# Nets Offer....



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

according to Xtra SPorts 570 in LA the nets have offered the TE and their #1 pick to Portland in exchange for Shareef....

Thanks to Weasel on the Clippers board, for the heads up.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

But wait! Rod Thorn said there was no way in hell he was going to give up a #1 pick!! 

All sarcasm aside, this is very good news. To have 3 first rounders next year would be a beautiful thing.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> But wait! Rod Thorn said there was no way in hell he was going to give up a #1 pick!!
> 
> All sarcasm aside, this is very good news. To have 3 first rounders next year would be a beautiful thing.


How would we have 3 1sts?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> How would we have 3 1sts?


Ours, the Detroit #1 we got in the draft pick swap with Utah, and now this one . . .


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Ours, the Detroit #1 we got in the draft pick swap with Utah, and now this one . . .


DOH!!! I totally forgot about that.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

That would be good news, indeed!

Even if it's for 2007, it'd be good news. In some ways, 2007 would be better because the draft class will probably be a bit stronger and by that time Portland might have more room on their roster.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I am feeling better about Nash if he gets this... good poker face

Would this be the Clipper pick? (I believe they have one)... or their own NJ pick? 

the TE and a #1 pick would be good


I wonder what the Cavs intend to do with Gooden? He could be bought with the $4.9 mil TE since he is at $4.033 mil or so


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Trader Bob said:


> I am feeling better about Nash if he gets this... good poker face
> 
> Would this be the Clipper pick? (I believe they have one)... or their own NJ pick?
> 
> ...


Miami agreed with Haslem. They'll most likely keep Gooden now.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

yes I saw that this afternoon.. 

not to get to far off topic.. I Was surpised to see they were interested in Haslem to begin with. They must want to upgarde the PF spot. So I wonder if someone else is on their radar. Maybe even Rahim before NJ gets him?

Rahim for Gooden would be great


----------



## njnets21 (May 29, 2005)

this whole report is bogus. why would a station in LA have the story from a NJ paper, when ESPN isnt reporting it and neither are the NY stations. this is definitely a bunch of bull.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

njnets21 said:


> this whole report is bogus. why would a station in LA have the story from a NJ paper, when ESPN isnt reporting it and neither are the NY stations. this is definitely a bunch of bull.


 I have to agree with this post


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> why would a station in LA have the story from a NJ paper, when ESPN isnt reporting it and neither are the NY stations.


Well, for one thing, it isn't much of a story yet. Lots of trades and trade possibilities get discussed, but most media usually don't comment on a trade until it is consumated.


----------



## njnets21 (May 29, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Well, for one thing, it isn't much of a story yet. Lots of trades and trade possibilities get discussed, but most media usually don't comment on a trade until it is consumated.



I am going to have to politely disagree with this post. ESPN would probably bring this story out as soon as they got it, but i see your point. I could see them waiting to see if Portland responds first also. However, as for the NY stations like WFAN, they would be discussing it immiediately.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

There were discussing it on the radio because the Clipper supposedly might try and trade Wilcox for Shareef.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Starbury03 said:


> There were discussing it on the radio because the Clipper supposedly might try and trade Wilcox for Shareef.



Id take Chris on the blazers


----------



## AND1NBA (Feb 20, 2004)

That was just a *RUMOR* on Xtra Sports. Here's a new article which basicly says keep waiting:

http://www.nj.com/nets/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1121317204302120.xml&coll=1



> There isn't much to talk about. Blazers GM John Nash wants a first-round pick from the Nets as compensation for a sign-and-trade deal that will get Abdur-Rahim a $37 million contract. The Nets are offering a second-rounder, while telling Goodwin he has to prepare his client for the possibility that they can only offer their midlevel exception -- the extra fund capped out teams use on free agents -- which will lock the free agent forward into a deal valued between $27 million and $30 million.
> 
> The only positive development was that Thorn wasn't closing the door on the Blazers entirely.
> 
> ...


:no:

Theres also lying going on. But which side is doing it?:



> Goodwin, the stalwart agent for Shareef Abdur-Rahim, claimed the Nets and Blazers were talking yesterday -- Rod Thorn denied it -- but Goodwin also seemed curiously detached from the process, unless that was his own way of posturing.


----------



## schub (Jul 13, 2003)

The Blazers inquired about Mile Ilic, so they are working on compromises...



