# does Telfair average 16 pts, 9 assists, 4 turnovers for rest of season?



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

just a funny thought I had. I remember when Zach put together his first string of three or four 20/10 nights, and it was a case where you wondered if he was going to come back down to earth, or is that really what you can generally expect of him. 

the stat line I listed is what Telfair's averaged over the three games in April. "THREE GAMES?!?!!?" i hear tlong say. "HARDLY statistically meaningful." 

well, true. but when you watch him play you don't think, "gosh, he's just lucky." or "gosh, he's just padding his stats." he just looks like he's playing his game the way he's always played it. 

is that really what we can expect of our rookie point guard for his career (assuming he improves on the turnover numbers as most PG's do)?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I think Bassy will defiantley be a double digit assist guy for almost all of his career. His teammates will learn how to paly with him and expected the unexpected pass from him. He is already money at the pick and roll. I could also see him ave. around 20 a night for his career as well. Kid has superstar written all over him.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Zach plays what some might say is the easiest position in the NBA and Telfair plays the hardest. I think because of this it is more likely that we will continue to see Telfair's numbers improve as he learns the game more. Now it is true that the most talent is also at the PF position, so what I said above is not a knock on Zach, just that their is much less that needs to be learned at that position then at PG. 

Positions by difficulty (IMO)
1)PG
2)SG
3)C
4)SF
5)PF


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

if he's 6' or over then yes there is a possibilty, but if he's under 6' then I doubt it.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Consider also that one could argue that Telfair doesn't have one of the more talented supporting casts around him. If Portland's talent upgrades, 'flair will benefit both from having better scorers to pass to and from having guys who command more attention, freeing him up more when he sashays into the paint.

So, I think as he gets older, his supporting cast improves and teammates get used to his passing, his numbers will improve.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> if he's 6' or over then yes there is a possibilty, but if he's under 6' then I doubt it.



hehe, nice!

actually, I think the whole "he could averave over 20 and 10" implications by some one, might be a bit much.

He desperately needs to get a good 20 foot jumper. He's doing "ok" now, but he's not good enough to rely on it. Infact, I'd still say, unless he's wide open and had time to set his feet, he shouldn't really be expected to make more than 40% of those. Not a knock on him, it's just that his game isn't there yet.

He's doing a lot better as a starter than those who dislike him (or that he was picked so high) expected, and we all know that irritates them. (which is why they're not posting much about it...cept when he does have 4 turnovers)

If he averaged 16-9 for his career, I'd be giddy.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

He's 19 with a weak supporting cast and getting 16 and 9 in the month of April, give him more gym time and a stronger core of players around him and 20 and 10 is not out of the scenario.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MAS RipCity said:


> He's 19 with a weak supporting cast and getting 16 and 9 in the month of April, give him more gym time and a stronger core of players around him and 20 and 10 is not out of the scenario.


true, but thats the high end of the spectrum.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

16, 8 and 4, with maybe 2 rebounds and a steal seems quite respectable, as well as mathematically attractive. :biggrin:


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Yes. He'll average 16/9/3 going forward. His supporting cast will be better in the future than it is currently. He will continue to learn what to do AND what not to do. He is quick enough to take his man for selfish points almost at will. He needs to be more consistent with the Jumper. Like all players - it would be nice to see a "go-to" move that come playoffs, 1 minute left, count the basket!! He'll almost always be a higher-than-average Turnover guy because he'll have the ball in his hands so much and he'll try passes others wouldn't. 

These numbers would be great next season.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Is that really what we can expect of our rookie point guard for his career (assuming he improves on the turnover numbers as most PG's do)?


Why set your sights so low? I think Telfair can do better than that once he gets his feet wet.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> true, but thats the high end of the spectrum.


What do you base that on? He scored 30+ per game in HS, so he's capable of putting up big numbers on a regular basis. He's hitting 16 a game right now while shooting at a fairly low clip, yet it doesn't [usually] feel like he's forcing things, so his numbers could easily climb to that 20/10 level simply through improved efficiency. As far as assists, most games I'm left with the impression he passed better than the stat line indicates, mostly due to either: a) the recipient not finishing, or b) Telfair setting up the guy that makes the finishing pass for the assist. 'a' should get better as the team gets better, and 'b' will probably improve as the team gels and more guys learn where to look for each other on the floor.

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

dkap said:


> What do you base that on? He scored 30+ per game in HS, so he's capable of putting up big numbers on a regular basis. He's hitting 16 a game right now while shooting at a fairly low clip, yet it doesn't [usually] feel like he's forcing things, so his numbers could easily climb to that 20/10 level simply through improved efficiency. As far as assists, most games I'm left with the impression he passed better than the stat line indicates, mostly due to either: a) the recipient not finishing, or b) Telfair setting up the guy that makes the finishing pass for the assist. 'a' should get better as the team gets better, and 'b' will probably improve as the team gels and more guys learn where to look for each other on the floor.
> 
> Dan


I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was the high end of the spectrum. There are very very few players who average 20-10 for their careers (as was implied). Infact, I would bet that there haven't been more than 3 players in the last 30 years who for their careers averaged 20-10 for their career (Magic comes close).


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

If SeaBass puts up those numbers for what is left of the season, they should rehire Cheeks......just so they can fire his blind butt again!!


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I could care less how many points Bassy scores on average over the course of his career. Really. He needs to be able to stick the perimeter jumper when needed (reliably), but beyond that I don't care if he ever scores another point.

I want him to run the offense like a conductor runs a symphony. I want him to collapse opposing defenses like the 82nd Airborne. And I want him to dish like a matre'de. If he learns to do all those things, and stick the perimeter jumper when called upon, he'll be a star in my eyes.

PBF


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

How many games have the Blazers won since Telfair's been in the starting lineup? Two?


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

tlong said:


> How many games have the Blazers won since Telfair's been in the starting lineup? Two?


It's a TEAM game, tlong.. Team game.. You can't blame just one player for all the losses.. Or, I guess you can blame just one player if you want..


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Scout226 said:


> It's a TEAM game, tlong.. Team game.. You can't blame just one player for all the losses.. Or, I guess you can blame just one player if you want..



You're right. It IS a team game...and Telfair deserves as much blame for the losses as his teammates. It's all about wins and losses baby.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Of course, one of those two wins came without the help of the Mighty Midget. I still think it could be 3 or even 4 wins if they went cold turkey on the mouse.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

The Blazers need to pick Deron Williams in the draft. Then they will have the point guard that they need.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Deron Williams can't hold Telfair's jock strap and you know it. He is too slow to guard NBA guards. Bassy would blow right by him. I'm not saying Deron will be bad, but why pick him when we already have a better point guard who is still YOUNGER?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> The Blazers need to pick Deron Williams in the draft. Then they will have the point guard that they need.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Hap said:


>


 :clap:


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Deron Williams*: Strange player to evaluate because there hasn't been an NBA point guard even remotely like him -- he's built like a tree trunk, only it's all muscle and girth. If Raymond Felton couldn't guard him, how could half the PG's in the NBA handle him? What happens if he learns how to post smaller guys up? Really intriguing player. Not only is he going to be good, when he grows into that body, he's going to be the first point guard in NBA history who's 6-foot-3 and weighs 260 pounds -- almost like watching an NFL tight end running the point in a charity game, only for 82 games a year. Mortal lock for the top-7.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

It's interesting though, many of the mocks actually have Deron's stock droppin after the Championship game.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> *Deron Williams*: Strange player to evaluate because there hasn't been an NBA point guard even remotely like him -- he's built like a tree trunk, only it's all muscle and girth. If Raymond Felton couldn't guard him, how could half the PG's in the NBA handle him? What happens if he learns how to post smaller guys up? Really intriguing player. Not only is he going to be good, when he grows into that body, he's going to be the first point guard in NBA history who's 6-foot-3 and weighs 260 pounds -- almost like watching an NFL tight end running the point in a charity game, only for 82 games a year. Mortal lock for the top-7.



maybe we should take Deron Williams. He'd make a good backup that'll never challenge for a starting job on the team. I think we should trade for a 2nd round pick and nab him there.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Somehow I think I'll pass on a 6'3" 260lb PG.... :rofl:


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

After Baron Davis abuses Telfair tonight tell me again why you wouldn't like a big point guard like Deron Williams.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> After Baron Davis abuses Telfair tonight tell me again why you wouldn't like a big point guard like Deron Williams.



I wouldn't mind it, but why get a PG for the 1 PG who's built like a mac truck and we play 3 times a year?

plus, we *can* get Williams with our 2nd pick in the draft. Should be what, 38? He'll be there.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Deron's situation reminds me a lot of Jameer Nelson. Great college player, will probably be a serviceable NBA player, but shouldn't be a top 5 pick.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> After Baron Davis abuses Telfair tonight tell me again why you wouldn't like a big point guard like Deron Williams.


Bah... what has Baron done since the Warriors traded for him? And what have the Warriors done? I mean, really, 40 point/13 assist/5 steal/3 Turnover nights are pretty common, right?

