# The Blazers and Common Sense



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

Everyone thought the team would be dismantled by now... and the pot smoking, etc. etc. thugs would be on their way out of Portland. But they are still on the Portland Roster. Why?

BLAME PAUL ALLEN for this one. He let Bob Whitsitt run amuck for years without having any accountability. Then - with the stroke of a pen he says fix the HUGE mess that it took Whitsitt 9 years to create and in the process lay off 88 hard working employees to save a meager 4 million a year - probably the amount they wasted having Chris Dudley on the IR for almost all of last season. Bob Whitsitt is sitting in Seattle fat and happy with a nice big pay check while the 88 folks laid off are collecting unemployment. Patterson and Nash are trying to work on the basketball side of things but aren't having much luck.



> "There are a number of teams pursuing us, but what is being offered is not commensurate to what we would be giving up," Nash said Saturday.


My first comment to Nash would be - What do you expect? The Blazers have come across as one of the most desperate teams in the league. Let's make 88 employees pay for Bob Whitsitt's mistakes. Let's announce to everyone our intention to right the wrongs made in the past and that character matters. Let's tell everyone we are getting rid of the bad apples. Yes, it was great to hear Paul Allen say this but... now all other teams perceive the Blazers as desperate so why would any team offer something commensurate with what the Blazers are offering? These players come with baggage which decreases their value. Teams are only willing to give commensurate players with baggage for Portland's baggage.

Makes perfect sense to me. If I was a GM working on a deal with the Blazers, I am not going to give up a good apple that plays as well as a Blazers bad apple, as an even trade. This isn't rocket science folks.

Now Patterson and Nash are in a NO-WIN situation - thanks Paul and Bob. Fans are expecting the bad apples to be gone - soon. Other teams won't take the bad apples unless it is a steal for them. And, Nash and Patterson are in a situation like no other President/GM has seen - put a winning team on the floor, get rid of the baggage, all of the bad apples, and reduce salaries. 

So far, they have lost Antonio Daniels and Scottie Pippen to Free Agency. Neither bad apples. Pip is playing for Chicago at about 5 million a season. Daniels is probably playing for Seattle for about 4 million (but I am not certain of the exact salary). Not an impressive run thus far, Mr. Patterson and Mr. Nash. 

The Lakers signed Gary Payton and Karl Malone for a HUGE cut in pay. Who have the Blazers signed? I remember thinking Mitch Kupchik was a horrible choice to interview for the Blazers' GM job. I am starting to change my mind.

In business, you are supposed to set your employees up to succeed. Paul Allen says he is going to run this team like a business now, yet he hasn't set up Patterson and Nash to succeed. 

Western Conference teams are all getting stronger and the Blazers currently look like an 8th, 9th or 10th place team in the Western Conference. And if I had to place a bet right now, it would be on the Blazers to NOT make the playoffs. Yes, there is still time for Patterson and Nash to make some magic. But, they can't have their cake and eat it too. To get rid of bad apples and big contracts is one thing, but to do that and reduce the payroll at the same time - DARN NEAR IMPOSSIBLE.

Paul Allen wants to improve his reputation as an owner and business man. Rather than hiring all of the suits from Wall Street to fix his problems... why not use a little common sense? Rule #1 - set your employees up to succeed. Well, I guess common sense isn't something the Accidental Zillionaire has going for him. 

Don't get me wrong - I hope Nash and Patterson pull off a miracle. But common sense says, don't hold your breath.


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

Well, you expressed my thoughts well... I agree with what you said. It really is unfar that, because of Whitsitt's mistakes, the former Blazer employees had to pay for it with their jobs in the end. That reallys sucks. We are starting in a good direction though (if you ignore firing all the employees). We've gotten rid of the main problem in Whitsitt, and we've been promised that character is more important than talent, and that will be proved by the team's signings, trades, and draft choices.

We are at the beginning of this whole ''new look,'' so you're right Gym Rat, we can't expect Allen and Company to reduce payroll, trade the bad apples, and be a playoff contender all in one year, unless there are one or two great deals that Nash will pull off, which isn't too likely.

Again, you summed up my thoughts well, and I agree with your post.


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

I disagree with you one thing you said.


> Originally posted by <b>Loyalty4Life</b>!
> We are starting in a good direction though (if you ignore firing all the employees). We've gotten rid of the main problem in Whitsitt, and we've been promised that character is more important than talent, and that will be proved by the team's signings, trades, and draft choices.