> The good news for the Nets is the Portland Trail Blazers temporarily moved off their request for a future No. 1 draft pick to land Shareef Abdur-Rahim in a sign-and-trade.
> 
> The bad news is the Blazers wanted the highly regarded No. 2 pick New Jersey drafted last month, according to sources familiar with their negotiations.
> 
> ...


http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050714/SPORTS01/507140353/1011


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

If the Blazers had wanted Ilic, they could have taken him with one of their two picks after Webster, but they didn't. As for the Nets, they're being ridiculous again by refusing to trade the #43 pick (a total unknown) for a potential all-star power forward and a proven player in the league.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> If the Blazers had wanted Ilic, they could have taken him with one of their two picks after Webster, but they didn't. As for the Nets, they're being ridiculous again by refusing to trade the #43 pick (a total unknown) for a potential all-star power forward and a proven player in the league.



Pump Up The Volume. Saw it.

Whoa.......


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

njnets21 said:


> I am going to have to politely disagree with this post. ESPN would probably bring this story out as soon as they got it, but i see your point. I could see them waiting to see if Portland responds first also. However, as for the NY stations like WFAN, they would be discussing it immiediately.


Couple of things to keep in mind.

KLAC (Xtra Sports 570) is a horrible sports station (in my opinion anyway.)

WFAN 66 is an excellent sports station. One of my favorites by far, along with KNBR and WMVP.

I take everything I hear from stations like KLAC with a grain of salt.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> If the Blazers had wanted Ilic, they could have taken him with one of their two picks after Webster, but they didn't.


Right they packaged those two picks for Jack, but it's still very likely that Nash really wanted Ilic too... he did claim to have made offers to every team for their 2nd round pick until NJ choose him.

STOMP


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

NJ's options are now dwindling with Kwame going to the Lakers 

Rahim and Marshall are left as PF

and the Blazers negotiating stance is getting stronger :woot:


----------



## azsun18 (Aug 12, 2004)

I dont think Blazers would want Wilcox, isnt he up on a charge or something.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

AND1NBA said:


> That was just a *RUMOR*
> 
> Theres also lying going on. But which side is doing it?:


Goodwin was pretty good at that last summer as well


----------



## schub (Jul 13, 2003)

Trader Bob said:


> NJ's options are now dwindling with Kwame going to the Lakers
> 
> Rahim and Marshall are left as PF
> 
> and the Blazers negotiating stance is getting stronger :woot:


The Nets met with Swift yesterday.


----------



## schub (Jul 13, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> If the Blazers had wanted Ilic, they could have taken him with one of their two picks after Webster, but they didn't. As for the Nets, they're being ridiculous again by refusing to trade the #43 pick (a total unknown) for a potential all-star power forward and a proven player in the league.


Again, they're not trading Ilic for Abdur-Rahim. They can likely get Abdur-Rahim without giving up Ilic, so why give the Blazers a 7-footer with potential?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

schub said:


> Again, they're not trading Ilic for Abdur-Rahim. They can likely get Abdur-Rahim without giving up Ilic, so why give the Blazers a 7-footer with potential?


ooh, I don't know..so they'll have the MLE to use on *another* player?


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

If I were SAR, I'd be wondering about the Nets at this point. Basically, they're saying, "Hey, Shareef, we love you, Big Guy. You're the missing piece to making us a contender. Yeah, we're having a bit of trouble with Nash. He wants a first round pick plus the traded player exception for you. Can you freakin' believe that? I mean, who does he think you are, K-Mart? Listen, we may have to make this a MLE deal. Yeah, I know that costs you a few mil, but it's not like you're worth the 25th or 26th pick of a poor draft, you know. So hold tight. Don't look for any other deals out there. We'll get back to you."

Nothing like showing the guy some love.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

If I were Rahim.. I would be shopping Cleveland right now

and of course I have an alterior motive... Rahim to Cleveland in a S&T for Gooden

but seriously.. they can pay him big still, and he can play with LeBron, Hughes and Big Z.. they are building a nice team

it would also drive up the price with NJ


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

If I were the Nets, I'd be entirely happy simply using the MLE on SAR, Swift, or Marshall. Their odds of them attracting one of these players with their full MLE are very high and there's no reason that they need to give away a first rounder as far as I can tell.

Hope I'm wrong, and Portland gets one, but I don't see it.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

schub said:


> The Nets met with Swift yesterday.



OK.. so their options are Swift, Marshall and Rahim.. its still not many

Rahim is supposedly meeting with SA this week.. maybe even Cleveland

if I were Nj I would pony up the Clipper pick and call it a deal and get ur dun' .. then they can still add a MLE player and add a nice player. And if they want a vet minimum player

that would be a very nice team to compete in the east

they are playing with fire, just over a 1st round pick.. its not worth it IMHO

one trip back to the finals makes that 1st round pick seem awfully cheap


----------



## schub (Jul 13, 2003)

Trader Bob said:


> OK.. so their options are Swift, Marshall and Rahim.. its still not many
> 
> Rahim is supposedly meeting with SA this week.. maybe even Cleveland
> 
> ...