On a less sarcastic note, how many people would prefer to have Jefferson and Baron Davis right now rather than Telfair and NVE?

I guess to be fair we need to see what the Blazers can get for NVE this summer, but the team would be a heck of a lot better right now, that's for sure.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Deron's situation reminds me a lot of Jameer Nelson. Great college player, will probably be a serviceable NBA player, but shouldn't be a top 5 pick.


He might not be top 5, but he will definitely be top 10. I think he will be an excellent pro.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Bah... what has Baron done since the Warriors traded for him? And what have the Warriors done? I mean, really, 40 point/13 assist/5 steal/3 Turnover nights are pretty common, right?
> 
> On a less sarcastic note, how many people would prefer to have Jefferson and Baron Davis right now rather than Telfair and NVE?


depends. Which Baron Davis do we get? The one with the back injury, poor shooting and HUGE contract? or the one with the back injury, decent shooting and HUGE contract...who's what, 6 years *older* than Telfair?



> I guess to be fair we need to see what the Blazers can get for NVE this summer, but the team would be a heck of a lot better right now, that's for sure.
> 
> Ed O.


I'll stick with what we got, because just because the grass looks greener, doesn't mean that it's not painted green.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> He might not be top 5, but he will definitely be top 10. I think he will be an excellent pro.


Hmm well you also though Jameer was gonna be an excellent pro. A college senior, national player of the year, going to what in reality is a Point Guardless team should be able to muster more than 7AP48.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

tlong said:


> *Deron Williams*: Strange player to evaluate because there hasn't been an NBA point guard even remotely like him -- he's built like a tree trunk, only it's all muscle and girth. If Raymond Felton couldn't guard him, how could half the PG's in the NBA handle him? What happens if he learns how to post smaller guys up? Really intriguing player. Not only is he going to be good, when he grows into that body, he's going to be the first point guard in NBA history who's *6-foot-3* and weighs 260 pounds -- almost like watching an NFL tight end running the point in a charity game, only for 82 games a year. Mortal lock for the top-7.



6'3"?? My reliable sources say he's only 6'2". When will you guys realize this?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Scout226 said:


> 6'3"?? My reliable sources say he's only 6'2". When will you guys realize this?


My reliable source says that Sean May is 6'3".....


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Hmm well you also though Jameer was gonna be an excellent pro. A college senior, national player of the year, going to what in reality is a Point Guardless team should be able to muster more than 7AP48.


I never said that about Jameer.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> I never said that about Jameer.


I need a link to prove you never said such a thing, otherwise it's just heresay. :cheers:


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

BTW here's another guy that Deron reminds me of....

2000 MOP


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

*Don't Reach*



tlong said:


> He might not be top 5, but he will definitely be top 10. I think he will be an excellent pro.


Word on the street is that he'll be there at 23, FOR SURE!

Go Blazers


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> depends. Which Baron Davis do we get? The one with the back injury, poor shooting and HUGE contract? or the one with the back injury, decent shooting and HUGE contract...who's what, 6 years *older* than Telfair?


I don't know why you keep making such a big deal out of Davis's back injury. Tracy McGrady has experienced back problems at a younger age than Baron and the Rockets are happy to have him. Baron missed 8 games because of spasms in 02-03 and a couple dozen earlier this year... I question how many games he missed because of injury this season, though, and how many because of Byron Scott and the poor chances of winning this year. That is a strike against him from an attitude perspective, and I don't like that, but his back sure seemed fine from the moment he was traded west.

As for his shooting: he's a career 41% shooter with lots of 3 point attempts. He'll have off games (like tonight) but he's a pretty good shooter. He's at the upper end of what I'm hoping that Telfair will become as a shooter.

In order to compare my alternate scenario, though, you don't need to compare Baron to Telfair.

Compare Baron to NVE. Then compare Telfair to Jefferson.

The biggest argument in favor of selecting Telfair over Jefferson is that we need a PG... if the Blazers have Baron Davis (who's still only turning 26 next week) instead of NVE, then we wouldn't need a PG of the future.

Even if people think Telfair is a better player than Jefferson long-term, it's obvious that Baron is way, way better than NVE.



> I'll stick with what we got, because just because the grass looks greener, doesn't mean that it's not painted green.


If this team were decent, I'd be with you. But it's not. It's terrible.

Baron Davis at the 1 and Jefferson to hold down the 5 long term (and I expect him to evolve into playing the center spot at some point) would be a nice place to be. Or at least a better place to be than where we are now, although that's not saying much I guess.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Schilly said:


> BTW here's another guy that Deron reminds me of....
> 
> 2000 MOP


Having watched Deron on several occasions this year he reminds me more of this guy......

Former PAC 10 POY 


His high lottery status makes me think that the scouts agree as well....


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> His high lottery status makes me think that the scouts agree as well....


Based on what? The Mock drafts that you are so vocal in discrediting whent hey don't agree with your opinions? 

I won't say you are wrong in your opinion, that's yours to have. I've watched the Illini play several times this year and I see a collection of players tat will be decent pros, but not a one of them a star.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Based on what? The Mock drafts that you are so vocal in discrediting whent hey don't agree with your opinions?


I dont disagree with the mocks at all, the only thing that I disagree with that they do, is their overhyping of a high school player.....

All their college guys that I have seen play (as well as everybody else) I actually agree with....


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> I dont disagree with the mocks at all, the only thing that I disagree with that they do, is their overhyping of a high school player.....
> 
> All their college guys that I have seen play (as well as everybody else) I actually agree with....


To be fair the Mocks overhype those that most of us haven't seen, HS and Foreign players.

Personally of all the Mocks I put the most stock into draft city as they seem to not jump the gun by including HS players until they've a serious chance to evaluate them. They are the same way with foreign players.

Gerald Green made his Draft City Debut at #4 while Deron WIllimas has slipped to #10, as of the update today.


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

Has anyone else noticed that the majority of the losing this team has done has been in the absense of Randolph? Say what you will, but I think he is the most important part of this team. I think you could take away any other player and it would not have as big of an impact. I just hope all goes well with his surgery, because he is right between a good and premier power forward in this league. With Bassy giving him real passes to the post, and his rebounding the Blazers will be 50% better (not to mention his clutch shooting unlike some other power forward).


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

We wernt winning when Randolph was healthy....


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

When did we lose 18 out of 20 with Zach in the lineup, or are we missing NVE that much?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Zach and Telfiar will be the 2 biggest facotrs for this team to be successful in 05-06. If those 2 improve and stay healthy, we will contend for a playoff spot again. The pick and roll will be a beautiful thing to watch between those 2.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

TheoSaysNo said:


> When did we lose 18 out of 20 with Zach in the lineup, or are we missing NVE that much?


No it's more of us missing Van Exel, Patterson (a couple games) Miles (a couple games here and a couple games there) and Theo.....and DA being his same old stanky self......


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I don't know why you keep making such a big deal out of Davis's back injury. Tracy McGrady has experienced back problems at a younger age than Baron and the Rockets are happy to have him.


because as someone who's had back problems, I know that they can be a problem. (SEE: Derek Anderson).



> Baron missed 8 games because of spasms in 02-03 and a couple dozen earlier this year... I question how many games he missed because of injury this season, though, and how many because of Byron Scott and the poor chances of winning this year.


how *****...when theo sits out because there's no chance of winning, it's bad. when NVE does the same, it's bad and shows he's quitting on the team. When Baron Davis does it...



> That is a strike against him from an attitude perspective, and I don't like that, but his back sure seemed fine from the moment he was traded west.


yah, his back seemed  fine once he was traded. 



> As for his shooting: he's a career 41% shooter with lots of 3 point attempts. He'll have off games (like tonight) but he's a pretty good shooter. He's at the upper end of what I'm hoping that Telfair will become as a shooter.


he's at the lower end for me. I don't give a rip **** if someone shoots 41% from 3, if they're bad from 2. Because there's far more to the game than shooting a *** load of 3 pointers.



> In order to compare my alternate scenario, though, you don't need to compare Baron to Telfair.


cept that Telfair will be the PG of the future, and Baron Davis would've been. 



> Compare Baron to NVE. Then compare Telfair to Jefferson.


cept that NVE is leaving at the end of this year.



> The biggest argument in favor of selecting Telfair over Jefferson is that we need a PG... if the Blazers have Baron Davis (who's still only turning 26 next week) instead of NVE, then we wouldn't need a PG of the future.


and if we have Telfair, we don't need Baron Davis. Because really, whats the point of drafting a guy the team thinks will be better (for the team) than Baron Davis, and then *trading* for him when he makes a mother load of money?



> Even if people think Telfair is a better player than Jefferson long-term, it's obvious that Baron is way, way better than NVE.


big deal. NVE isn't part of our future. It's not always about who you trade for a player. Sometimes it's about who you have on your team already.



> If this team were decent, I'd be with you. But it's not. It's terrible.
> 
> Baron Davis at the 1 and Jefferson to hold down the 5 long term (and I expect him to evolve into playing the center spot at some point) would be a nice place to be. Or at least a better place to be than where we are now, although that's not saying much I guess.
> 
> Ed O.