Until Paul Allen sets up Patterson and Nash to succeed... this is NOT a good direction and doesn't make good business sense.

My question to Paul Allen is - which is more important - reducing the payroll, cleaning up the image of the team, or put a winning team on the floor? It can't be all of them.


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

If you were stuck in Allen's situation, what would you do to try to make the Blazers a better team, while making (slowly) a good image for them? I think hiring Patterson and Nash were good hirings, and will help out the Blazers for the long term.


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

Give them realistic goals to achieve.

And answer the question - which is more important - reducing the payroll, cleaning up the image of the team, or put a winning team on the floor? It can't be all of them.

If it is cleaning up the image - it will cost some money. If it is winning and cleaning up the image, it will cost money. If it is reducing the salaries and cleaning up the image - then don't expect to win.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I am almost thinking that they are willing to wait out some of the bad contracts and let them walk. I do think that there is going to be one trade, I just have a feeling. WE as fans have been spoild with Bob Whitsitt willingness to spend Paul Allen's money.

I really think that Steve Patterson and John Nash are going to right all the wrongs that have happen with this team, but it isn't going to happen overnight. This might take a few years to make better.

With the Los Angeles, Sacramento, Dallas, San Antonio, even Minnesota getting so much better, wouldn't it make sense not to make that bold move and just stand pat and start building for 2 or 3 years down the road?

I think that Nash is going to want to build around Zach Randolph and Qyntel Woods. This is going to be a learning year for the players and us the fans.

I'm not going to scream "I want a Championship" this year, I am going to be real about it. I want to see playing time for the younger players and start building for a few years down the road.

It is going to take time, and time might be years instead of months. I'm willing to wait if I see that the team is growing together with young leadership instead of what typical happens in Portland.

So me progress and I'll wait.


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

You are right, Gym Rat--they cannot do all these things at once. I guess we'll have to see what route they take for this year. With the possiblity of Sabas returning, I'm guessing they are definitely concerned with the fans' approval of the team, seeing that Sabas is a fan favorite.

Speaking of Sabas, I don't think we've had a fan favorite like him since Brian Grant, or maybe even Drexler. Maybe that's why the management wants him back so badly...


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Loyalty4Life</b>!
> You are right, Gym Rat--they cannot do all these things at once. I guess we'll have to see what route they take for this year. With the possiblity of Sabas returning, I'm guessing they are definitely concerned with the fans' approval of the team, seeing that Sabas is a fan favorite.
> 
> Speaking of Sabas, I don't think we've had a fan favorite like him since Brian Grant, or maybe even Drexler. Maybe that's why the management wants him back so badly...


I think that this is the reason that any Dallas deal isn't going to happen. Portland doesn't want to trade Sabonis if he really wants to play this season.

I think that the fans love him to death. Even at his age he is going to help Portland win4 to 6 extra games by just being on the floor. That is why I think Portland is not going to trade Sabonis if there is any hope of him playing next season. Guess we will find out this up coming week as to what Sabas plans to do.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> The Lakers signed Gary Payton and Karl Malone for a HUGE cut in pay. Who have the Blazers signed? I remember thinking Mitch Kupchik was a horrible choice to interview for the Blazers' GM job. I am starting to change my mind.


Huge salary cut sure, but whats the chances we'll be seeing Gary and Karl sitting down with a couple of Big Macs during every single commercial break this upcoming season? Would you like some Sprite to wash down that tasty burger GP? I don't think that would happen if they signed exemption deals with Portland. It's common for the endorsement deals players have with the various products they push (shoes, clothing, ect...) to automaticly double and even triple when they are playing for a top 3 market. From a player's finacial perspective, salary is only one potencial revenue stream. MJ definitively proved this by never making less in endorsements throughout his career then he did in salary (even when he was making 30+mil per). 

I don't think Mitch deserves huge kudos for having two HOFers gift wrap themselves to LA. Do it in Milwalkee and I'll give him credit.

STOMP


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> I think that Nash is going to want to build around Zach Randolph and Qyntel Woods. This is going to be a learning year for the players and us the fans.


Howie - that is part of the problem. Build around one of the guys cited this year for smokin' dope in his car, the same guy that used a trading card as ID? And, the other guy shattered the eye socket of a teammate he sucker punched? If cleaning up the image is part of the process, Woods has to go and Randolph is an issue. Building around them shouldn't happen. Plus Woods isn't a Scottie Pippen and Randolph isn't a Rasheed Wallace, Chris Webber, etc. in terms of talent. He is talented but talented enough to build around, I think NOT.