There's no way it will be the Clipper pick. I think it may be a 1st rounder in the end, but not that one.


----------



## schub (Jul 13, 2003)

Hap said:


> ooh, I don't know..so they'll have the MLE to use on *another* player?


I think it's obvious that Thorn believes that he can get the deal done without giving up Ilic. He's just waiting it out.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> If I were the Nets, I'd be entirely happy simply using the MLE on SAR, Swift, or Marshall. Their odds of them attracting one of these players with their full MLE are very high and there's no reason that they need to give away a first rounder as far as I can tell.
> 
> Hope I'm wrong, and Portland gets one, but I don't see it.
> 
> Ed O.


If it were simply a matter of needing just one player, I think you'd be correct. The Nets really need to keep the MLE so they can pick up another player in addition to a PF. SAR would give them a solid starting 5, but the bench is pretty anemic.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> if I were Nj I would pony up the Clipper pick and call it a deal and get ur dun'


TB, I think you vastly overvalue Shareef. I know you were extremely excited to get him here to Portland, but given what we've seen since, why do you suppose another team should be similar excited to get him (at a hefty price)? We got him for virtually nothing and still were disappointed, although not entirely by his fault alone.

Dan


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> If it were simply a matter of needing just one player, I think you'd be correct. The Nets really need to keep the MLE so they can pick up another player in addition to a PF. SAR would give them a solid starting 5, but the bench is pretty anemic.


Really? I think their bench is pretty decent. They've got Vaughn at the 1, Collins or Krstic at the 4/5 (depending on who starts), Mercer at the 2/3. Planinic as a third PG or shooting guard.

Not great, certainly, but about as good as Miami's or Indiana's at this point. Some veteran should be happy to come to NJ and play with Jason Kidd and the Nets--and some will probably take the minimum to do so.

Ed O.


----------



## schub (Jul 13, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Really? I think their bench is pretty decent. They've got Vaughn at the 1, Collins or Krstic at the 4/5 (depending on who starts), Mercer at the 2/3. Planinic as a third PG or shooting guard.
> 
> Not great, certainly, but about as good as Miami's or Indiana's at this point. Some veteran should be happy to come to NJ and play with Jason Kidd and the Nets--and some will probably take the minimum to do so.
> 
> Ed O.


It's been in the paper that they're targeting Keyon Dooling and Darius Songaila with the MLE. I think Dooling is ready to make a commitment, but they need to work out the Abdur-Rahim stuff first. Not sure what Songaila's deal is with the Kings. He's a RFA, but there hasn't been much said about their intentions.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

schub said:


> I think it's obvious that Thorn believes that he can get the deal done without giving up Ilic. He's just waiting it out.


I think the team is just talking things through, and it'll probably end up being Shareef for TE and a pick. thats a fair trade for someone who's career #'s are what Shareef's are.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Really? I think their bench is pretty decent. They've got Vaughn at the 1, Collins or Krstic at the 4/5 (depending on who starts), Mercer at the 2/3. Planinic as a third PG or shooting guard.
> 
> Not great, certainly, but about as good as Miami's or Indiana's at this point. Some veteran should be happy to come to NJ and play with Jason Kidd and the Nets--and some will probably take the minimum to do so.
> 
> Ed O.


The way I see it, the Nets' window is pretty small due to Kidd's age. That means they need to add experienced role players if they want to challenge for a title. We know that they've been talking to Damon and presumably they're talking to other veterans. According to Storyteller's info, they only have eight guys under contract. SAR would give them 9. Assuming they sign Wright (or has that already been done?), that gives them 10 players. For free agents, they have Clifford Robinson (who's opiton they didn't pick up), Brian Scalabrine, Travis Best, Jabari Smith, Rodney Buford, & Billy Thomas. I'm not sure which of those guys the Nets have Bird Rights on, but IMO there aren't a lot of keepers there anyway. I'd be willing to bet that Thorne has that MLE earmarked for another vet.


----------



## schub (Jul 13, 2003)

Hap said:


> I think the team is just talking things through, and it'll probably end up being Shareef for TE and a pick. thats a fair trade for someone who's career #'s are what Shareef's are.


