# Nash in on the spot



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

The article in the Oregonian mentioned several players who want to see a trade happen. Probably the most compelling of the people to speak out was Nate. He was very politically correct and didn't say a trade was necessary, but in so many words he told Nash to get his butt in gear. Other players just came right out and said a trade is needed.

So Nash, the ball is in your court. Stop all the talk about giving it time, draft picks, letting players develop, character, equal trade value and do something with this mess you created (even Nate implied the team is a mess with the fact they haven't done anything with the glut of SF on the team).

The clock is ticking, time to earn your pay.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I was about to post something similar. It will be very interesting to see what happens. Unfortunately, I don't believe Nash has the ability to make a trade that will benefit the team. We shall see.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

nothing will happen the bottom line this is a horrible team . Other than Randolph you have nobody who demands a double team . I dont understand why guys like Blake play and sebatsian and travis and martell get minutes here and there . Blake has a couple of nice games I see should we trade sebastian . Let these young guys grow we are gonna be bad for a couple of years .


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

I don't want to see PatterNash make a bad trade. If a good one isn't available - we shouldn't do it.

Taking back big contracts will not help this team unless the name attached is Duncan, Amare, Dirk, Labron, etc. It's easy to think about our team as having gotten rid of all the bad contracts by letting Damon, Derek, Nick and Shareef all leave last year. Sorry, we still have some, Ruben, Theo, and possibly Miles (although I don't consider his "bad").

If the return isn't a young (<26 yr old), Top 8 kinda player - we don't want him unless his contact goes away in a year or two at most. 

Ping Pong balls.....are dancing......here come the Trail Blazers!!!!!


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

This team is absolutely horrible. A trade may need to be made just to lift the spirits of the players. This team is in danger of disintegrating without a move being made.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

tlong said:


> This team is absolutely horrible. A trade may need to be made just to lift the spirits of the players. This team is in danger of disintegrating without a move being made.



That is what I got from the article today. 

Also, Nate has publically made it know that the SF situation needs to be addressed. To me it was almost a dig on Nash saying we still have the same problem with all the SFs.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

I think the problem with the team is spreading the minutes out to so many people. How can anyone get into a groove? You see a lot of other teams giving 30+ minutes to their main starters even if they dont contribute as expected. We're basically letting our players, play half a game, every game they do play.

I think in order for us to be a better team, they need to start playing the starters 35+ minutes a game; get them in a rythym, and then reduce it to 30 and sub in some 2nd unit folk.


Other than that, Rube needs to go, he's such a loudmouth..


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

I would like us to go after pierce but why would Boston trade him and we dont have nothing in return


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> That is what I got from the article today.
> 
> Also, Nate has publically made it know that the SF situation needs to be addressed. To me it was almost a dig on Nash saying we still have the same problem with all the SFs.


I got the feeling that Nate isn't exactly enamored with Nash from the article. I hope that is the case as Nash will be gone soon if Nate isn't behind him.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Nash is not "on the spot"; he said this year was for evaluation and that we should not expect any significant player movement until the off season. (A secondary deal may happen but it will be along the lines of those trades that get one line at the end of the NBA wrap-up). He's doing what he said a zillion times he would do this year.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> I don't want to see PatterNash make a bad trade. If a good one isn't available - we shouldn't do it.


Normally I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But a couple of days ago, in my 'what do we do with all the SF's' thread, I said that I believe that indecision by Nash, in this case, would be more damaging than making a bad trade. Not necessarily worse than making a horrendous trade, but worse than your run-of-the-mill bad trade. If that makes sense....

Nash stockpiled wing players with a promise to them - and to the fans - that decisions would be made about who would stick after time of evaluation. Time's up, in my book. It's now time to move onto the next step.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

crandc said:


> Nash is not "on the spot"; he said this year was for evaluation and that we should not expect any significant player movement until the off season. (A secondary deal may happen but it will be along the lines of those trades that get one line at the end of the NBA wrap-up). He's doing what he said a zillion times he would do this year.