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: The Blazers and Common Sense*



> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Huge salary cut sure, but whats the chances we'll be seeing Gary and Karl sitting down with a couple of Big Macs during every single commercial break this upcoming season? Would you like some Sprite to wash down that tasty burger GP? I don't think that would happen if they signed exemption deals with Portland. It's common for the endorsement deals players have with the various products they push (shoes, clothing, ect...) to automaticly double and even triple when they are playing for a top 3 market. From a player's finacial perspective, salary is only one potencial revenue stream. MJ definitively proved this by never making less in endorsements throughout his career then he did in salary (even when he was making 30+mil per).
> ...


Hey, he didn't have salary to work with and he signed them at huge pay cuts. Sure, they have endorsements. But last season they had endorsements and salary. It is a pay cut. Mitch deserves credit for this.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

I am really trying hard to wait until the summer ends to judge the the changes. I think Nash is trying, but I also think he might he may not be able to get anything done. If all our bad apples ( Damon,Sheed, RP, Bonzi) are here on opening day, I will be very disappointed. They already had a offer for a future draft pick and a not so good backup center for RP. Talent wise we lose with the stewart for Patterson trade, but he do build for the future. Having two picks increases our chance of moving up and getting one of the elite players. With our draft track record, I like our chances even if it is a pick from 13-20. I do understand your frustration Gym Rat, L4L and Howie. I am starting to think we might end up with the same underachieving unstable talent we had last year.


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Peaceman</b>!
> I am really trying hard to wait until the summer ends to judge the the changes. I think Nash is trying, but I also think he might he may not be able to get anything done. If all our bad apples ( Damon,Sheed, RP, Bonzi) are here on opening day, I will be very disappointed. They already had a offer for a future draft pick and a not so good backup center for RP. Talent wise we lose with the stewart for Patterson trade, but he do build for the future. Having two picks increases our chance of moving up and getting one of the elite players. With our draft track record, I like our chances even if it is a pick from 13-20. I do understand your frustration Gym Rat, L4L and Howie. I am starting to think we might end up with the same underachieving unstable talent we had last year.


Peaceman - that isn't my point... It does look like the team will remain the same but...

Allen seems to be trying to communicate. Try to explain the priorities PLEASE. 

Give Patterson and the fans realistic goals to achieve. 

And answer the question - which is more important - reducing the payroll, cleaning up the image of the team, or put a winning team on the floor? It can't be all of them. 

If it is cleaning up the image - it will cost some money. If it is winning and cleaning up the image, it will cost more money. If it is reducing the salaries and cleaning up the image - then don't expect to win.

From everything I have read, Patterson, Nash and Allen are trying to accomplish all three - which means this team will end up where it is right now and no one will be happy and the same group of troubled players will be on the floor for Portland next season. 

This doesn't mean I am giving up on Patterson and Nash... if they pull off a miracle I will be VERY IMPRESSED. In the mean time, I wish I understood what they are trying to achieve.

And as Paul Allen completes work on his newest Yacht and Bob Whitsitt sits in Seattle with a nice 5 year contract collecting the big bucks... the nearly 1,000 employees Paul has laid off during the past year (from numerous different companies) all go and collect their unemployment checks. 

That part, I will not get over and every time I think of the Blazers and watch them play - that will be weighing heavy on my mind.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> 
> 
> Peaceman - that isn't my point... It does look like the team will remain the same but...
> ...



I actually agree with you that all three are almost impossible to achieve. That is why I wish we would rebuild without tearing us completely down. If we miss the playoffs, but get a hard working team. I'll buy tickets. We can do two of the three IMO, but all three adds a lot of pressure to Nash. I wish him lots of luck.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: The Blazers and Common Sense*



> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> Hey, he didn't have salary to work with and he signed them at huge pay cuts. Sure, they have endorsements. But last season they had endorsements and salary. It is a pay cut. Mitch deserves credit for this.


Last season they had more salary then endorsements, this year they will likely be starring during the commercial breaks like never before. They (and their agents) recognize this massive bump to their bottom line as a very attractive reason to sign with a major market. It's the very same reason why Kobe forced his way into LA through the draft, and Stevie Francis forced his way out of Vancouver. Orlando reportedly offered Shaq a bigger contract then the Lakers too. Big markets offer endorsement opprotunities for top players that smaller markets (like Portland) can't. I don't credit Mitch for this situation as it existed long before he took the reigns in LA. Mr Clutch used to get this sort of credit, but he doesn't have HOF talents showwing up on his doorstep in Memphis. 