I'm very confident that something will get done. The Nets have spent a lot of time and energy on getting him. The fact that they discussed Ilic is a good sign that they're working on compromises. It's just a matter of finding something that works for both teams, or one of them eventually giving in.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

dkap said:


> TB, I think you vastly overvalue Shareef. I know you were extremely excited to get him here to Portland, but given what we've seen since, why do you suppose another team should be similar excited to get him (at a hefty price)? We got him for virtually nothing and still were disappointed, although not entirely by his fault alone.
> 
> Dan


"hefty price"? Shareef would be a borderline All Star in the Eastern Conference. The TE and a 1st round pick are far from a "hefty price", especially considering SAR could very possibly help take the Nets back into the NBA finals.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

If the clips are willing to pay SAR a deal starting around $8mil (or what they have left in capspace) and trade him to POR in a S&T for Chris Wilcox. I'd much rather do that deal and say screw NJ.

With the Clips signing Mobley and then SAR, they could legitimately (for once) have a shot at being a playoff team. Apparently such a deal is being discussed, if I were NAsh I would push for this deal, over NJ lame offer.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

This is why I think the Clipper pick may be a good one.. they are building a decent team too, just like NJ.. your tlaking maybe not even a lottery pick here.. 14-20th.. if they make the playoffs

Shub and Dan.. I am probably being too much of a homer with Rahim... but I just do not see it as a problem with NJ

come on .. Rahim was an all-star once... and if he is worth at least a mid 1st round pick... he is a career 19/8 guy.. a good post presence, decent rebounder, decent outside shot, pretty athletic, and alll for NOW a very cheap price

he is a very big piece of the puzzle to you guys.. he is WORTH IT.. adding him will take you at least 1 round farther into the playoffs... its money in the bank barring major imjuries on NJ's team

he is a ABSOLUTE STEAL at $4.9 mil and a 1st round pick....

come on are you guys for real?  that is dirt cheap for Rahim



you gave up 3x picks for KMart? 1 is too much for Rahim?? :rofl: regardless if he is restricted or not...

someone is drinking Thorn's kool-aid and its not me


----------



## schub (Jul 13, 2003)

I believe that a 1st round pick has only been used to facilitate a sign-and-trade (for a UFA) once. That was McGrady. Not sure if it has ever happened other that that.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Ahhh (I can't read!)

Please delete.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hypothetical for Blazers fans: the Nets and Goodwin call up Nash and say, "SAR is going to join New Jersey. We will be signing a full MLE deal for SAR to come to the Nets unless you are willing to participate in a sign and trade. You will receive a second round pick next year as well as the trade exception."

Should Nash say, "Thanks but no, thanks" or should he accept that deal?

It's clearly a bridge we may never get to, but I'd be interested to hear what people think given that hypothetical.

Ed O.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> "hefty price"? Shareef would be a borderline All Star in the Eastern Conference. The TE and a 1st round pick are far from a "hefty price"


My reply was referencing it being the Clippers' pick, which is a far cry from any ol' run of the mill first rounder. It has the potential to be a franchise player. In my opinion, no way is Shareef worth that straight up, let alone in a sign and trade.



> come on .. Rahim was an all-star once... and if he is worth at least a mid 1st round pick... he is a career 19/8 guy.. a good post presence, decent rebounder, decent outside shot, pretty athletic, and alll for NOW a very cheap price


He's also a career loser that became a big whiner on the first winning team he joined, is a mediocre at best defender, and I would argue with him being pretty athletic. Below average for PFs and well below average for SFs.

Dan


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Hypothetical for Blazers fans: the Nets and Goodwin call up Nash and say, "SAR is going to join New Jersey. We will be signing a full MLE deal for SAR to come to the Nets unless you are willing to participate in a sign and trade. You will receive a second round pick next year as well as the trade exception."
> 
> Should Nash say, "Thanks but no, thanks" or should he accept that deal?
> 
> ...


Thanks but no thanks. 

There's a chance that they are bluffing. We get (basically) nothing or a 1st round pick. Even if it's only a 30% chance that they break down and offer us the 1st round pick, it's better than the 5% chance of a late, late 2nd round pick making the team.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Hypothetical for Blazers fans: the Nets and Goodwin call up Nash and say, "SAR is going to join New Jersey. We will be signing a full MLE deal for SAR to come to the Nets unless you are willing to participate in a sign and trade. You will receive a second round pick next year as well as the trade exception."
> 
> Should Nash say, "Thanks but no, thanks" or should he accept that deal?
> 
> ...


I would do it if I could talk to Shareef on the phone and ask him if it was true that he was ready to sign for only the MLE. I don't know if I trust an agent to tell 100% of the truth.