I seem to remember back in October (during the preseason) that Nash said that he realized the team was unbalanced (ie, too many SF's) and that it would take several months of evaluation, but that some decisions would need to be made by the trading deadline. I guess I haven't heard any specific quotes from him recently that would indicate that he's pushed back his timeline. Has he?


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

I still disagree. If a major shake up is really needed - we should send Telfair, Webster and Monia to the NBDL for the remainder of the season. Force the remaining players to shut-up and play harder to be competitive in games. We're being outworked recently - not that other teams have THAT much better talent than we have (kinda).

Force the likes of Zach and Miles to lead this team or suffer with the stigma that they couldn't get it done. Who really suffers from all these 30 pt losses?? The players do. That's why I say send the promising youngsters away so that blame is not theirs.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

crandc said:


> Nash is not "on the spot"; he said this year was for evaluation and that we should not expect any significant player movement until the off season. (A secondary deal may happen but it will be along the lines of those trades that get one line at the end of the NBA wrap-up). He's doing what he said a zillion times he would do this year.



I think he's *clearly * on the spot. He put together this trainwreck of a team, and he is going to have to do something to keep the coaching staff sane. If he doesn't, he will be gone.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

crandc said:


> Nash is not "on the spot"; he said this year was for evaluation and that we should not expect any significant player movement until the off season. (A secondary deal may happen but it will be along the lines of those trades that get one line at the end of the NBA wrap-up). He's doing what he said a zillion times he would do this year.



Maybe that is the problem, Nash's unwillingness to change plans. This team is putting up franchise records in blowouts and total assist in a game. Add to that, players aren't happy and the coach is grumbling. I hope Nash is willing to re-evaluate the sitaution.

Nash has said a lot of things during his tenure, it doesn't seem to be working. I know you don't think I'm patient enough with him . . . how long should we give him before we demand better than worst record in the Western Conference.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> Nash is not "on the spot"; he said this year was for evaluation and that we should not expect any significant player movement until the off season. (A secondary deal may happen but it will be along the lines of those trades that get one line at the end of the NBA wrap-up). He's doing what he said a zillion times he would do this year.



Agreed.

It's just too bad the team has given up. They're not horrible as they've already shown us in glimpses this season. Most of it is attitude.

However, it is what it is....an evaluative season, and the detractors are just gonna have to accept that fact.....winnning, losing, or getting blown out by 30.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> ....... I know you don't think I'm patient enough with him . . . how long should we give him before we demand better than worst record in the Western Conference.


2 more years. When we made the decision to go young and rebuild (almost one year ago), that decision was irrevocable. We didn't re-sign veterans, we drafted young vs. ready players, and we KNEW this was going to be a hard, filled with losing, season. Nothings changed.

I predicted 20-25 wins. We're on pace for that or better.

Stop this nonsense and extreme emotion - we are on this path and their isn't a way out of it. No other team will trade a superstar caliber player to us for our unproven players. We couldn't even trade the whole team for Duncan.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Actually, Nash *did* change plans.

Remember the whole "competitive" thing? That went out the window last year when it was clear that the team wasn't going to win. Now we're in a rebuild mode, and that means losses. A lot of them.

Shifting out of that mode just to shake things up would be bad for the franchise just like it was bad to trade away our best players and try to stay competitive at the same time.

To me, Nash isn't on the spot. He's gone after this year. His first "three pronged" plan was an utter failure and his efforts in the rebuilding plan don't look much better.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> 2 more years. When we made the decision to go young and rebuild (almost one year ago), that decision was irrevocable. We didn't re-sign veterans, we drafted young vs. ready players, and we KNEW this was going to be a hard, filled with losing, season. Nothings changed.
> 
> I predicted 20-25 wins. We're on pace for that or better.
> 
> Stop this nonsense and extreme emotion - we are on this path and their isn't a way out of it. No other team will trade a superstar caliber player to us for our unproven players. We couldn't even trade the whole team for Duncan.



It is *not * nonsense. Nate himself has pointed out the unbalanced nature of the team. This team is going nowhere in its current configuration...regardless of the players being young or not.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Actually, Nash *did* change plans.
> 
> Remember the whole "competitive" thing? That went out the window last year when it was clear that the team wasn't going to win. Now we're in a rebuild mode, and that means losses. A lot of them.
> 
> ...



