# Jason Jennings



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

This isn't an important question, it's just for something I'm putting together.

Did the Blazers finally give up their rights to Jennings?


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

I think they did.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Yes, they did.

Don't know why they're still holding on to guys like Doron Sheffer or Federico Kammerichs, though.

PBF


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

I can't be the only one waiting for a response from barfo on this subject, can I?

Heh heh heh...


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Couldn't blazers get something for the rights of the 3 guys they currently have?<3 pbf


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Zidane said:


> Couldn't blazers get something for the rights of the 3 guys they currently have?<3 pbf


Yeah, but who is going to give up anything other then maybe a few K in cash for rights?


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Blazer Freak said:


> Yeah, but who is going to give up anything other then maybe a few K in cash for rights?


 Well, Will Perdue was obviously worth Doron, according to the Clippers. Heh heh heh...

(I really do wish he would come play in the NBA though. I think he could help the Blazers a lot.)


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Zidane said:


> Couldn't blazers get something for the rights of the 3 guys they currently have?<3 pbf


Based on the chances of the players coming to the NBA....we might be able to get a Coke Slurpie and a free "Deal of the Day" from ABM!!


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

0 that sucks.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Ta. And I'm thankful no one made a Colorado Rockies joke.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

This is off topic, so if you're interested in Jason Jennings, you should stop reading. Got that, Mrs. Jennings?

Re: your .sig, ShamBulls. I'm wondering what the point of it is. Not to be political or anything, but entire countries don't put any bombs anywhere. If we're talking about people, though, the London Underground bombs were put there by British citizens.

Of course, if we're talking about _administrations_, well then, the US and Britain have managed to kill more than their fair share of noncombatant civilians, as you're no doubt aware. If you're not, perhaps you should take a gander at IraqBodyCount.net. Or maybe Scott May (not _the_ Scott May) should.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

HearToTemptYou said:


> I can't be the only one waiting for a response from barfo on this subject, can I?
> 
> Heh heh heh...


Man, I leave town for a while and a Jason Jennings discussion breaks out!

Jason Jennings is the one. Jason Jennings is so much fun!
Jason Jennings, he's our boy. Jason Jennings, he's a joy!
Jason Jennings will get the win. Jason Jennings - and his kin!
Jason Jennings not Jarrett Jack. Jason Jennings on the attack!
Jason Jennings cannot fail. Jason Jennings, all must hail!

barfo


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm not sure how I'm going to get rid of this image in my head, of a guy with a mustache jumping around in a short skirt and pompoms.

Go Blazers


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

CatchNRelease said:


> I'm not sure how I'm going to get rid of this image in my head, of a guy with a mustache jumping around in a short skirt and pompoms.
> 
> Go Blazers


I see you went to high school with Schilly.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> 0 that sucks


more like he sucks (J.J.) but that's just IMO.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

meru said:


> Re: your .sig, ShamBulls. I'm wondering what the point of it is. Not to be political or anything, but entire countries don't put any bombs anywhere. If we're talking about people, though, the London Underground bombs were put there by British citizens.
> 
> Of course, if we're talking about _administrations_, well then, the US and Britain have managed to kill more than their fair share of noncombatant civilians, as you're no doubt aware. If you're not, perhaps you should take a gander at IraqBodyCount.net. Or maybe Scott May (not _the_ Scott May) should.




Jason Jennings is tall.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> This is off topic, so if you're interested in Jason Jennings, you should stop reading. Got that, Mrs. Jennings?
> 
> Re: your .sig, ShamBulls. I'm wondering what the point of it is. Not to be political or anything, but entire countries don't put any bombs anywhere. If we're talking about people, though, the London Underground bombs were put there by British citizens.
> 
> Of course, if we're talking about administrations, well then, the US and Britain have managed to kill more than their fair share of noncombatant civilians, as you're no doubt aware. If you're not, perhaps you should take a gander at IraqBodyCount.net. Or maybe Scott May (not the Scott May) should.


This board is had been imflamatory enough lately, can you guys keep the political talk to PM's please.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Bump:


What about Doron Sheffer?


:whoknows:


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> Bump:
> 
> 
> What about Doron Sheffer?
> ...


The Blazers still have his rights I'm fairly sure.

Not that it really means much, as he will probably never play in the NBA at this point.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

HearToTemptYou said:


> The Blazers still have his rights I'm fairly sure.
> 
> Not that it really means much, as he will probably never play in the NBA at this point.




Indeed. Why does a team going for youth movement sign a foreign 33 year old rookie point guard? In fact, why would anyone? He's not good enough, he's not getting better, and no one is going to give anything for his rights. Bit of a reach there.

Still, I suppose it doesn't cost anything.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> Indeed. Why does a team going for youth movement sign a foreign 33 year old rookie point guard? In fact, why would anyone? He's not good enough, he's not getting better, and no one is going to give anything for his rights. Bit of a reach there.
> 
> Still, I suppose it doesn't cost anything.


I believe he was part of a trade earlier, and not someone the team signed.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> Indeed. Why does a team going for youth movement sign a foreign 33 year old rookie point guard? In fact, why would anyone? He's not good enough, he's not getting better, and no one is going to give anything for his rights. Bit of a reach there.
> 
> Still, I suppose it doesn't cost anything.


His rights were acquired from the Clippers via a trade for Will Perdue.

The Clippers traded for Perdue to actually raise their total salary. At the time, they were so far under the cap that they would have actually gotten taxed for being too low.