Oh, and in the process, I would indirectly badmouth NJ.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Ed,

If I had confirmation from Shareef and/or Goodwin, I think I would do it.

I suppose they could be in on a bluff, but that would be a bit over the top, IMO. Once Shareef decides that it's NJ or bust, Portland's hands are tied and they should take whatever they can get.

I am still hoping that Shareef and Goodwin up his market value by showing interest in more teams, but it may be just as much in their best interests to bluff Portland as it would be to bluff NJ.

This is a tough situation and a clear illustration of how little leverage you have in a S&T in most instances, which I kind of went on and on about a few months ago...


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

2005: 12th pick
2004: 3rd pick
2003: 6th pick
2002: 8th pick
2001: 2nd pick
2000: 3rd pick
1999: 4th pick
1998: 1st pick
1997: 14th pick
1996: 7th pick
1995: 2nd pick
1994: 7th pick
1993: 13th pick


Seeing a trend? NJ will NOT give up the Clippers pick for SAR. No way in hell. Look at the Clippers draft history. 

You think Mobley is going to propel them into the playoffs? LOL. 

What are YOU drinking? NJ's #1 is reasonable. The Clippers? No way. They haven't shown they can get out of the lottery in years. And the addition of Mobley is going to change that..... :rofl:


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Hypothetical for Blazers fans: the Nets and Goodwin call up Nash and say, "SAR is going to join New Jersey. We will be signing a full MLE deal for SAR to come to the Nets unless you are willing to participate in a sign and trade. You will receive a second round pick next year as well as the trade exception."
> 
> Should Nash say, "Thanks but no, thanks" or should he accept that deal?
> 
> ...


Assuming I believed that was true, I absolutely take the second rounder and TE. However, if I wasn't so sure I'd stick to my guns. If I still believe the Nets need SAR S&T more then we need a second rounder and TE, then I'm willing to play chicken.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Hypothetical for Blazers fans: the Nets and Goodwin call up Nash and say, "SAR is going to join New Jersey. We will be signing a full MLE deal for SAR to come to the Nets unless you are willing to participate in a sign and trade. You will receive a second round pick next year as well as the trade exception."
> 
> Should Nash say, "Thanks but no, thanks" or should he accept that deal?
> 
> ...


I'd also say thanks but no thanks, since IMO Shareef makes the nets a probable top 5 team in the leage, which in turn means their 2nd rounder would be in the 55 range, which in general is nothing more than a SL spot.

Unless Nash has something lined up for the TE, that makes sense for the team, fiscally and talent wise.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

schub said:


> I believe that a 1st round pick has only been used to facilitate a sign-and-trade (for a UFA) once. That was McGrady. Not sure if it has ever happened other that that.


T-Mac to Orlando was a 2nd round pick.

-Petey


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Vintage said:


> 2005: 12th pick
> 2004: 3rd pick
> 2003: 6th pick
> 2002: 8th pick
> ...


I atotally agree here, but at the same time if yo go to the Nets board they tend to think that the Nets should give no more than the TE and a 2nd rounder, which IMO is just as laughable...

TE and Nets #1 Pick IMO will be the final deal.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Petey said:


> T-Mac to Orlando was a 2nd round pick.
> 
> -Petey


True but Orlando was willing and able to offer max without a S&T and McGrady hadn't really doen a ton in the League yet, having just finished his 3rd year and averagina career high 15ppg.

IIRC Orlando also was able to swing a S&T for Hill since Detroit didn't want to lose him for nothing.

Both cases Orlando was in the drivers seat, in this case theough Nash doesn't seem to care one way or the other.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Schilly said:


> I atotally agree here, but at the same time if yo go to the Nets board they tend to think that the Nets should give no more than the TE and a 2nd rounder, which IMO is just as laughable...
> 
> TE and Nets #1 Pick IMO will be the final deal.


And I do not see why NJ wouldn't do that deal. They'd get their PF and a very good 1-4 with Kidd/Carter/Jefferson/Abdur-Rahim.

That lineup, with a solid bench (Vaugh, Planinic, Mercer, Scalabrine if brought back, Kristic) should propel them into a top 4 seed.

I cannot see why they wouldn't do it.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Petey said:


> T-Mac to Orlando was a 2nd round pick.
> 
> -Petey


ACtually via NBA.com Mcgrady's profile



> Selected by Toronto in the first round (ninth overall) of the 1997 NBA Draft...Traded by Toronto to Orlando in exchange for a future first round draft pick in a sign-and-trade deal (Aug. 3, 2000).