I agree with most of what you said although I think it might be beneficial to shake things up. The players and coaches will be able to stomach only so much of this current condition.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> 2 more years. When we made the decision to go young and rebuild (almost one year ago), that decision was irrevocable. We didn't re-sign veterans, we drafted young vs. ready players, and we KNEW this was going to be a hard, filled with losing, season. Nothings changed.
> 
> I predicted 20-25 wins. We're on pace for that or better.
> 
> Stop this nonsense and extreme emotion - we are on this path and their isn't a way out of it. No other team will trade a superstar caliber player to us for our unproven players. We couldn't even trade the whole team for Duncan.


I think I predicted 27 as the over/under line and that still seems about right. Anyway, to me the question is not whether the team (as it's made up) should be doing better, as it was clear from the outset that the club lacked both talent and chemistry... to me the question is whether the current management should continue to make the calls on the rebuiding effort that the club is now faced with. IMO they've squandered many assets and opprotunities so far, and I struggle to find reasons other then pure hope that they'll do better from here on out. What great move have they made that I should hang my hopes on? The best I can rationalize is moves that haven't been proven to be failures yet that I'm patiently waiting on (like Martell). How many plans have they already scrapped after failing to come close to their stated goals?

I'm mostly hopeful that PA is quietly putting out feelers for the next captain(s) of his Blazer ship.

STOMP


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

The team needs two things right away:

1. A 2 guard who will not get posted up, who can rebound and spread the floor.

2. Interior toughness (backup C/PF)

To solve this:

1. Theo and Ruben to NY for: Q Rich and Penny

2. Travis to Charlotte for Melvin Ely

These two moves solve the SF crunch and gives the Blazers time to develop Martell as the eventual starter at SG.

The second deal may be interpreted as desperation, but the need for interior toughness is evident and Ely addresses this need. There may be other options for #2, but #1 is a definite need, since Martell is nowhere near being ready and the Juan Dixon experiment is officially over.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Actually, Nash *did* change plans.
> 
> Remember the whole "competitive" thing? That went out the window last year when it was clear that the team wasn't going to win. Now we're in a rebuild mode, and that means losses. A lot of them..


I disagree. To me, it was apparent that it would take "time" to be competetive. And, in order to do that (while still improving/maintaining fiscal responsibility), it would equate into a re-building process.

I don't believe they were gonna be in the business of changing the flat tire(s) while still rumbling down the road.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Shifting out of that mode just to shake things up would be bad for the franchise just like it was bad to trade away our best players and try to stay competitive at the same time.
> 
> To me, Nash isn't on the spot. He's gone after this year. His first "three pronged" plan was an utter failure and his efforts in the rebuilding plan don't look much better.
> 
> Ed O.



Well then from Nash's perspective, if he wants to keep his job, he is really on the spot. 

My impression was you thought building a team through developing youth was a bad model (which I agree). I say shift out of this mode, get a more balaced team with vets and youth and build from there.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> I agree with most of what you said although I think it might be beneficial to shake things up. The players and coaches will be able to stomach only so much of this current condition.


Most of these players aren't going to be on the team when we're any good, anyways. I'm not worried too much about that.

It wasn't my idea to go into a "rebuild" mode... I think that it's a more often a state of perpetuity than a stepping stone to a championship. With that being said, two things would seem to be critical to a rebuilding process:

1. Good decisions, and
2. Perseverance.

Rebuilding plans can be derailed by failing either of those things. I think it's possible that luck might be a third critical thing (since I'm not sure that any team can make systematic and contined "good" decisions in a competitive environment like the NBA).

This team has to make better decisions (not missing on Chris Paul, for example; not signing players to extensions as another). It also has to persevere. 

I might be totally wrong, but as I've articulated previously I think that John Nash is gonzo. I hope that he doesn't make a move just to make things look better as an attempt to save his job. Similarly, I hope we don't make a move just to make Dixon or Ruben or Theo happier/less miserable.