For all we know (since we as fans, realistically, don't know ****) Telfair will be better than Baron. And Viktor and Sergei might be far better than most fans want to give them credit for (mainly, imho, due to xenophobia). I'd rathar have the picks we have (1 out of a massive need, 1 another need) than _another_ PF and a PG who has a contract thats not insured (which speaks volumes, that apparently you don't want to read).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> because as someone who's had back problems, I know that they can be a problem. (SEE: Derek Anderson).


Derek Anderson is several years older than Baron Davis. And Davis has had reconstructive knee surgery, too... knees can certainly cause problems just like backs, but he's got over that.



> how *****...when theo sits out because there's no chance of winning, it's bad. when NVE does the same, it's bad and shows he's quitting on the team. When Baron Davis does it...


When Baron Davis does it *what*? You're setting up a straw man, making it sound like I'm excusing or endorsing Davis sitting out for longer than necessary... when I've EXPLICITY said it was a negative.

It's a negative that might be a net positive, though, since you are so concerned about his back for some reason.



> he's at the lower end for me. I don't give a rip **** if someone shoots 41% from 3, if they're bad from 2. Because there's far more to the game than shooting a *** load of 3 pointers.


You're all mixed up. Baron doesn't shoot 41% from 3 point range and he doesn't only shoot 3 pointers.



> cept that Telfair will be the PG of the future, and Baron Davis would've been.


I know. But you don't need to compare them when we're talking about a 2-for-2 swap.



> cept that NVE is leaving at the end of this year.


Yep. That's part of my point. Baron Davis and Al Jefferson would be fixtures in the Blazers rotation and probably in their lineup in short order. NVE might prove to have been a totally worthless acquisition for the Blazers.



> and if we have Telfair, we don't need Baron Davis. Because really, whats the point of drafting a guy the team thinks will be better (for the team) than Baron Davis, and then *trading* for him when he makes a mother load of money?


Because, as I've pointed out a couple of times:

1. Baron Davis is better than Sebastian now. That makes the team better now.
2. Al Jefferson is going to be worth a lot to a team down the line. Nick Van Exel is (barring Nash getting value for him, which I'm not convinced he will) worthless to the Blazers.



> big deal. NVE isn't part of our future. It's not always about who you trade for a player. Sometimes it's about who you have on your team already.


I don't understand what your point is... other than maybe it's OK to pass up on good trades because you've already made other moves.

This is a bad, BAD, *BAD* team. I fail to see how you can accept the management has made a series of mistakes that has made us worse, and the Jefferson/Davis alternative to Telfair/NVE would have been much better for this team.



> For all we know (since we as fans, realistically, don't know ****) Telfair will be better than Baron. And Viktor and Sergei might be far better than most fans want to give them credit for (mainly, imho, due to xenophobia). I'd rathar have the picks we have (1 out of a massive need, 1 another need) than _another_ PF and a PG who has a contract thats not insured (which speaks volumes, that apparently you don't want to read).


Why does it speak volumes?

Paul Allen is, what, ten times richer than the Warriors' owner? And yet the Warriors' owner was willing to take him on.

And Monia and Khryapa have nothing to do with this. The Blazers could have taken them just the same irrespective of drafting Jefferson or trading for Baron Davis.

Finally: the "as fans we don't know anything" angle is pretty old and wildly incorrect. We DO know something. Some of us have been following the game pretty closely for a long time and we KNOW that management in the NBA makes mistakes all the time... just because they earn a paycheck doesn't mean that they're geniuses. In a competitive industry like the NBA, it's simply not possible that all the teams can make perfect moves all the time.

When we have the advantage of hindsight--as we do here--it's pretty easy to be able to point out mistakes that people and teams make. I'm not saying in this post that Nash should have seen the Baron Davis availability coming (although some on this board did). I'm just saying that the Blazers would have been much better off if he had.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Last night's stats for Telfair and Jefferson...


Telfair: 6 points, 2 assists, 3 turnovers in a Blazers loss.

Jefferson: 4 points (2-2 FG), 8 rebounds, 2 assists in a Celtics win.


side note: Telfair played only 22 minutes...probably because he isn't big enough to guard Baron Davis.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> This is a bad, BAD, *BAD* team. I fail to see how you can accept the management has made a series of mistakes that has made us worse, and the Jefferson/Davis alternative to Telfair/NVE would have been much better for this team.


because thats a faulty comparison. For starters, we don't know that they would've been able to trade NVE for Baron Davis. You're implying that they could've been able to. There's no way to know that. So really, it's a stupid comparison. There's no way to know if we could've been able to trade Dale Davis for Baron either. 

So really, how is this an accurate comparison? You're holding the team hostage for a trade that wasn't (as far as we know) possible. _BECAUSE_ Dale was traded for NVE, and then Dale was traded for Baron, doesn't imply that NVE could've been traded for Baron.

Thats just stupid flat brained thinking, done in a manner to implying that the team screwed up.



> Why does it speak volumes?
> 
> Paul Allen is, what, ten times richer than the Warriors' owner? And yet the Warriors' owner was willing to take him on.


here's an idea. Maybe the Hornets didn't want NVE. Or maybe the Hornets wanted more than just NVE and the Blazers (smartly) said no. 



> And Monia and Khryapa have nothing to do with this. The Blazers could have taken them just the same irrespective of drafting Jefferson or trading for Baron Davis.


actually, thats kind of using 20-20 hindsight. If they did draft Jefferson, they might not have had been able to draft Telfair (I think thats fairer to say than certain posters want to admit). If they hadn't drafted Telfair, they might then have made a trade earlier in the season with Damon. Maybe they then traded NVE for Jalen Rose. Who knows? I'm making as much of a unknown statement as you are with the whole Baron Davis comparison. 

Maybe if they draft Jefferson, they then feel easier about trading for Rose & Carter. So maybe they don't *want* to take on Baron Davis's contract, assuming they even have parts to TRADE for that player, or even WANT to.



> Finally: the "as fans we don't know anything" angle is pretty old and wildly incorrect. We DO know something. Some of us have been following the game pretty closely for a long time and we KNOW that management in the NBA makes mistakes all the time...


and yet..we're posting on a message board. Ed, I know you like to fancy yourself smart (you are) but let's get something out in the open here.

Nash knows more about the game, more about who's good and who's bad. More about the Salary cap, and rules. More about who Paul Allen wants to take, and the health of palyers XYZ, than you do. Or I. Or Mixum. Or NathanLane. Or Schilly. Or Wanker. Or Meru. Or NateBishop.

There is an obvious reason why he works for the Trail Blazers, and 99% of us would give up our lives in a heart beat to do what he does.

It's the big elaphant in the room that no one wants to admit to. 

We're just fans who think we know a whole lot more than we do, and like to act like we're knowledgeable.

we're not. We're just fans who repeat the same crap we read, over and over, thinking that if we say it in a manner that sounds smart, that others will think more highly of us, and think we know something more than then.

thats all this is.



> just because they earn a paycheck doesn't mean that they're geniuses. In a competitive industry like the NBA, it's simply not possible that all the teams can make perfect moves all the time.


did I say anything about them being geniuses? nope. I said they are in the game for a reason, and we're not. FOr a reason. For a *very* good reason.



> When we have the advantage of hindsight--as we do here--it's pretty easy to be able to point out mistakes that people and teams make. I'm not saying in this post that Nash should have seen the Baron Davis availability coming (although some on this board did). I'm just saying that the Blazers would have been much better off if he had.


how? because we think that the hornets only wanted NVE (tho the salaries don't match up) and would've been happy with that? 

maybe there are several factors in why we didn't trade for Baron. Maybe Baron didn't *want* to play in Portland? Maybe the team sent feelers out to Baron and it came back that he wasn't interested in playing in Portland, and wanted to be closer to his home base (or where he went to college)?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> Last night's stats for Telfair and Jefferson...
> 
> 
> Telfair: 6 points, 2 assists, 3 turnovers in a Blazers loss.
> ...



this is getting old.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

TheoSaysNo said:


> Has anyone else noticed that the majority of the losing this team has done has been in the absense of Randolph?


Yes, but I don't think it has much to do with the overall talent level of Randolph as it does with the overall talent that is on the floor at most points since he has been absent.

He is a VERY talented player - losing him is a big loss. Period. The team was never extremely talented to begin with, but losing him doesn't add to the talent pool, that's for sure.

So, you won't win when you lose one of your key pieces. But, it is a team game. They play off each other.

What does that mean? Since Randolph has gone down, we've fielded a team comprised of two legit NBA starters (veterans) in Reef and Stoudamire. Przy is up and coming. Of those three, only Reef is reliable and consistant. Of those three, only Reef and Przy are playing "in position". The other positions are being filled with rookies or guys that should be deep on a bench or over in Europe. 

To back these "starters" up we've got a bench that, because of our losses to starters, is about as deep as Jessica Simpson on a bad day. Then the majority of the bench are actually SF's masquerading about as PFs. 