I'm just pointing out that attracting talent to your franchise is far from a level playing field.

STOMP


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: The Blazers and Common Sense*



> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Last season they had more salary then endorsements, this year they will likely be starring during the commercial breaks like never before. They (and their agents) recognize this massive bump to their bottom line as a very attractive reason to sign with a major market. It's the very same reason why Kobe forced his way into LA through the draft, and Stevie Francis forced his way out of Vancouver. Orlando reportedly offered Shaq a bigger contract then the Lakers too. Big markets offer endorsement opprotunities for top players that smaller markets (like Portland) can't. I don't credit Mitch for this situation as it existed long before he took the reigns in LA. Mr Clutch used to get this sort of credit, but he doesn't have HOF talents showwing up on his doorstep in Memphis.
> ...


I understand your point. But more endorsements is more work for these guys. I still give Mitch some credit.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> Everyone thought the team would be dismantled by now...



I agree with your general sentiment that Paul's made some mistakes and things are pretty tough for Blazer fans right now. However, I do feel like thing are improving.

The layoffs. To compare 88 employees to Chris Dudley is unfair. Talent always supercedes support and layoffs are the American Way. I won't argue this point much because I respect that you've probably looked into the layoffs more than I have but I've been told by two current employees (both of which have been with the Blazers for 10 years or so) that most of the layoffs included WNBA residue and Whitsitt's staff. If this is true, it's simply good business sense to cut fat.

Make no mistake, it's always too bad when someone loses a job -especially in Oregon's current environment and yes, I too have been umemployeed before. However, the general concept of layoffs is something that we, the workers, have helped create. 50 years ago here in the US (and more recently in Japan before their catastrophic economic crash) there was a generally accepted belief that one would go to work for a company and be fiercely loyal to the welfare of that company until it was time to retire. In exchange for this loyalty, a company would generally look at layoffs as truly a last resort.

Thankfully, American figured out that this agreement between business and employee simply did not work. These days, we all know people who've been layed off and we all know just as many people who have left jobs for green pastures. It's this current relationship that we have that allows me not to view the Blazer layoffs in a negative light.

What are the Blazers goals - Winning, Character or Budget?

Unfortunately, it seems pretty clear that Budget is #1 and everything else is significantly below that in priority. We have the layoffs - although that may have happened regardless. We have several rumors of rejected trades. We have the lengthy searches for new leaders - you can't tell me that 5 years ago if there was a particular person Allen wanted, he wouldn't have bought him/her and lastly, as you pointed out, we have lost a couple of good apples.

Where we differ in opinion is that I feel like the Blazers turnaround, if done correctly, will take time - probably a few years and that there should be no pressure on Nash and Patterson to make an immediate impact.

As you pointed out, you simply aren't going to trade an equally talented good apple for bad. Never happen. But what about a bad apple with a year left on his contract for some decently talented apples signed long term? I've always felt like Damon would be a great player at 5-7 mil per year. Just not 15mil or whatever he's making.

The process of replacing our bad apples is going to take time unless we firesale them which will hurt the Blazer's number one objective. As these bad apples' contracts get closer to expiring, they will become a much more valuable trading commodity. That's when I'll expect Nash to make some moves.

If something can be done beforehand that makes sense, it'll be a very pleasant surprise.

I had a point about setting your employees up to succeed but now I've forgotten it. Probably for the best.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> 
> 
> Howie - that is part of the problem. Build around one of the guys cited this year for smokin' dope in his car, the same guy that used a trading card as ID? And, the other guy shattered the eye socket of a teammate he sucker punched? If cleaning up the image is part of the process, Woods has to go and Randolph is an issue. Building around them shouldn't happen. Plus Woods isn't a Scottie Pippen and Randolph isn't a Rasheed Wallace, Chris Webber, etc. in terms of talent. He is talented but talented enough to build around, I think NOT.


Your right, Woods is a bonehead, but Randolph is a player worth building around. I know that he is not Weber, Malone, or Wallace, but he is a player that will give you 100% on the court. Isn't that what we want as fans? I don't see Nash trading any of the younger players just yet. Woods is a problem, but I think he is going to get a second chance and his play this season is going to make him a Blazer or your right, he is going to have to be moved.

Portland is going to be stuck under the salary cap for atleast two more years and any hope of a *Super Star* are going to be left on the back burner until then. Randolph, for whatever reason punched a team mate, but I have heard that those practices become heated daily. Does it make it right? No, but it is something that happens due to ribbing or ego. 