Of course I support a _good_ move, but I think few of us here would be against one 

Ed O.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Bookworm thread "Forget the Hype" 9/28/05 

Some of us saw this as a difficult season filled with losing. I just don't believe we should compound it by making a desperate, bad trade which further hinders our ability to be flexible in the future.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> I disagree. To me, it was apparent that it would take "time" to be competetive. And, in order to do that (while still improving/maintaining fiscal responsibility), it would equate into a re-building process.


'

That's a total copout, ABM.

Nash told us we were going to have:

1. Nice players,
2. A financially responsible payroll, and
3. A competitive team

He didn't say that SOMEDAY we'd be competitive. He didn't sign Theo to a massive extension so that SOMEDAY we'd be competitive. Or trade Rasheed for two veterans so SOMEDAY we'd be competitive.

He attempted to do what Whitsitt and a few other GMs have done: rebuild on the fly. He failed. So he changed gears, and while it might have been a good move given his failure to keep us competitive that change in plans doesn't alter the underlying failure.

Ed O.


----------



## EastCoastBlazer (Jan 17, 2006)

cimalee said:


> nothing will happen the bottom line this is a horrible team . Other than Randolph you have nobody who demands a double team . I dont understand why guys like Blake play and sebatsian and travis and martell get minutes here and there . Blake has a couple of nice games I see should we trade sebastian . Let these young guys grow we are gonna be bad for a couple of years .



Isn't Telfair getting equal or more minutes than Blake right now?


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> This team has to make better decisions (not missing on Chris Paul, for example...



No doubt. Just ask Joe Dumars why he missed on (by taking) Darko when he could have had Wade.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> '
> 
> That's a total copout, ABM.
> 
> ...


Uhmmmm, this team IS competetive....when it wants to be. This isn't a bad team. I've seen proof. In fact, mark it down now, we'll definitely make the Playoffs next season.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

tlong said:


> This team is absolutely horrible. A trade may need to be made just to lift the spirits of the players. This team is in danger of disintegrating without a move being made.


The team is going to suck no matter what. There's not a trade out there that makes us a good team, so why make a move now?

Wait til the offseason when we have our new GM. Let Kiki Vandeweghe or Geoff Petrie or Kevin Pritchard make the moves. Nash won't get equal value if he makes a move right now.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> Uhmmmm, this team IS competetive....when it wants to be. This isn't a bad team. I've seen proof. In fact, mark it down now, we'll definitely make the Playoffs next season.


I can't tell if you're serious. It seems that all four of those sentences are so at odds with reality that ... my mind is rejecting that you might be serious.

A team that starts Steve Blake and Juan Dixon in the back court just has to WANT to be good? Heh.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

ABM said:


> Uhmmmm, this team IS competetive....when it wants to be. This isn't a bad team. I've seen proof. In fact, mark it down now, we'll definitely make the Playoffs next season.



Dude,

You shouldn't make promises you can't keep. This team is horrible. We play a few competitive games at home and everybody thinks the team is at the cusp of respectability. When you go on the road you find out what you're really made of. In our case....not much.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Guys, I still look at the games against the Pistons, Mavs, Nugz, and many others and realize that there is hope. The team has gone through so many (evaluative) lineup changes, injuries, and incontinuities, it's no WONDER they're struggling.

As I said, they'll be in the playoffs next season.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

ABM said:


> Guys, I still look at the games against the Pistons, Mavs, Nugz, and many others and realize that there is hope. The team has gone through so many (evaluative) lineup changes, injuries, and incontinuities, it's no WONDER they're struggling.
> 
> *As I said, they'll be in the playoffs next season*.



Would you care to make a friendly wager on that?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

ABM said:


> As I said, they'll be in the playoffs next season.


With this team's carry over "talent", a MLE, a couple picks in a weak draft, and the likelyhood that Joel will leave, how in the world do you see this club in the playoffs? I think it's a lot more likely that about this time next season we'll be on our 10,000th Greg Oden thread. 

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> No doubt. Just ask Joe Dumars why he missed on (by taking) Darko when he could have had Wade.


Were the Pistons rebuilding? No.