Because of Damon having to start the SG position, we have a terribly short backcourt that couldn't guard a corpse. Telfair is an okay and pesky defender, but most guys can get past him relatively easy. Damon is a matador and can be posted up by the likes of Earl Boykins. 

THESE FACTORS contribute more to the losing that the loss of one player. Even if that player is as good as Zach Randolph.



> I think you could take away any other player and it would not have as big of an impact.


When Reef went down and the rest of the team was healthy, they were TERRIBLE. 



> not to mention his clutch shooting unlike some other power forward


Again, refer to the discussion from last year - statistically Reef is "more clutch" in the final 3 minutes of the game AND on the final shots within 30 seconds. He averages more points, he averages a better percentage, he has a lower TO ratio, gets to the line more, shoots better from the line and he gets more rebounds in the final minutes than Randolph. 

That is pretty much the definition of being clutch, right? Statistically getting the job done in the last three minutes ... and the last 30 seconds?

People say Reef isn't clutch, and when compared to most SG/PG and some SFs .... he isn't. But, he is hardly "unclutch" for the PF spot ... and statisitcally speaking ... he's more clutch over his career than Randolph was and is.

BUT --- don't let facts get in the way of your tirade. If you really want to think that Zach Randolph is the reason we aren't winning and he's "Mr.Clutch" ... go right ahead. What are facts, anyhow? I mean, other than verifiable data that helps one understand external events. Other than that, don't worry about them.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Hap said:


> this is getting old.


I have to agree. 

Telfiar is REALLY starting to impress me. 

He's become FAR more consistant with that midrange shot. He handles the ball better and isn't as timid bringing the ball up and doesn't defer as much.

He's seeing the floor better and making smarter (less "flairy" passes). 

he has his rookie and his "hey-look-I'm-19-and-in-the-NBA" moments ... but overall I've been impressed over the past month.

I'm not COMPLETELY sold, but I'm a helluva lot closer.

Play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I have to agree.
> 
> Telfiar is REALLY starting to impress me.
> 
> ...


this and your previous post scares me...you've been bitten somewhat by the blazer bug. you won't admit it..but the signs are obvious...

serious tho:

your previous post hits the nail on the head. This team is bad, but it's bad for the same reasons Phoenix was last year, and Seattle too. They're missing chunks of their team.

They have good parts running now (Viktor, Outlaw, Telfair) and interchangeable parts that won't be much different if either one stays or goes (Zach and Shareef) and some questionable players that can be replaced with current players or picks (Miles, NVE and Damon).

Get ourselves a good coach, 1 or 2 players (either in draft or S&T) and we're a much better team. Right now, we're just a team masqurading as good as they can. It doesn't reflec completely as to how they'll be next year.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Hap said:


> this and your previous post scares me...you've been bitten somewhat by the blazer bug. you won't admit it..but the signs are obvious...


I won't lie - I've become a bit of a fan. But, only because Reef is here right now. 

When I play NBA Live 05, I play as the Blazers. No question.

I wouldn't have issue with Reef returning next year, and outisde of the time thing (in my time zone, you guys play LATE games), I kind of want him to.



> your previous post hits the nail on the head. This team is bad, but it's bad for the same reasons Phoenix was last year, and Seattle too. They're missing chunks of their team.


Correct. Entire sections are missing and the parts that aren't missing are all the same position or type of player. Most of the active players right now should be no more than sophomores in college. That's scary.

If you go back to the beginning of the year - we are 50%. 50%! This is with our guards shooting a combined 38% or some such nasty number. That wasn't going to continue FOREVER. Once they hit their stride, say 42-44%, we win more than we lose. I'd say we're a pretty safe bet for the play-offs. No less than 6 games over .500.



> They have good parts running now (Viktor, Outlaw, Telfair) and interchangeable parts that won't be much different if either one stays or goes (Zach and Shareef) and some questionable players that can be replaced with current players or picks (Miles, NVE and Damon).


I won't say Outlaw and Viktor are "good" parts, but they aren't "poor". Viktor has potential, but he's very spastic. He definitely needs time. Outlaw ... I love his athletic potential, but his head ... I don't know if he grasps the game yet. 

Telfair -- good part. I'm not sold he'll ever be a GREAT PG, but I think he's talented enough at this point in his career to safely extrapolate that he could easily be top half in the league. 

Zach and Reef, I don't think, are interchangeable. In fact, I realized that I think they work well together. *IF* Zach plays like a member of a team. The only issue then, though, is that Reef takes the SF spot from the youth. I think statistically, they are pretty close to a wash. But, Reef gives a few things Zach doesn't, yet. That's a team attitude, better passing, more court vision, better shot selection, the ability to get calls, better defense ... an overall better game. Zach may yet become that player, but right now -- I just don't see it as equal anywhere other than on a stat page (other than Reef being a better scorer and Zach being a better rebounder - but neither by a wide margin).



> Get ourselves a good coach, 1 or 2 players (either in draft or S&T) and we're a much better team.


I definitely agree.

A good coach can work wonders with talent. Look at Jason Terry. He's a FAR superior player now than he was last year. In every respect. He takes smarter shots, he makes better decisions and runs within the offense. Look at Carmello before and after the coaching change. 

As far as positions go: The position this team needs - more than ANY other position - is a SG. It's one of the most important positions, and the position that requires the best defender. I'd rather a STELLAR defender (who is an average shooter) than a STELLAR shooter (who is an average defender). A guy more like Eddie Jones. That's the player type that the Blazers NEED. Joe Johnson is that player.



> Right now, we're just a team masqurading as good as they can. It doesn't reflect completely as to how they'll be next year.


It's all contingent upon being able to move players, health and getting that coach.

Play.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Zach missed one game Prior to January 1st the was 14 and 14 at that point. Zach played in 13 of the games that were wins.

Since January 1st Zach has played in 18 games and teh team is 6 and 12 in thos 18 games.

Team with Zach 19W 26L
Team Without Zach 5W 24L


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I won't lie - I've become a bit of a fan. But, only because Reef is here right now.
> 
> When I play NBA Live 05, I play as the Blazers. No question.
> 
> I wouldn't have issue with Reef returning next year, and outisde of the time thing (in my time zone, you guys play LATE games), I kind of want him to.


Resistance was futile. You have been assimilated. :biggrin: 

barfo


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> because thats a faulty comparison. For starters, we don't know that they would've been able to trade NVE for Baron Davis. You're implying that they could've been able to. There's no way to know that. So really, it's a stupid comparison. There's no way to know if we could've been able to trade Dale Davis for Baron either.


Golden State was able to trade Dale Davis for Baron Davis. Unless you think that ALL NBA teams are out to get the Blazers (and not just the Raptors, like some people think) then clearly Portland could have done the same deal.



> So really, how is this an accurate comparison? You're holding the team hostage for a trade that wasn't (as far as we know) possible. _BECAUSE_ Dale was traded for NVE, and then Dale was traded for Baron, doesn't imply that NVE could've been traded for Baron.


I never said we could have traded NVE for Baron. Just like we never could have traded Bowie for Jordan. We could have had one or the other.



> Thats just stupid flat brained thinking, done in a manner to implying that the team screwed up.


The team DID screw up. The team IS screwed up.

Trust me: nobody wanted to be where this team is right now. It's impossible to be this bad without mistakes being made.



> actually, thats kind of using 20-20 hindsight.


Um. Yeah. That's my whole point.



> If they did draft Jefferson, they might not have had been able to draft Telfair (I think thats fairer to say than certain posters want to admit). If they hadn't drafted Telfair, they might then have made a trade earlier in the season with Damon. Maybe they then traded NVE for Jalen Rose. Who knows? I'm making as much of a unknown statement as you are with the whole Baron Davis comparison.


We wouldn't have ever had NVE in my hypothetical. I also wouldn't have to bank on getting Telfair at #22 or 23 (although that would have been gravy) because Baron Davis would be coming on board.



> Maybe if they draft Jefferson, they then feel easier about trading for Rose & Carter. So maybe they don't *want* to take on Baron Davis's contract, assuming they even have parts to TRADE for that player, or even WANT to.


You can layer on all the hypotheticals you want. It doesn't affect my basic question: Wouldn't we be way better off if the team had Jefferson and Baron Davis instead of Telfair and NVE?



> and yet..we're posting on a message board. Ed, I know you like to fancy yourself smart (you are) but let's get something out in the open here.
> 
> Nash knows more about the game, more about who's good and who's bad. More about the Salary cap, and rules. More about who Paul Allen wants to take, and the health of palyers XYZ, than you do. Or I. Or Mixum. Or NathanLane. Or Schilly. Or Wanker. Or Meru. Or NateBishop.
> 
> ...


And yet he makes mistakes! He's not human.

The President of the U.S. (not just Bush, but every one) has incredible access to information, incredible resources, and is in a position to lead the country and the world. But they have ALL made mistakes.



> We're just fans who think we know a whole lot more than we do, and like to act like we're knowledgeable.
> 
> we're not. We're just fans who repeat the same crap we read, over and over, thinking that if we say it in a manner that sounds smart, that others will think more highly of us, and think we know something more than then.
> 
> thats all this is.