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Hypothetical for Blazers fans: the Nets and Goodwin call up Nash and say, "SAR is going to join New Jersey. We will be signing a full MLE deal for SAR to come to the Nets unless you are willing to participate in a sign and trade. You will receive a second round pick next year as well as the trade exception."
> 
> Should Nash say, "Thanks but no, thanks" or should he accept that deal?
> 
> ...


I'd pass. I think it's doubtful that the Blazers use both of their MLE's this year and next given the number of players on our roster. I just don't see any use for the traded player exception. At best, it's probably worth a decent role player in today's market. As far as the Nets' 2nd rounder, that's going to be a late 2nd rounder and bring at best a guy that we send to play in Europe for a few years. For that price, it would be worth it to me just for the enjoyment of telling Thorne to stick it in his ear.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

Turn it down. The deal is worth next to nothing, but accepting it puts you in the "whipped" category. Every GM will have a new level to aim for trying to get you to buy junk. Even getting NJ's 1st rd pick would be pretty underwhelming, since a late 1st pick next year will be the equivalent of an early 2nd rounder of recent years (weakened draft, with many of the best hs'ers having left this year or forced to wait until the next). If you think no one's been intimidated by Nash yet, how would taking that chump deal be any better?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

FeloniusThunk said:


> If you think no one's been intimidated by Nash yet, how would taking that chump deal be any better?


I don't think that it's Nash's job to intimidate people. I think that it's his job to improve the Blazers.

The Blazers have very little leverage in the current situation, and in the hypothetical I paint they have NONE. Turning down any value at all for SAR just because you don't get what you want seems to be counterproductive to me.

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed, IMO, the problem with your hypothetical and your assertion that the Blazers have no leverage in this is that you're treating it as though the Blazers and Nets are the only players here. The odd man out is Shareef. While it may not make too much difference to the Nets whether they sign him with the MLE (although, as I've stated before, I do think that they want to use it on another player), Shareef has several million reasons to care. 

So, let's change up the hypothetical. Let's assume Shareef and his agent find an alternate deal with another team for either a S&T or, even just another MLE deal to a team that shows him more respect. Now let's put you in Thorne's seat and say Goodwin calls you up and tells you that you either have to give up the pick to make the deal with Portland or SAR's taking the other offer. What do you do? Keep the pick and settle for a lesser PF (at the risk of really irritating Jason Kidd), or make the deal? 

As I see it, the Nets really don't hold all of the cards here.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> Ed, IMO, the problem with your hypothetical and your assertion that the Blazers have no leverage in this is that you're treating it as though the Blazers and Nets are the only players here.


That's not really a problem with my hypothetical. My hypothetical is clear that the Nets and SAR have an agreement, and I wonder how people think the Blazers should react given that.

As for the way the world REALLY is at the moment: I don't think that SAR will go anywhere other than NJ whether the Blazers decide to help them or not. I just don't see another place for him that makes the same level of sense.



> So, let's change up the hypothetical. Let's assume Shareef and his agent find an alternate deal with another team for either a S&T or, even just another MLE deal to a team that shows him more respect. Now let's put you in Thorne's seat and say Goodwin calls you up and tells you that you either have to give up the pick to make the deal with Portland or SAR's taking the other offer. What do you do? Keep the pick and settle for a lesser PF (at the risk of really irritating Jason Kidd), or make the deal?


I'd say goodbye, SAR, and hello, Swift. Or Marshall. 



> As I see it, the Nets really don't hold all of the cards here.


I agree with you, but the fact that they don't hold all of the cards doesn't mean the Blazers can simply sit on their hands and expect the Nets to give them what they want.

I'm NOT saying that the Blazers should be bending over backwards to give SAR away. I just don't think that, if/when push comes to shove, they should let SAR walk for absolutely nothing.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I'm NOT saying that the Blazers should be bending over backwards to give SAR away. I just don't think that, if/when push comes to shove, they should let SAR walk for absolutely nothing.
> 
> Ed O.


If we do accept the lesser deal, every team will think they can lowball us. Even if the 2nd round pick is better than nothing, it's not a benefit in the long run to accept a **** deal like this just because it's the best offer on the table right now.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Ed O said:


> That's not really a problem with my hypothetical. My hypothetical is clear that the Nets and SAR have an agreement, and I wonder how people think the Blazers should react given that.
> 
> As for the way the world REALLY is at the moment: I don't think that SAR will go anywhere other than NJ whether the Blazers decide to help them or not. I just don't see another place for him that makes the same level of sense.
> 
> ...