If they WERE, that would have been a critical mistake. Good teams have greater room for error, though. It's one of the reasons I think tearing down a decent team is a mistake in almost every situation.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

STOMP said:


> With this team's carry over "talent", a MLE, a couple picks in a weak draft, and the likelyhood that Joel will leave, how in the world do you see this club in the playoffs? I think it's a lot more likely that about this time next season we'll be on our 10,000th Greg Oden thread.
> 
> STOMP



It's sad to think that the best opportunity for this club to lift itself out of the mess it is in is to absolutely suck next season.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> Guys, I still look at the games against the Pistons, Mavs, Nugz, and many others and realize that there is hope. The team has gone through so many (evaluative) lineup changes, injuries, and incontinuities, it's no WONDER they're struggling.


Losing close games in the NBA is pretty darn easy, even for bad teams. Look at any team in the NBA and you'll see that even the (other) worst teams have beaten better teams and lost close games... and almost every bad team in the NBA has had a recent coaching change, a plethora of young players, significant injuries, and an ever-shifting lineup.

I appreciate your positive outlook, but barring a miracle there's no way this team competes for a spot in the playoffs next year.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> ...I appreciate your positive outlook, but barring a miracle there's no way this team competes for a spot in the playoffs next year.
> 
> Ed O.


Gouge thine eyes out.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

tlong said:


> It's sad to think that the best opportunity for this club to lift itself out of the mess it is in is to absolutely suck next season.


I'd feel more optimistic if Paul could pry Petrie loose from Sac. this offseason, but IMO nothing would turn this club around faster then the luck of winning that lotto. More ping pong balls would help those odds...

STOMP


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i do feel nash is gone after the draft

if nate is unhappy then nash wont do anyting then I side with nash GMs are a dime a dozen great coaches are few and far between.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> Would you care to make a friendly wager on that?


I don't bet on sports. Lessons learned from the past. :yes:


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> It's one of the reasons I think tearing down a decent team is a mistake in almost every situation.
> 
> Ed O.


The dead horse says, from a financial standpoint, this former team was an utter disaster.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

ABM said:


> I don't bet on sports. Lessons learned from the past. :yes:


Chicken!


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> Chicken!



We can discuss during the Sacto game, perhaps.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

ABM said:


> We can discuss during the Sacto game, perhaps.


Aiight


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> Aiight


That's a code word in Atlanta.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I was an unabashed proponent of the "three-pronged plan", but I simply don't see how Nash has made any substantial headway on any of the three fronts:

1. Character: Okay, yeah, maybe some slight improvement here. But we still have Ruben disrupting the team with his words/actions from time to time. We still have Darius (who I will admit I have given up on from a character perspective). And we still have Zach, whose character isn't without question. And this whole thing with Bassy and the gun makes me feel like the message of "do the right thing" is simply not getting through to the players. Given alternatives, he chose (repeatedly, apparently) to do the wrong thing. Maybe it's just him, but what if all our players' first instict is to cover up, hide, etc. like that? What other dastardly deeds are still waiting to be uncovered? (This isn't about Bassy's incident per se. I'm talking about that incident potentially being an indicator that the "do the right thing" message isn't really sinking in.)

2. Fiscal Responsibility: Zach. Darius. Theo. I don't think I really need to go into much more detail than that. Zach I can kinda understand given the other signings that were happening at the time. But Darius and Theo both got WAY more than they deserved / was prudent, IMO. Neither of those signings were "fiscally responsible", and they may both combine to keep us from keeping the one guy we would really like to keep (Joel).

3. Competitiveness: Not even close to getting a sniff at this one at this point.

Like tlong mentioned, this team is in serious danger of disintegrating unless something is done to shake things up. And no, I don't want to see moves made that don't have positive impact. So, what is "positive impact"?

1. IMO, Nash NEEDS to make some moves to clearly delineate starter vs. reserve. Right now, we simply have too many PG's, SG's, and SF's who think they are starter material, but hardly any that truly are. Blake is probably our best PG, but I don't consider him any more than a solid reserve. Dixon is probably our best SG, but I don't consider him any more than an average reserve. And Miles is probably our best SF, but contribution-wise he isn't head and shoulders above Ruben, Viktor, or Travis in my book. We need legitimate starters at these positions, and we need the reserves at those positions to know that they are reserves and to know exactly what their (supporting) roles are.