Speak for yourself, Hap. Seriously.



> did I say anything about them being geniuses? nope. I said they are in the game for a reason, and we're not. FOr a reason. For a *very* good reason.


You haven't answered how being "in the game" implies infallibility.

[/QUOTE]how? because we think that the hornets only wanted NVE (tho the salaries don't match up) and would've been happy with that? [/QUOTE]

No, dude. You misunderstand something and then you hammer the straw man into the ground. I never said we should have traded NVE for Baron Davis.



> maybe there are several factors in why we didn't trade for Baron. Maybe Baron didn't *want* to play in Portland? Maybe the team sent feelers out to Baron and it came back that he wasn't interested in playing in Portland, and wanted to be closer to his home base (or where he went to college)?


I bet we didn't trade for him because we already had invested a lottery pick in Telfair and because we had two other veteran PGs on the roster.

But why we didn't trade for him isn't something I'm interested in. In your rush to defend the Blazers you're reinventing what I'm trying to discuss.

It amazes me that some people go so far out of their way to rationalize the state of a team that's failed at every turn.

Ed O.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I'm coming a little late to this party, and I realize this diverges a bit from the thread's current hot argument, but I was struck by this quote:



MAS RipCity said:


> Zach and Telfiar will be the 2 biggest facotrs for this team to be successful in 05-06. If those 2 improve and stay healthy, we will contend for a playoff spot again. *The pick and roll will be a beautiful thing to watch between those 2.*


Am I missing something in Zach's game? My impression has been that Zach is absolutely horrible at the pick and roll. Not so much the catching and shooting part, but certainly the setting a decent pick so someone else might be able to make a play part. Am I wrong?


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

sometimes I think Hap must be on the Blazers' payroll...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Golden State was able to trade Dale Davis for Baron Davis. Unless you think that ALL NBA teams are out to get the Blazers (and not just the Raptors, like some people think) then clearly Portland could have done the same deal.


um...you honestly think that they would've been able to trade Dale Davis for Baron Davis during the off season?

You *really* think that?


> I never said we could have traded NVE for Baron. Just like we never could have traded Bowie for Jordan. We could have had one or the other.


So you actually do think that we could've traded Dale, on the low end of his tradeability, for Baron, who was no where near the low-end, and the Hornets weren't expected to start off that bad?

chaaaaa right.

thats like *****ing that the team didn't draft XYZ when no one expected XYZ to be anything special.



> The team DID screw up. The team IS screwed up.
> 
> Trust me: nobody wanted to be where this team is right now. It's impossible to be this bad without mistakes being made.


and a fair amount of that blame does lie within trader bob's hands. He traded for DA, when we had a better (and *still* better) SG in Bonzi. He signed Ruben to a contract thats hard to trade (along with Rube being Rube). He signed DA to a HUGE contract.

or making some not-so good picks in the draft. Realistically, out of the 9 years he was in Portland, he had 2 great picks (O'neal and Randolph). The rest are so-so.

that wasn't priming the pump.



> We wouldn't have ever had NVE in my hypothetical. I also wouldn't have to bank on getting Telfair at #22 or 23 (although that would have been gravy) because Baron Davis would be coming on board.


thats going under the assumption that all we'd have to trade is Dale for a player that wasn't considered trade bait during the off season.

So the team should've traded for a player that would've commanded faaaaaaar more than Dale Davis, even though the Hornets weren't looking to trade him? 

Damn those blazers! 



> You can layer on all the hypotheticals you want. It doesn't affect my basic question: Wouldn't we be way better off if the team had Jefferson and Baron Davis instead of Telfair and NVE?


but you're making a faulty comparison. That isn't what the difference is. This team would be better having Duncan and Jefferson, but that wasn't an option, just as Baron Davis and Jefferson wasn't an option.

Why? because it's not like a Dale Davis/Baron Davis trade was on the tables during the summer. 

Make an argument that Carter could've been a BLazer for Theo, as that was on the table. But this whole Dale Davis for Baron Davis crap, is insulting to my intelligence, and anyone elses who knows that thats now how it works. Just because Dale was traded for Baron (later, after Baron's trade value went down in the eyes of their owner), doesn't mean WE could've done it several months earlier.



> And yet he makes mistakes! He's not human.


and yet, go figure, he has access to far more info than you do.



> The President of the U.S. (not just Bush, but every one) has incredible access to information, incredible resources, and is in a position to lead the country and the world. But they have ALL made mistakes.


same thing applies here. There's a reason why you're not President Ed (outside of your age (iirc)). You're not qualified.



> Speak for yourself, Hap. Seriously.


please ed. how's the view from up on that horse?

What is the other reason why people argue on this board (or any other)? To make people think they're more knowledgable and smarter.

There is nothing more to it. The never has been, and there never will be.

message boards are nothing but a glorified pissing contest. 


> You haven't answered how being "in the game" implies infallibility.


where did I say that it doesn't? You're projecting some kind of lame counter argument, to imply I meant something that I never said. All I'm saying is that there's a reason we're not GM's. We don't know the whole story. We don't know the reasons why things are and aren't done. We get a 2nd hand story (at best) of what might have happened if maybe things could've sorta happened, kind of.



> No, dude. You misunderstand something and then you hammer the straw man into the ground. I never said we should have traded NVE for Baron Davis.


again, I don't believe that you honestly think we COULD HAVE traded Dale for Baron, at the time we traded Dale for NVE.

Because if you don't think we should've traded Dale for NVE at the time, we couldn've have been able to trade him for Baron. And if we waited until the same time that the Warriors traded Dale for Baron, that would've meant that we wouldn't have had a decent backup PG outside of Dickau. 

And we also would've then had Dale Davis, Zach, Shareef *and* Jefferson on the team??

and you think that Jefferson would've gotten minutes!?

or that the team wouldn've have then traded another player for another PG prior to that??



> I bet we didn't trade for him because we already had invested a lottery pick in Telfair and because we had two other veteran PGs on the roster.
> 
> But why we didn't trade for him isn't something I'm interested in. In your rush to defend the Blazers you're reinventing what I'm trying to discuss.


 just like you're inventing some mythical world were Dale Davis could've gotten us Baron Davis this last summer.



> It amazes me that some people go so far out of their way to rationalize the state of a team that's failed at every turn.
> 
> Ed O.


it amazes me that some people go so far out of their way to condemnt the team for things that actually didn't happen or wouldn't have happened, or couldn't have happened. 

actually, scratch that. it doesn't amaze me. I've read enough of the posts on this board to realize that fans just like to ***** over stupid things.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> sometimes I think Hap must be on the Blazers' payroll...


you don't want to know what a lot of us think you must be on.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I think Ed is envisioning a scenario in which the Blazers would have traded Dale Davis for Baron Davis during the season. Is this incorrect?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

what I like is how Ed using 20-20 hindsight big time. as if we're supposed to NOT trade Dale Davis for NVE because there's a slight chance that the Hornets might totally and utterly suck this year and their owner wimps out and trades their best player for a washed up has-been who was later waived


man, we shouldn't have gotten rid of Stepania then..for fear that some team might have wanted to give up a very good rookie on their team who's monumentally better than our best guy, just for the right to waive Steppy and save money! 

hoo-wah!


----------



## J_Bird (Mar 18, 2005)

On the whole DD/NVE/Baron subject, I believe one aspect that is being overlooked is the timing. At the time time that the DD / NVE trade occurred Baron's value to the Hornets franchise was much greater than it was at the deadline. By the time the trade deadline rolled around it was obvious that:

1) The Hornets were terrible with or without Baron, where as at the beginning of the season they had two all-stars on the roster and hopes of sneaking into the play-offs.

2) Baron's back and/or attitude were going to prevent him from contributing to his potential to the Hornets franchise. 

3) The emergence of a capable PG (Dickau) helped make Baron a little more expendable to a team tired of dealing with said problems with injury and attitude. I'm not saying that Dickau is anywhere near as talented or valuable as Baron, but with the season down the drain, and the team looking at rebuilding, Dickau's play just made the move that much easier. 

My point being that at the time we made the trade for NVE, Baron's value to the Hornets franchise would have demanded a much larger value than the DD/Dickau package that we sent to GS.