The Clippers traded the rights to Doron (a piece that didn't have any salary) for Will Perdue, who was waived with in hours of the trade.

For what it's worth, I've read that Doron is often considered the best Israeli basketball player ever. He just didn't desire to come play in the NBA.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Hap said:


> I believe he was part of a trade earlier, and not someone the team signed.




Yes I know, but what I'm saying is that there's only two possible reasons why you would keep a player's rights.


* To sign them at some stage
* Or to get something for them in the long run


Neither of these will happen.


----------



## KJay (Sep 22, 2002)

or a third reason.

* to provide content for threads.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Another reason you do that trade is for unspoken "future considerations" by helping another team. Someday - we'll get a small advantage in trade discussions with the Clippers for doing it. It helped them.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Zidane said:


> Couldn't blazers get something for the rights of the 3 guys they currently have?<3 pbf



Yes, and if they pull off that miracle, then there is this bridge across the Willamette river I bet they could sell.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Another reason you do that trade is for unspoken "future considerations" by helping another team. Someday - we'll get a small advantage in trade discussions with the Clippers for doing it. It helped them.






Yeah..........but...........

.........that doesn't mean 5 years down the line we still need to hold his rights with no intention of using them.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

ShamBulls said:


> Yeah..........but...........
> 
> .........that doesn't mean 5 years down the line we still need to hold his rights with no intention of using them.


Why not? It doesn't cost anything to keep the rights, and it would cost something to give them up - presumably someone would have to fill out a form or something and send it to the league office - why bother doing that? Doing nothing seems simpler and accomplishes the same thing (namely, nothing).

barfo


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

HearToTemptYou said:


> His rights were acquired from the Clippers via a trade for Will Perdue.
> 
> The Clippers traded for Perdue to actually raise their total salary. At the time, they were so far under the cap that they would have actually gotten taxed for being too low.


Are you sure about this, HTTY? I thought that it was a case where the Blazers were going to pay luxury tax so it made sense to pay the Clippers his salary + a bit more to be out from under his deal.

The Clippers DID receive cash as part of the trade.

I guess it's possible that the Clippers were on the verge of being taxed (for too low of a salary) AND Portland was saving luxury tax. I just don't remember your Clipper angle, but it doesn't mean that my memory isn't faulty here...

Ed O.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

barfo said:


> Why not? It doesn't cost anything to keep the rights, and it would cost something to give them up - presumably someone would have to fill out a form or something and send it to the league office - why bother doing that? Doing nothing seems simpler and accomplishes the same thing (namely, nothing).
> 
> barfo





You have to fill out the form and send it in every year to keep his rights. If you don't fill out said form, you lose the rights. See? They're making conscious efforts. We could save some work for whoever's job it is to fill out boring paperwork which is ultimately redundant. They could then use that time for other things, like drinking coffee.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> You have to fill out the form and send it in every year to keep his rights. If you don't fill out said form, you lose the rights. See?


I don't know if that's true. What's your source for that?

It seems like the league could establish an "opt out" policy for franchises, rather than the opposite, since it would reduce paperwork.

Ed O.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Ed O said:


> What's your source for that?




Questionable, at best. That's what I was lead to believe. Not convinced by my own previous sentence, I looked it up.




> If the player is already under contract, or signs a contract with a non-NBA team, the team retains the player's draft rights for one year after the player's obligation to the non-NBA team ends. Essentially, the clock stops as long as the player plays pro ball outside the NBA. Players are not included in the team's team salary while the player is under contract with a non-NBA team.




If I have interpreted that correctly, since Sheffer has continued to play professionally every year, only once he stops will the rights slowly dribble away.


If that's true, did Jason Jennings stop playing?


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

A three page thread on Jason Jennings... I never thought I'd see the day


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> A three page thread on Jason Jennings... I never thought I'd see the day


It's like a dream come true. Pinch me, Kate. Pinch me. Spank me, make me, uh, wait, wrong message board...

barfo


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Are you sure about this, HTTY? I thought that it was a case where the Blazers were going to pay luxury tax so it made sense to pay the Clippers his salary + a bit more to be out from under his deal.
> 
> The Clippers DID receive cash as part of the trade.
> 
> ...


The way I explained it above is how Mike Rice described it on the radio the week following the trade. I'm 99% sure of it.

(I have a good memory for these kinds of things. I suppose I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.)

Then again, Mike Rice could have been mistaken.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I remember at the time of the Clipper deal that it was mentioned they took on salary so they would be above the league minimum. Maybe all our memories are faulty.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> I remember at the time of the Clipper deal that it was mentioned they took on salary so they would be above the league minimum. Maybe all our memories are faulty.


That's how I remember it too.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

SheedSoNasty said:


> A three page thread on Jason Jennings... I never thought I'd see the day



Be fair now. It's a page and a half on Jason Jennings, and a page and a half on Doron Sheffer. Next up, two pages on Federico Kammerichs, then we'll open the Sinanovic monologues. :banana:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

HearToTemptYou said:


> That's how I remember it too.


Beautiful. Good enough for me, guys. I think that it's probably a combo of the Blazers lowering their luxury tax and saving money even while sending cash to LA *and* LA getting above the league minimum by taking on Will.

Ed O.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> Federico Kammerichs












Every time...


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Every time...














=














Spooooooky.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

On elast mention:


Federico Kammerichs just signed for three years in Spain.



I guess we'll have to rebuild without him. :banghead:


----------