2. Improved perimeter shooting.

3. Improved rebounding.

4. Improved man-on defense.

5. Improved team defense.

So we do have a lot of needs. A lot of opportunities for "positive impact" via trade. AND Nash has plenty of pieces to work with. Blake, Telfair, Jack, Dixon, Smith, Webster, Monia, Miles, Ruben, Travis, Viktor, Joel, Theo, and Ha all could have value in the right scenario.

But I think Nash is falling into the same trap many of us have fallen into: We have fallen in love with particular aspects of each of these players' games, and we tend to focus more on the negatives of losing those things via trade than the positives of what we could potentially get back. And, clearly, we have PLENTY that we need to get back.

This team is broken, and it needs to be fixed. No, it won't be fixed overnight, but it needs to start. And if WE have had enough time to figure out what this team needs, Nash damn well better have a pretty good idea by now, too. And because he seems to be doing nothing to fix it, I too am beginning to feel like he isn't the guy to fix it.

Then again, we all have to consider the very real possibility that he's just doing what Allen is telling him to do. Whitsitt claims that pretty much every decision he made, roster-wise, was at the behest of Allen. So maybe it's Allen who needs to go, not necessarily Nash. It's a possibility that we can't overlook.

PBF


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> Then again, we all have to consider the very real possibility that he's just doing what Allen is telling him to do. Whitsitt claims that pretty much every decision he made, roster-wise, was at the behest of Allen. So maybe it's Allen who needs to go, not necessarily Nash. It's a possibility that we can't overlook.


Whitsitt claimed that he ran the various options of every major decision by Paul, and the quotes I've heard/read from Nash and Patterson indicate he's been similarly involved with the current group. We can only speculate over how much he drives matters or how much he basically just wants to be in the loop overseeing his management doing their jobs. While PA _could_ be part of the problem, there is no proven way for disgruntled fans to get rid of an owner or guys like Sterling, Cohan, and Shinn wouldn't still own teams. Sorry.

STOMP


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Whitsitt claimed that he ran the various options of every major decision by Paul, and the quotes I've heard/read from Nash and Patterson indicate he's been similarly involved with the current group. We can only speculate over how much he drives matters or how much he basically just wants to be in the loop overseeing his management doing their jobs. While PA _could_ be part of the problem, there is no proven way for disgruntled fans to get rid of an owner or guys like Sterling, Cohan, and Shinn wouldn't still own teams. Sorry.
> 
> STOMP


Exactly why I mentioned it as something we should keep in mind. It might not necessarily be Nash. And if it's not, there's precious little we can do about it.

Any response to the _main_ point of my diatribe, STOMP?

PBF


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> Any response to the _main_ point of my diatribe, STOMP?


Generally if someone writes something I agree with I just nod my head. It seems we share similar frustrations over the state of the team and both view management as failing on many terms including the ones they publically set for themselves. 

I'm hopeful that PA shares this view as well and is preparing to impliment a regime change this offseason.

STOMP


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Well before the season John Nash set a goal for 20 wins. We will easily pass that this season. Webster had his coming out party last night and Nash is sitting pretty right now.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Well, I am not as pessimistic as perennial bitter lemon suckers like tlong, Stomp and EdO are....

However, I cannot fathom how Nash can keep his job after this year...

We have had a roster imbalance for how long now? Going into the season with only 1 legitimate PF was idiocy IMO.....

and if Nash decides to "stand pat" at the trade deadline...with this roster of 5 SF, 1 PF and 2 Centers who are out indefinitely then he is an idiot IMO...

I cannot tell if Nash is either gun shy or unrealistic in what value POR and other teams' players or worth, or a little of both...either way though, his decisions or lack thereof in some cases has really hurt this team....

Drafting 3 HS (4 if you count Outlaw) over the past few years hasn't helped either, especially when POR has made minimal moves at best to even out the impact of 4 HS on the team ....