-JB

*edit* Dang it Hap, you're too fast for me :biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

J_Bird said:


> On the whole DD/NVE/Baron subject, I believe one aspect that is being overlooked is the timing. At the time time that the DD / NVE trade occurred Baron's value to the Hornets franchise was much greater than it was at the deadline. By the time the trade deadline rolled around it was obvious that:
> 
> 1) The Hornets were terrible with or without Baron, where as at the beginning of the season they had two all-stars on the roster and hopes of sneaking into the play-offs.
> 
> ...





welcome to the board, btw.

and co-sign


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

tlong said:


> I think Ed is envisioning a scenario in which the Blazers would have traded Dale Davis for Baron Davis during the season. Is this incorrect?


yeah, and I see his point. 

we all like to play the hindsight game. hindsight levels the playing field between us lay fans and the much better informed GM's of the NBA. after all the trades have been made, you can look back and roughly reconstruct the plans (and lack thereof) of NBA GM's. 

you can see the mistakes as plainly as they can, the blown opportunities, the huge coups. 

however, the drawback of hindsight is that each move has a ripple effect. is it possible we could have traded Dale Davis for Baron Davis? clearly the answer is yes. it was one of a thousand different outcomes out there. however, it's sort of a quantum physics problem, isn't it? had we not traded Dale, who is to say the butterfly effect (a butterfly flapping its wings creates a hurricane on the other side of the planet) doesn't change all the outcomes? who is to say that by not trading Dale at the time Baron doesn't sustain injuries? that Baron Davis doesn't get traded to Golden State for Nick Van Exel instead? Baron Davis dies of food poisoning? 

trades that COULD have happened are endless. in hindsight, we could have Tracy McGrady if we'd played our cards differently several years ago. nobody is really excited about us not getting him, though. 

I prefer to dwell less on trades that COULD have happened and focus more on the ones that did and assets that haven't been utilized. 

we have three expiring contracts, and at least two of them are going to die with no trade in exchange. not acceptible. 

we've been without a starting caliber shooting guard since Bonzi left. not acceptible. 

we've locked in Ratliff and Miles into untradeable contracts. not acceptible. 

Stoudamire, SAR and Patterson all logged more than 40 minutes last night. none of them seem to be part of the long term plan. not acceptable. 

on the plus side, Patternash seem to have drafted pretty well so far, and picked up a bargain in Przybilla. so it's not all bad. 

but I definitely don't consider this to be a good job management so far.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> um...you honestly think that they would've been able to trade Dale Davis for Baron Davis during the off season?
> 
> You *really* think that?


Not at all. Nor did I say it.




> So you actually do think that we could've traded Dale, on the low end of his tradeability, for Baron, who was no where near the low-end, and the Hornets weren't expected to start off that bad?
> 
> chaaaaa right.
> 
> thats like *****ing that the team didn't draft XYZ when no one expected XYZ to be anything special.


Again: no. I didn't say that. You seemed to think I meant that, when I did not.



> and a fair amount of that blame does lie within trader bob's hands. He traded for DA, when we had a better (and *still* better) SG in Bonzi. He signed Ruben to a contract thats hard to trade (along with Rube being Rube). He signed DA to a HUGE contract.
> 
> or making some not-so good picks in the draft. Realistically, out of the 9 years he was in Portland, he had 2 great picks (O'neal and Randolph). The rest are so-so.
> 
> that wasn't priming the pump.


I don't have a problem with a GM acquiring too much talent. DA and Ruben might not be living up to their contracts, but they're not the reason that we're losing. We're losing because we need players that are better than they are and better than the ones we have.

Nash has had a propensity to trade those guys away.

I'm not claiming that Whitsitt made no mistakes. He certainly did. He's been gone for almost two years now, though, and the things we're discussing in this thread all have happened under Nash's watch.



> thats going under the assumption that all we'd have to trade is Dale for a player that wasn't considered trade bait during the off season.


Like hell it is. I never said that we should trade Dale during the offseason.



> So the team should've traded for a player that would've commanded faaaaaaar more than Dale Davis, even though the Hornets weren't looking to trade him?


*sigh*

No, Hap. Once again you've misread my post and repeatedly drilled a straw man.



> but you're making a faulty comparison. That isn't what the difference is. This team would be better having Duncan and Jefferson, but that wasn't an option, just as Baron Davis and Jefferson wasn't an option.


How were we going to get Duncan? I haven't heard of that. Here's how we could have gotten Baron Davis and Jefferson:

-- draft Jefferson
-- trade Dale Davis to New Orleans for Baron Davis at the trade deadline.

If you have anything REMOTELY as feasible as to how we might have traded for Duncan, or drafted Duncan, or signed him as a FA, I'd love to hear it.

If you don't, then you're mixing apples and oranges and it's a faulty comparison.



> Why? because it's not like a Dale Davis/Baron Davis trade was on the tables during the summer.


So what?



> Make an argument that Carter could've been a BLazer for Theo, as that was on the table. But this whole Dale Davis for Baron Davis crap, is insulting to my intelligence, and anyone elses who knows that thats now how it works.


Hey: how did Golden State get Baron Davis? 

Did they manage to insult your intelligence, too?



> Just because Dale was traded for Baron (later, after Baron's trade value went down in the eyes of their owner), doesn't mean WE could've done it several months earlier.


Again: who cares? I'm not saying we should have traded for him in the summer.



> please ed. how's the view from up on that horse?


Again with the judging people and their motivations. Hope it makes you feel good.



> What is the other reason why people argue on this board (or any other)? To make people think they're more knowledgable and smarter.
> 
> There is nothing more to it. The never has been, and there never will be.
> 
> message boards are nothing but a glorified pissing contest.


I don't deign to speak for why other people are here. I'm not here for pissing contests or to impress people. I'm here to read and discuss and argue about the Blazers.



> where did I say that it doesn't? You're projecting some kind of lame counter argument, to imply I meant something that I never said. All I'm saying is that there's a reason we're not GM's. We don't know the whole story. We don't know the reasons why things are and aren't done. We get a 2nd hand story (at best) of what might have happened if maybe things could've sorta happened, kind of.


You're saying that since we don't have first hand information, we can't be correct, it seems to me. I've seen you use the "we don't know the full story" tactic so many times it's not even funny. It's a nice position to fall back to whenever you don't agree with someone.

Somehow, in spite of lack of first-hand knowledge, we can recognize mistakes and ponder how things might have been better. Believe it or not.



> again, I don't believe that you honestly think we COULD HAVE traded Dale for Baron, at the time we traded Dale for NVE.


Again: that doesn't matter.



> Because if you don't think we should've traded Dale for NVE at the time, we couldn've have been able to trade him for Baron. And if we waited until the same time that the Warriors traded Dale for Baron, that would've meant that we wouldn't have had a decent backup PG outside of Dickau.


Why? What was the team going to win with NVE as its backup that they weren't going to win with Dickau at the backup 1?

The answer: nothing.



> And we also would've then had Dale Davis, Zach, Shareef *and* Jefferson on the team??


Sure. Jefferson wouldn't have played much, just like he's not playing a ton for Boston, but that's the way that good teams work. They have good young players that don't get minutes until they earn them.



> and you think that Jefferson would've gotten minutes!?


I do?



> or that the team wouldn've have then traded another player for another PG prior to that??


Maybe. In my hypothetical they would not have.



> just like you're inventing some mythical world were Dale Davis could've gotten us Baron Davis this last summer.


I am?



> it amazes me that some people go so far out of their way to condemnt the team for things that actually didn't happen or wouldn't have happened, or couldn't have happened.


Who's going out of their way to condemn them for not making these moves? I'm going out of my way to address your faulty defense of the team and misapprehension of what I am asserting.

All I did was look at one of a thousand possibilities of where this team is now, combining a couple of scenarios we'd discussed on this board, and comment how much better off we'd be.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm sure someone has pointed this out already, but Golden State did send a fairly decent young PG to New Orleans in that trade as well...Speedy Claxton.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Schilly said:


> I'm sure someone has pointed this out already, but Golden State did send a fairly decent young PG to New Orleans in that trade as well...Speedy Claxton.


Actually I don't think anyone has mentioned this and it's a good point. I don't know if Portland would have been able to make a trade without a player of similar caliber to Claxton. Maybe if we had selected Telfair at #22?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> Actually I don't think anyone has mentioned this and it's a good point. I don't know if Portland would have been able to make a trade without a player of similar caliber to Claxton. Maybe if we had selected Telfair at #22?


I for one am glad we didn't draft Jefferson. 

we could've gotten a PF as good as him 2nd round.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> I for one am glad we didn't draft Jefferson.
> 
> we could've gotten a PF as good as him 2nd round.


Really? Who would that be?

BTW, Jefferson *is * getting minutes this season...and on a playoff team to boot.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> Really? Who would that be?
> 
> BTW, Jefferson *is * getting minutes this season...and on a playoff team to boot.


what does that prove?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

The only thing it proves is that the C's were really thin at PF so he was pretty much assured of starting/getting a ton of minutes as soon as they drafted him. Did I want Al Jeff? Yes. I did want him at 13 and Telfair later, but I realized Bassy would not have been there that late and even other gm's said he wouldn't have been there. I am actually loving our draft that we had. We got Telfair who could be the steal of the draft that late(considering Arujo,Devin Harris,Swift,Biendirs were taken ahead of him). We also picked up a excellent defensive minded Russian who is a team player and is very smart and we picked up his buddy who is said to be an excellent defender as well and a better shooter. :banana:


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> what does that prove?


It proves that he is going to be a solid player in the NBA.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> It proves that he is going to be a solid player in the NBA.


nope. sorry. That little concidence that he's in the Eastern Conference and therefore in the playoffs doesn't prove that. 