The key is recognizing when push comes to shove. They aren't there yet.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> The key is recognizing when push comes to shove. They aren't there yet.


Agreed.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

RE: Ed's hypothetical scenario

I say pass....I tell Goodwin to sign w\ NJ for the MLE then, b\c while I would lose out on a late 2nd round pick (whooptefreakindo) and a TE I had NO intention of using....either Goodwin just cost his clienty over $9 MILLION dollars.....I don't care if you are already a millionaire or not, that is a LOT of money to leave on the table....IF SAR is fine with that, then good for him...But I still take satisfaction in knowing it screws up NJ plans, as now they have little chance to get Dooling, Marshall or any other decent FA....

Really guys....acting like a 2nd round pick from a probable playoff team is a valuable asset is a joke. Losing out on that pick is no big deal at all, & I don't buy that Goodwin is AT ALL amiable to settling for the MLE, he will only do so if SAR tellls him to.

I am surprised so many of you are willing to settle for scraps....keep showing a willingness to settle for scraps and that is all your ever going to be offered...you can count on that.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I don't think that it's Nash's job to intimidate people. I think that it's his job to improve the Blazers.
> 
> The Blazers have very little leverage in the current situation, and in the hypothetical I paint they have NONE. Turning down any value at all for SAR just because you don't get what you want seems to be counterproductive to me.
> 
> Ed O.


Sure it's his job to improve the Blazers, but you probably knew what I meant. This deal is bad enough that it doesn't noticeably improve the Blazers, while it may actually make Nash' job _more_ difficult in the future. You turn it down because it's counterproductive to accept it. Take the crumbs that anyone gives you, and pretty soon all you get will be crumbs.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

EdO, the problem in the hypothetical is that you have already removed the uncertainty by setting it up as NJ and SAR already have agreed. This part to me is unreal, in the sense that this will always have been NJ's bargaining position from the beginning. If you believe them, then from Day1 Nash should be capitulating. However, until SAR puts his name on the dotted line, I don't think the Blazers can take it at face value that he will sign. I also don't think that the 2nd round pick is worth much at all.

To me the issue is whether the TE has value to the Blazers or not. If, contrary to what Nash has been saying publically, the TE has value for the Blazers, then at the last possible moment, the Blazers should agree. However, if the TE doesn't have value to the Blazers, then there is no way they should agree. I agree with FThunk that accepting a bad offer doesn't really help. Let SAR sign with them if he wants. That is up to him. However, I see no reason why the Blazers should help the Nets for no real return for themselves.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

FeloniusThunk said:


> Sure it's his job to improve the Blazers, but you probably knew what I meant. This deal is bad enough that it doesn't noticeably improve the Blazers, while it may actually make Nash' job _more_ difficult in the future. You turn it down because it's counterproductive to accept it. Take the crumbs that anyone gives you, and pretty soon all you get will be crumbs.


I'm on record as thinking that the TE is hardly crumbs/scraps/nothing. I don't need to re-state that.

You may be right that if you take crumbs that anyone gives you, you'll just end up with crumbs.

It's also possible that if you only are willing to marry a supermodel, you'll never get married (unless you're barfo, and I'm not sure he actually marries 'em).

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Bwatcher said:


> EdO, the problem in the hypothetical is that you have already removed the uncertainty by setting it up as NJ and SAR already have agreed. This part to me is unreal, in the sense that this will always have been NJ's bargaining position from the beginning.


I fail to see how that's a problem. It's certainly not an impossible situation.



> If you believe them, then from Day1 Nash should be capitulating.


That's not the case. Nash is right in bargaining, and in trying to get more. I am putting the question of, once we're past the posturing point AND if it appears Portland has no other choice, should Portland accept NJ's offer.

I'm not saying that if you think that the Blazers should make that deal, then you think they should make it NOW.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

The deal is garbage, I'd rather call Reef and his agent's bluff by excepting the MLE, which I highly doubt they do. Nash is doing the right thing by not giving in, because the trade exception is virtually worthless to this team, and as someone stated previously the exception expires pretty soon. The way EdO is saying it, it seems like he's in a hurry to help Thorn and the Nets, I just don't feel that way. Yea they make call Nash on his and try and get Marshall or Swift, but those two are a significant downgrade in both talent and production. If Nash does pull this deal and only gains the exception out of it, I will declare it as the worst post Whitsitt move and the worst move Nash has done as the GM of the Blazers.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I'm on record as thinking that the TE is hardly crumbs/scraps/nothing. I don't need to re-state that.
> 
> You may be right that if you take crumbs that anyone gives you, you'll just end up with crumbs.
> 
> ...