Nash has had his chance, and while Telfair\Webster\Jack rate as incompletes in my book, he gets an F from me for his other manuevers....

Can someone explain to me why POR selected Monia over Martin, West, Allen, Harrison or Varejao? This was on a team that already had Miles, Ruben & Outlaw and had already decided on Khryapa....sheer stupidity IMO...


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> Well, I am not as pessimistic as perennial bitter lemon suckers like tlong, Stomp and EdO are....
> 
> However, I cannot fathom how Nash can keep his job after this year...
> 
> ...


He picked Monia and Khryapa because having each one have a fellow person they could relate to would make their transition to the NBA better. I don't agree with this, Nash has to go with the best talent. Fuuny thing is the only big man he has drafted is Ha, I'm guessing Nash doesn't like big men that much.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Some follow-up as to potential reasons for the state of this team:

*Fiscal Mandate* -- Discussed plenty here, yet still relevant. Nash will not be taking back any bad contract for any of our players. Nor, will he add to the current payroll in any way. Not surprisingly, he hasn't had any takers as many GM's either don't like the offers presented, or seem to be in the same situation in terms of not adding to payrolls already over the cap.

*Injuries* -- Sure, most teams have to deal with injuries. But, a team in a re-building mode can rarely afford to lose so many of their best players for long stretches over the season. The results are usually not good - as is the case with this current squad.

*The Nate Factor* -- I believe if Management had hired a mediocre yes-man to run this team, things would have turned out a bit differently. Not necessarily more wins, but different - it really would have then continued to be Nash's team. However, the Blazers pursued Nate, then offered him a long-term, high-dollar contract. In other words, they jumped squarely in bed with him as a game coach, not to mention his philosophical (no-bones, throwback, bring-your-lunchpail, my-way-or-the-highway) approach to today's NBA players. That being said, I believe PatterNash basically handed him the keys in terms of the types of players that would end up staying. I believe the slate was cleared last summer - despite any of PatterNash's then current notions regarding coexisting players. It would now become Nate's team. So, then, set into motion this current season as being one of evaluation and planning for the future - led by Nate himself. Hence, we've seen probably 20-something different starting units, players sent to the D-league, odd lineups and substitution patterns, etc. Although Nate obviously would like to win, he's still committed to boiling this team down to the point he can make logical, educated decisions in terms of who stays and who goes next season. In my opinion, it's really that simple. This is effectively a throwaway season.

*The Players' Emotions* -- Despite all the aforementioned, the players want to win. They're pros. Who can blame? They currently see the team in another downward spiral and, consequently, all that emotion spews out. We'll hear the "We need better players!" mantra, as well as some of the guys "protesting" by not giving it their all. I believe the team is currently in that state. Nate's got a quasi-"mutiny" on his hands - he knows it, but is really in a locked-in position (short of incessant tirades) as to what can or will be done. Bottom-line is, Nate is committed to the end result - next season and beyond.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Does anyone see the current doomsday outlooks prevailing in the heads of most posters to be largely influenced by the fact that they're on a *7-game, 17 day road trip?*.

I do. Like in most cases on this board, the Blazers are worse than we think when we're playing well, and a lot better than they are when they're playing poorly. Up until the Indiana game, they had been participating in a long series of competitive basketball games. The reffing and poor execution of the Nuggets game broke their backs, and now their spirits are low on the road. 

Couple this with something that a lot of people aren't mentioning: The network of advance scouting has caught on to Portland's Blake/Dixon situation, and now teams know how to defend them, making Zach that much more ineffective (now the team has him as the #1 option and no #2).

I think you solve this by changing the rotation once again: Go with Miles at the 3 and Outlaw at the 2. Start Jack. Move Viktor to the 4 spot to give Zach some much-needed rest. Do SOMETHING to mess with the opposing team's conception of our lineup. Because as it stands, their gameplan is being picked apart by the scouts/coaches and it's frustrating everyone.