Jefferson, like Telfair, will be a solid player regardless of his teams position in his rookie year. You know thats the case, but you're just baiting people because you get your jollies from it. So from now on, anymore obvious baiting posts of yours will be editted. It's plain to see that you are not doing things to be constructive, but destructive. This isn't a case of me not "liking" your opinion about Telfair. It's about you doing things just to antagonize people.

I appreciate you cooperating.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> nope. sorry. That little concidence that he's in the Eastern Conference and therefore in the playoffs doesn't prove that.
> 
> Jefferson, like Telfair, will be a solid player regardless of his teams position in his rookie year. You know thats the case, but you're just baiting people because you get your jollies from it. So from now on, anymore obvious baiting posts of yours will be editted. It's plain to see that you are not doing things to be constructive, but destructive. This isn't a case of me not "liking" your opinion about Telfair. It's about you doing things just to antagonize people.
> 
> I appreciate you cooperating.



That is ridiculous. The Eastern Conference is now nearly as strong as the West. Go ahead and edit my posts if you like. In my opinion that will merely show that you are the one engaging in destructive behavior, not I.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> How were we going to get Duncan? I haven't heard of that. Here's how we could have gotten Baron Davis and Jefferson:
> 
> -- draft Jefferson
> -- trade Dale Davis to New Orleans for Baron Davis at the trade deadline.


But we didn't have Dale Davis at the trade deadline. The Blazers had dealt him in the off-season.

And I don't think you can criticize _not_ having kept Dale Davis around to make a trade no one would have considered possible in the off-season. When the Blazers dealt Dale Davis for Van Exel, if anyone had suggested that maybe the Blazers could later on get a player of the caliber of Baron Davis for Dale Davis, they would have been scoffed at.

It was just an exchange of expiring deals, with the Blazers getting the better player. At the time, it seemed reasonable. Only by hindsight can one use the Baron Davis deal to criticize that deal.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> That is ridiculous. The Eastern Conference is now nearly as strong as the West. Go ahead and edit my posts if you like. In my opinion that will merely show that you are the one engaging in destructive behavior, not I.



if you would stop making snide comments about telfair (or the "need" to get a point guard) only done to piss of fans, editting won't be done. Otherwise, it will.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> if you would stop making snide comments about telfair (or the "need" to get a point guard) only done to piss of fans, editting won't be done. Otherwise, it will.



The comments I make about Telfair are generally how I feel. If the comments were about Stoudamire I doubt you would have a problem with it, would you?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

tlong said:


> The comments I make about Telfair are generally how I feel.


I believe that and that's fine. It's the constant repetition and the obsession with throwing Jefferson's name into nearly every thread about Telfair.

Do you feel that if you argue for Jefferson over Telfair enough, that the draft pick can be changed to Jefferson?
Do you feel that your side of that debate will be won in anyone's eyes after less than a season for each as a starter?

Neither of the above is very well-founded, and I think you understand that. So we need another explanation, and the likeliest one is that you want to "stick it to" those you disagree with.

If you really are being sincere that you're not trying to bait anyone, you just feel passionately that Telfair was the wrong choice, why not let it be for now and revisit it in four or five seasons, when both players are well into their careers? It's not like anything will change, that Jefferson will be a Blazer instead of Telfair, if you stop throwing his name into people's faces. So it's not like you lose anything.

Unless you _are_ trying to annoy people...but that's not your purpose, right?

And, on the flip side, people should stop making jokes related to your Telfair-Jefferson disagreement.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I believe that and that's fine. It's the constant repetition and the obsession with throwing Jefferson's name into nearly every thread about Telfair.
> 
> Do you feel that if you argue for Jefferson over Telfair enough, that the draft pick can be changed to Jefferson?
> Do you feel that your side of that debate will be won in anyone's eyes after less than a season for each as a starter?
> ...



Okay here's the truth...

I am not really that unhappy with Telfair and in fact I *do * like to stick it to people, especially Hap. I don't have anything against him, I just get irritated with his posts...probably like he gets irritated with mine.

I do think it was a stupid pick by the Blazers though and I see nothing wrong with repeating that opinion ad nauseum. Do not other posters ***** about Damon ad nauseum? I think they do. With that said I will try to control my bashing as best I can. It is very difficult though as I sincerely believe the Blazers organization is being run by a bunch of idiots for the most part. I like having Paul Allen as an owner, but he doesn't seem to have a clue when it comes to hiring a management team.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> Okay here's the truth...
> 
> I am not really that unhappy with Telfair and in fact I *do * like to stick it to people, especially Hap. I don't have anything against him, I just get irritated with his posts...probably like he gets irritated with mine.


only irritated when you constantly take stupid pot shots at Telfair and act like Jefferson walks on water. outside of that, the rest of your posts aren't irritating.


> I do think it was a stupid pick by the Blazers though and I see nothing wrong with repeating that opinion ad nauseum. Do not other posters ***** about Damon ad nauseum? I think they do. With that said I will try to control my bashing as best I can. It is very difficult though as I sincerely believe the Blazers organization is being run by a bunch of idiots for the most part. I like having Paul Allen as an owner, but he doesn't seem to have a clue when it comes to hiring a management team.


say it once, don't say it 1200 times and at any chance you can get. 

I strongly disliked the signing of Ruben Patterson. but guess what? it's done and over with. Get over it. That ships sailed. Other metaphores and cliches.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

tlong said:


> Okay here's the truth...
> 
> I am not really that unhappy with Telfair and in fact I *do * like to stick it to people, especially Hap. I don't have anything against him, I just get irritated with his posts...probably like he gets irritated with mine.


Fair enough. Can't you both just ignore posts that annoy you, instead of fanning the flames? I'm not talking about not responding when you really _are_ interested in the topic; just cutting out the in-your-face stuff on both sides.



> I do think it was a stupid pick by the Blazers though and I see nothing wrong with repeating that opinion ad nauseum. Do not other posters ***** about Damon ad nauseum? I think they do.


Yes, they do, that's true. But that, at least, is because Stoudamire kept _doing_ things to draw criticism, whether it was being caught with a kilogram of marijuana or pouting on the bench. You have to admit Telfair has really done nothing to merit consistent bashing...continuing about his height or his not-being-Jefferson is not entirely identical to Stoudamire's keeping himself in the news, so to speak.



> With that said I will try to control my bashing as best I can. It is very difficult though as I sincerely believe the Blazers organization is being run by a bunch of idiots for the most part. I like having Paul Allen as an owner, but he doesn't seem to have a clue when it comes to hiring a management team.


I'm not a fan of the front office either. The reason to state your piece but not keep repeating it is the possibility that you (and I) could be wrong. Nobody's saying you can't have and state your opinion. But ultimately, time will prove you, and everyone else, right or wrong. Repetition only serves to annoy; it doesn't add new ideas to the discussion. If you were consistently adding new ideas, that would be different, but hitting on the same points, over and over, isn't that productive.

In any case, thanks for engaging this honestly and civilly.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> only irritated when you constantly take stupid pot shots at Telfair and act like Jefferson walks on water. outside of that, the rest of your posts aren't irritating..


No comment.





Hap said:


> say it once, don't say it 1200 times and at any chance you can get.
> 
> I strongly disliked the signing of Ruben Patterson. but guess what? it's done and over with. Get over it. That ships sailed. Other metaphores and cliches.


Dude, if I want to ***** about their decision making I will...as much as I'd like.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Wow, we have 2 seperate debates going on in one thread....impressive. We have Baron Daivs and Al Jefferson topics....the only question is how long it will last?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

tlong said:


> I do think it was a stupid pick by the Blazers though and I see nothing wrong with repeating that opinion ad nauseum. Do not other posters ***** about Damon ad nauseum? I think they do. With that said I will try to control my bashing as best I can. It is very difficult though as I sincerely believe the Blazers organization is being run by a bunch of idiots for the most part. I like having Paul Allen as an owner, but he doesn't seem to have a clue when it comes to hiring a management team.


as a guy who has no problem *****ing about Damon ad nauseum, I'll admit there's a certain catharsis in venting. for me it's not about convincing anyone or rubbing people's noses in it. I just can't stand the guy, and I seem to stumble into new ways to not like him with regularity. 

this week it's because he's shooting horribly. last week it was because he was dominating the ball instead of Telfair. next week it'll probably be something else. 

meh. I don't see what the big deal is. I glance at any post of tlong's for the word "Jefferson" or "Telfair" and skip it because I know what it'll say. I'm sure fans of Damon (fools that they are!) do the same thing to me.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> No comment.
> 
> Dude, if I want to ***** about their decision making I will...as much as I'd like.


there's a difference between complaining about their decision making, and doing it to irritate people. 

say it because you want to, vs saying it because you know it'll piss people off. The difference is pretty clear. If you don't like them drafting Telfair (i think thats well documented), fine. Say it because you don't like them drafting Telfair, not because you know it bugs me or any other fan who happens to be happy with him as the pick.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> But we didn't have Dale Davis at the trade deadline. The Blazers had dealt him in the off-season.


Not in my hypothetical we didn't.



