, we could throw in detroits pick next year to sucker...er..entice the Knicks!


I really should start a new thread for everyone who has missed this the other 5 times I've posted it:

My question to Nash on 2/15/2005:



> Shareef, Derek, and Ruben for Penny Hardaway and Tim Thomas.
> 
> Penny and Tim’s contracts, while larger than Derek and Ruben’s, both expire after next season. However, both Penny and Tim are smart players, and both can hit from the perimeter. Also, it sends Shareef, Derek, and Ruben to the East, where they are much less likely to come back and haunt us.
> 
> Don’t know if you had considered it or not.


And Nash's response, same day:



> Thanks for the idea but I don't like either Hardaway or Thomas at this stage of their careers.


PBF


----------



## Bookworm (Feb 23, 2005)

That was 5 months ago...sometimes people or circumstances
change..


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Maybe.

But it all sounds to me like Nash is already planning on waiving DA under the Amnesty provision AND has another trade (either Ruben or Darius) lined up. 

Personally, if that is the case, I hope it's Ruben and not Darius. I think the Blazers need to give Darius some time under Nate's coaching before giving up on him.

Speaking of patience, I wonder how much of what Nash has lined up (speculated or not) will be executed as soon as the new CBA goes into effect, and how much will be done later. I'd love to see a flurry of announcements from the Blazers Thursday / Friday of this week. We already know Charles Smith will be signed (don't we?) and that the Shareef deal w/ the Nets will be executed. Everything else - DA being waived, some mysterious trade (possibly involving Ruben or Darius) going down, and Wilkins being signed - is just speculation at this point.

PBF


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> I really should start a new thread for everyone who has missed this the other 5 times I've posted it:
> 
> My question to Nash on 2/15/2005:
> 
> ...


you can trump that out as many times as you want, but that doesn't change the fact that minds can be changed, and scenarios can be different.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap said:


> you can trump that out as many times as you want, but that doesn't change the fact that minds can be changed, and scenarios can be different.


Proof that it hasn't (from Nash just now in response to me re-asking the question):



> I don't like the amount of their contracts for what they produce. I do like the length of each but we are not involved in a deal for either.


PBF
PS: He's put me on a 1 question / week cap, and this was my 1 question for the next 7 days. :-(


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

ProudBFan said:


> PS: He's put me on a 1 question / week cap, and this was my 1 question for the next 7 days. :-(


LOL!

Hmmm. Can we ration your posts? ;op


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> Proof that it hasn't (from Nash just now in response to me re-asking the question):
> PBF
> PS: He's put me on a 1 question / week cap, and this was my 1 question for the next 7 days. :-(


he says they like their contractual lengths, which to me means they'd do it.

Just because he doesn't like the amount, doesn't mean they'd turn it down, especially if they feel they have to re-sign joel and this is a valid way to do it.

btw, saying they're not involved in a deal with them means nothing. If they were he's not allowed to talk about it.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> LOL!
> 
> Hmmm. Can we ration your posts? ;op


My workload is already doing that.

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap said:


> he says they like their contractual lengths, which to me means they'd do it.
> 
> Just because he doesn't like the amount, doesn't mean they'd turn it down, especially if they feel they have to re-sign joel and this is a valid way to do it.
> 
> btw, saying they're not involved in a deal with them means nothing. If they were he's not allowed to talk about it.


You're right. But I also think you're grasping at the wrong straw here (just my opinion).

PBF


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> You're right. But I also think you're grasping at the wrong straw here (just my opinion).
> 
> PBF


and what straw is that? that the team might want to get out of contracts to be able to re-sign Joel (if they wanted to)?


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap said:


> and what straw is that? that the team might want to get out of contracts to be able to re-sign Joel (if they wanted to)?


No, that Hardaway and Thomas are pieces of that puzzle.

But like I said, just my opinion. I could be wrong.

PBF


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> No, that Hardaway and Thomas are pieces of that puzzle.
> 
> But like I said, just my opinion. I could be wrong.
> 
> PBF


Ive said they COULD be what they go after. Who else is tradeable, and in the last year of his contract, that allows the team to get rid of 2, possibly 3 contracts that go past this year?


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap said:


> Ive said they COULD be what they go after. Who else is tradeable, and in the last year of his contract, that allows the team to get rid of 2, possibly 3 contracts that go past this year?


I really have no idea. I'm not saying I think it's a bad idea, Hap, and I certainly am not trying to antagonize you. All I'm saying is that I've talked w/ Nash about those very two players twice now, and both times he indicated little/no interest in either of them.

I would encourage you to send your recommendation & discussion of its merits to Nash himself if you want to discuss it further. His e-mail addy is on the sticky thread at the top of this forum.

PBF


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> I really have no idea. I'm not saying I think it's a bad idea, Hap, and I certainly am not trying to antagonize you. All I'm saying is that I've talked w/ Nash about those very two players twice now, and both times he indicated little/no interest in either of them.
> 
> I would encourage you to send your recommendation & discussion of its merits to Nash himself if you want to discuss it further. His e-mail addy is on the sticky thread at the top of this forum.
> 
> PBF


I'm trying not to irk him too much..

a lot of what a GM says is gmese too you know.


----------