While I'm skeptical as to whether this team will make the *playoffs* next year, I agree that the rotation could be lightened at the SF spot. I think if you package Monia and Ruben for an expiring, you lighten the load for a Gay, a Morrison, or a Carney. If they decide to go with a Bargnani, an Aldridge, or a Thomas, moving an SF still opens things up for Viktor and Outlaw. This final stretch of games is also a big test for Darius: Can he buy into Nate's system? Does he have the desire to become a marquee player?

The season is not lost: there are plenty of important evaluative goals that this team needs to meet in order to start building for the future...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> Does anyone see the current doomsday outlooks prevailing in the heads of most posters to be largely influenced by the fact that they're on a *7-game, 17 day road trip?*.


No. It's that they were blown out the first three games on that trip and they have the worst record in the conference.

If they'd just lost at the end of the trip, your point would hold more water with me.

Ed O.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

dont pull the trigger blindly, if nothing is available DO NOT settle.

keep darius and theo.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> No. It's that they were blown out the first three games on that trip and they have the worst record in the conference.
> 
> If they'd just lost at the end of the trip, your point would hold more water with me.
> 
> Ed O.


We lost by one point the first game of the road trip which obviously took a lot of wind out of our sails add to that Joel's injury and it makes a lot more sense.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

STOMP said:
 

> Whitsitt claimed that he ran the various options of every major decision by Paul, and the quotes I've heard/read from Nash and Patterson indicate he's been similarly involved with the current group. We can only speculate over how much he drives matters or how much he basically just wants to be in the loop overseeing his management doing their jobs. While PA _could_ be part of the problem, there is no proven way for disgruntled fans to get rid of an owner or guys like Sterling, Cohan, and Shinn wouldn't still own teams. Sorry.
> 
> STOMP


That's the whole problem. People judge Nash without knowing what he is/was offered trade wise, what he has offered other teams, or what say he has over the final deal. He may have came up with a lot of deals that was nix by PA, we don't know. We do know his hands are tied compared to BW big time and most of the trades people mention are outside of the parameters set down by PA. Some people want trades for the sake of trading and then would be ultra critcal of the trade if one took place.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> Well, I am not as pessimistic as *perennial bitter lemon suckers like tlong, Stomp and EdO * are....



I've never been called that before... :rofl:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

mgb said:


> That's the whole problem. People judge Nash without knowing what he is/was offered trade wise, what he has offered other teams, or what say he has over the final deal. He may have came up with a lot of deals that was nix by PA, we don't know.


sure... of course conversely he may have given the thumbs up to everything that Nash has proposed as well, we really don't know.



> *We do know his hands are tied compared to BW big time* and most of the trades people mention are outside of the parameters set down by PA.


Of course when BW was in charge there was no threat of a lux tax looming, so the playing field has changed. That doesn't mitigate the fact that the current management spent money like a drunken sailor on a lost weekend on Miles, Theo, and Zach, lavishly extending Zach and Theo a year ahead of schedule at top dollar. The club was positioned to dip under the salary cap presumably to make a run at an UFA of their liking, but insteed management decided that they'd rather have those 3 as the club's core/franchise players through the 2008/9 offseason when Theo's deal ends. IMO it only made sense to extend those guys if the club was willing to utilize their other assets (the expiring deals) to go after other vet talent. The path they choose shows me very little foresight. 

They've positioned the club just under the lux threashold until then at around 60mil per. In Bob's hayday he had the club in the mid-90's... but of course his teams drew fans. Play with your calc for just a few moments and you'll realize that the end of the day figures resulting from both sides of the ledger are about the same now as before. I wish the W's tallied the same way.

IMO it wasn't fate that doomed Portland to find itself amoung the leagues bottomfeeders, it was the poor decisions which were made.

STOMP


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> They've positioned the club just under the lux threashold until then at around 60mil per. In Bob's hayday he had the club in the mid-90's... but of course his teams drew fans. Play with your calc for just a few moments and you'll realize that the end of the day figures resulting from both sides of the ledger are about the same now as before. I wish the W's tallied the same way.


I think it took longer than usual for the _loyal_ (including season ticketholder) Blazer fans to say, "enough." I think it will take equally as long for them to finally come back.

This current boat hasn't yet reached shore.


----------