> And I don't think you can criticize _not_ having kept Dale Davis around to make a trade no one would have considered possible in the off-season. When the Blazers dealt Dale Davis for Van Exel, if anyone had suggested that maybe the Blazers could later on get a player of the caliber of Baron Davis for Dale Davis, they would have been scoffed at.
> 
> It was just an exchange of expiring deals, with the Blazers getting the better player. At the time, it seemed reasonable. Only by hindsight can one use the Baron Davis deal to criticize that deal.


As I've said a couple of times: I'm using hindsight. I admit it. I'm also not claiming that I would have been able to pull this off if I were in charge, or that Bob Whitsitt would have done it, or anything like that. My comment is not, in and of itself, a criticism when I say, "Wouldn't it be nice to have Jefferson and Baron rather than Telfair and NVE?" I know that hindsight is often unfair to people that have to make decisions without knowledge of the future.

At the same time, the question is not a crazy, "What if we would have won the lottery the year Tim Duncan was the #1 pick?" deal. 

Portland was in a great position to make a run at Baron Davis, or Jason Kidd, or Steve Francis... any number of PGs that would be dramatic upgrades in the near and longer term. Taking a big guy in the draft and betting on being able to use an expiring contract to get a PG at the deadline would have been a solid strategy, especially knowing that the PG class in the upcoming draft was strong.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Schilly said:


> I'm sure someone has pointed this out already, but Golden State did send a fairly decent young PG to New Orleans in that trade as well...Speedy Claxton.


It will be interesting to see what they do with their two PGs (Dickau and Claxton) this offseason. Both being 6' they aren't exactly a good compliment, so I'd expect only one to be resigned. Dickau is an UFA, while I think Claxton has a team option on his contract.

My guess is that Dickau will be resigned and Speedy will go elsewhere making his acquisition (like Dale's) essencially a salary dump. With the worst attendance in the league and little talent on their roster, it seems to me that they chose to cut costs/gut the club and start over. With Mashburn going down again (maybe for good this time), I thought it was prettty obvious that they'd choose this stategy and move Baron for an expiring deal(s) like they've done. 

Is it 20/20 hindsight if you said so in offseason? :wink:

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Portland was in a great position to make a run at Baron Davis, or Jason Kidd, or Steve Francis... any number of PGs that would be dramatic upgrades in the near and longer term. Taking a big guy in the draft and betting on being able to use an expiring contract to get a PG at the deadline would have been a solid strategy, especially knowing that the PG class in the upcoming draft was strong.


Yes, that would have been solid. IMO, what they did do was also solid: Take the best talent available, in their eyes, swap an expiring contract for another expiring contract who was a veteran point guard and still retain a number of expiring contracts for future use.

I mean, I wonder why SAR couldn't have fetched Baron Davis. Or Van Exel. Or Stoudamire. All large expiring deals and all better players than Dale Davis.

I think their offseason strategy was solid. I just don't know why the Blazers couldn't convert any of their expiring deals into solid value, while the Warriors could.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

OK, on the subject of Baron Davis: we know for a fact that Davis was on the market, and that he was traded for about $.35 on the dollar.

We do NOT know what the Blazers offered for him, so we cannot say say for certain that "Nash screwed up!"

IF Nash failed to pursue Davis, that was a mistake. IF he failed to pursue Davis because he was worried about Telfair's psyche or Damon's feelings - he is a flaming moron who should have been terminated on the spot.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Does anyone think that Nash pursued Baron Davis at all? Maybe I'm just on a different wavelength from what really happened, but by the trade deadline, I have trouble believing that Nash would be in a position to make a push for Baron because of the investment he'd made in Telfair.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Does anyone think that Nash pursued Baron Davis at all?
> 
> ...I have trouble believing that Nash would be in a position to make a push for Baron because of the investment he'd made in Telfair.


Maybe, that would be really stupid IMO if that was the main reason that he didn't look into acquiring Baron... dude is big/strong enough to guard many 2's (like he did with the Hornets) so I think they could of been paired for stretches. Also there is 10+ backup minutes to be had when a starter sits. I don't see any reason that Telfair couldn't have earned 20-25 minutes a night with Baron as a teammate. I'd much prefer having to face the issues of too little PT for Telfair if he were to really develope alongside a healthy Davis, then the issues Portland is confronted with now.

Anyways, I recall someone relaying comments from Nash in an email on why he didn't want Baron... I think the comments were that he was concerned about his health, though maybe that was bologna.

STOMP


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Does anyone think that Nash pursued Baron Davis at all? Maybe I'm just on a different wavelength from what really happened, but by the trade deadline, I have trouble believing that Nash would be in a position to make a push for Baron because of the investment he'd made in Telfair.
> 
> Ed O.


I agree. I find it hard to accept that the Blazers were "outbid" for Baron Davis, when the price was 1) an ending contract, 2) a journeyman point guard (though a pretty good one) and 3) the willingness to take on an a max contract with injury issues.

The Blazers had #1. An owner who SHOULD not flinch at #3. And plenty of interesting, small pieces that were better than #2.

Nope. It seems pretty clear - as in the Vince Carter deal - the Blazers passed on a very obtainable star player because they just weren't that exicted the player. Didn't like their style of play and/or injury concerns and/or max salary levels and/or player's reluctance to come to Portland.

It is discouraging that the Blazers have passed on 2 stars, both of whom are doing great with their new teams, for reasons including:

Max salary level, yet the Blazers have paid (overpaid?) big bucks to inferior players: Ratliff, Zach, Miles.

Style of play, yet the Blazers have hung on to players who can't (currently) carry Vince and Baron's jock and/or will walk this summer anyway.

Injury concerns, yet the Blazers were decimated by injuies to the players they kept anyway.

Reluctance to be in Portland, yet the Blazers are losing big and find they have unhappy players because of it. Put together a good team with a good coach, and everyone gets happier.

No, I think the Blazers didn't even make an offer for Baron. I sure hope Telfair shows the Blazers backed the right horse.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Maybe, that would be really stupid IMO if that was the main reason that he didn't look into acquiring Baron... dude is big/strong enough to guard many 2's (like he did with the Hornets) so I think they could of been paired for stretches. Also there is 10+ backup minutes to be had when a starter sits. I don't see any reason that Telfair couldn't have earned 20-25 minutes a night with Baron as a teammate. I'd much prefer having to face the issues of too little PT for Telfair if he were to really develope alongside a healthy Davis, then the issues Portland is confronted with now.
> 
> Anyways, I recall someone relaying comments from Nash in an email on why he didn't want Baron... I think the comments were that he was concerned about his health, though maybe that was bologna.
> 
> STOMP


You say bologna, I say baloney.  

Last season in NO, Davis averaged 40 MPG - despite the known fact that his back was bothering him. With GSW, he is averaging something like 32 MPG, and he seems healthy. Coincidence?

I agree with you completely. Telfair would still have been in a position to play serious minutes, either backing up Davis, or on the floor together.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> I don't see any reason that Telfair couldn't have earned 20-25 minutes a night with Baron as a teammate. I'd much prefer having to face the issues of too little PT for Telfair if he were to really develope alongside a healthy Davis, then the issues Portland is confronted with now.


I totally agree... letting Telfair play 20 or 25 minutes a night coming off the bench for the next 3 or 4 years on a good team would be FAR preferable to me than expecting him to run a team like we've currently got.

I just think that after Nash is comfortable handing things over to Telfair, and I think that after he got burned with the Zach/Darius/Theo spree from last summer he'd spent as much as he comfortably could.

Which is too bad.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I dont know about all this stuff, I just know Adam Morrison rocks! :rock:


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> I dont know about all this stuff, I just know Adam Morrison rocks! :rock:


:rotf:

I don't know what the reasoning behind the Baron to GS was. NO rebuilding plan isn't making a whole lot of sense right now if they really are going to go with Dan Dickau as their future starter. Not to knock on him, but when you have a star like Baron Davis, I don't know why you don't entertain some different offers.

Darius Miles and Ruben Patterson would look good in teal and gold... As good as anyone else could at least.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I'll ask this question, and I'm not even necessarily talking about Telfair or Jefferson...

What do you think is harder to find, a great point guard or a great power forward? 

I'm not saying Telfair or Jefferson will be great, I'm just saying in general what's harder to find? 

And I'll leave you with this, in a generation of basketball that had Tim Duncan, Chris Webber, Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, Rasheed Wallace, Ben Wallace, Antonio McDyess (before the injury), Karl Malone (the list goes on), we've had how many awesome point guards? Gary Patyon, Jason Kidd, and....?


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Great point guards are definitely harder to come by. History will tell you that.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

NateBishop3 said:


> And I'll leave you with this, in a generation of basketball that had Tim Duncan, Chris Webber, Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, Rasheed Wallace, Ben Wallace, Antonio McDyess (before the injury), Karl Malone (the list goes on), we've had how many awesome point guards? Gary Patyon, Jason Kidd, and....?


Well, if you throw Malone in there, then I suppose you should throw Stockton in, too. Also, Steve Nash and Stephon Marbury have been as great, or greater, than some of the power forwards you mentioned.


----------