The TE is a crumb if you don't plan to use it. It's useless to us.

And RE: your supermodels example. I would hardly consider a 1st round pick in the 24-30 range of next years draft a 'supermodel' of a deal. If we were holding out for both picks next year and one in 2008...that'd be holding out for the supermodel.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I am putting the question of, once we're past the posturing point AND if it appears Portland has no other choice, should Portland accept NJ's offer.
> 
> Ed O.


Image is not the issue. I believe the TE is worthless to this team, as is a 2nd rounder. If NJ has to use their MLE, it hurts them. The Blazers are in the game to help themselves.

So, no. Portland should only accept deals that help the team. If Nash gives the TE value, it means he might use it -- so do the deal. If Nash does not value the TE, then Portland should *not* do this deal.

iWatas


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> The TE is a crumb if you don't plan to use it. It's useless to us.


That is just simply not true.

The Blazers don't intend to use the TE now, perhaps, but things change over the course of a year.

The Nets had no intention of using the trade exception that they acquired when they traded Martin, and yet they will have used a lot of it and might get SAR with it.

If the Blazers acquire it and fail to use it, then it will arguably have been worthless. Until that point, it's an asset that would give the team more flexibility. I can't believe that some people can't see this.



> And RE: your supermodels example. I would hardly consider a 1st round pick in the 24-30 range of next years draft a 'supermodel' of a deal. If we were holding out for both picks next year and one in 2008...that'd be holding out for the supermodel.


I can't think of a team EVER getting a first round pick in a sign and trade for an MLE-level contract.

Nash is asking for unprecedented compensation. If he gets it: great. If he settles for nothing less, then it's a mistake on his part.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I can't think of a team EVER getting a first round pick in a sign and trade for an MLE-level contract.
> 
> Nash is asking for unprecedented compensation. If he gets it: great. If he settles for nothing less, then it's a mistake on his part.
> 
> Ed O.


Can you tell me the history of this scenario even panning out period?

I think you can not think of it, because I doubt its happened to often... probably the TE scenarios have expired with teams just reveling in loosing the salary off the books

A player being acquired by a TE is usually just that.. a purchase. Perhaps because draft picks being added or rights to a player included are probably the norm for TE. Maybe even, as you suggest 2nd round picks

I think its only amplified here becuase its in the FA period

I am not disagreeing.. its just that this does not happen too often at all it seems

acquiring any assets at all, rather than loosing out is a good thing


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Iwatas said:


> Image is not the issue. I believe the TE is worthless to this team, as is a 2nd rounder. If NJ has to use their MLE, it hurts them. The Blazers are in the game to help themselves.


Agreed. While there is some minor benefit to hurting NJ, I don't think that should be the basis for the Blazers' decision. We only play them twice a year and probably won't be interested in using our MLE this year, so having them have to use their MLE won't really help us.



> So, no. Portland should only accept deals that help the team. If Nash gives the TE value, it means he might use it -- so do the deal. If Nash does not value the TE, then Portland should *not* do this deal.


I don't make the assumption that Nash is always accurate in his assessments of value. Nash must have though that giving him Theo Ratliff an extension was a good idea. He must have thought letting Mo Cheeks coach the team last year was a good idea.

It's clear to me that the flexibility that the trade exception would bring has value. Nash's confidence that Portland will not be interested in using it over the next year (which includes a big chunk of next summer) is either a front or it's the sign of a messed up plan for the team.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I really see the TE as irrelevant.. although I am all for acquiring it with a 1st round pick

ITS THE ONLY way Rahim can get a long term deal and NJ can get Rahim and still use the MLE on someone else..

ITS the mechanism to make it work PERIOD

No draft pick or 6 year deal can be done with Rahim WITHOUT a TE going to Portland because we have his Bird rights

its either done this way or NJ uses the MLE... no if and or butts about it.. it has to be done that way for him to get a 6 year deal... that much at least only runs through Portland

now what Portland gets in addition to it as compensation is the key... the TE is a done deal if they want Rahim to get a 6 year deal at all

otherwise its the MLE for Rahim and the Nets


----------



## Charlie Brown (Oct 22, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> otherwise its the MLE for Rahim and the Nets


The Nets may very well have to use the MLE on Abdur-Rahim and then trade the TE and a second for another player to deepen their bench.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> It's also possible that if you only are willing to marry a supermodel, you'll never get married (unless you're barfo, and I'm not sure he actually marries 'em).
> 
> Ed O.


They just wanna sleep with me. They are mostly uninterested in marriage; they have their careers to think of.

barfo


----------