I will ask you this, "Who would you rather build around?" Rasheed Wallace or Zach Randolph?" IMO, Rasheed is a waste of time and money, he is never going to be that player we want him to be. Zach on the other hand has shown that he wants to play and is putting forth the effort to make himself better. I would rather build around a less talented player with heart, than a gifted player with no heart.

Maybe that player that we both could agree on isn't a Blazer yet, but given what we have to choose from, I'd build around Randolph instead of Wallace. There just isn't a lot to pick from is there?

:twocents:


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

I work for a large corporation. 8 years ago, the company hired a CEO who, essentially, raped the company. Without going into the gory details, he made several (SEVERAL) moves which served his self interests, alone. Unfortunately, by the time the Board realized what was truly happening (yes, their ignorance and fault, too), it was too late.

Of course, he was fired - but, not without him receiving his proverbial and, dare I say, GIANT, _golden parachute_ - which, BTW, I hate "GP's" with a passion!!!

Fortunately, the company hired a sound CEO - a person that had all of our interests at heart, while also displaying an incredible business sense and wherewithal to do the "right" things.

Of course, when he took over, he warned us that our company was like a large aircraft carrier - that it was going to take a good deal of time to right it and head it the other direction.

Then the layoffs hit.

You can imagine the intense anger (towards you-know-who) of the employees - from the ones that got "hit", to the ones that remained, while sadly watching their beloved work-mates get the "undeserved" axe.

That was about 6 years ago. On a positive side, we're just now beginning to see some of the fruits of upper-management's labor, and also watching the stock price naturally inch closer to what it once was. 

However, we are supposed to be going through still another layoff period coming up around mid-September. (I hope to be one of the survivors.) And, without fail, every time we go through a period like this, we are starkly reminded of the blankety-blank that started it all - and the fact that he's probably on the French Riviera - or the like - sipping on his silly umbrella drink, laughing at us "fools"..........................


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> I work for a large corporation. 8 years ago, the company hired a CEO who, essentially, raped the company. Without going into the gory details, he made several (SEVERAL) moves which served his self interests, alone. Unfortunately, by the time the Board realized what was truly happening (yes, their ignorance and fault, too), it was too late.
> 
> Of course, he was fired - but, not without him receiving his proverbial and, dare I say, GIANT, _golden parachute[i/] - which, BTW, I hate "GP's" with a passion!!!
> ...


_

That is the point, it is not something that is going to happen overnight. It is going to hurt over the next few years, but I am holding out hope that Patterson and Nash are going to correct the current situation and make us all proud._


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*sabas is a must*

He is our most valuable player at this point.
Don't laugh !
He is the smartest player on the court.

His points don't always show it,but just like Scottie,he makes the 
other players better.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Hey skilled 7'3 300 lb guys aren't all that common. I'd love to have him back, but unfortunately it's not up to me to decide, or the Blazers for that matter. He's got a nice contract, if he wants it.

I think his decision on whether he'll come back is possibly whats holding up other moves by the front office. Certainly his expring contract could be used to fetch a quality player from a team looking to slash salaries.

STOMP


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: The Blazers and Common Sense*



> Originally posted by <b>trifecta</b>!
> The layoffs. To compare 88 employees to Chris Dudley is unfair. Talent always supercedes support and layoffs are the American Way. I won't argue this point much because I respect that you've probably looked into the layoffs more than I have but I've been told by two current employees (both of which have been with the Blazers for 10 years or so) that most of the layoffs included WNBA residue and Whitsitt's staff. If this is true, it's simply good business sense to cut fat.


I have already said more than I should have about my opinion but I do want to follow up with your comment. Some layoffs were needed but if someone is telling you this was WNBA residue and Whitsitt's staff - they don't have a clue or are trying to minimize what happened. The WNBA layoffs came in December of last year. There was no residue. And, as for the Whitsitt's staff comment - a few, maybe... but you are talking less than 10 of 88 people let go. Good grief.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

First off let me say that my heart is out for all those who lost their jobs in Allen's business's.. with Oregon's jobless rate being so high it hurts even more

the whole set up goes beyond Mr. Allen's Blazers and his declarations to Patterson and Nash... the league is the problem. Professional sports are the problem.... All of these players getting millions and millions in a season is ridiculous... its way out of line with those who are employed behind the scenes to run the teams such as the Blazers and others.

when a player gets fined like Sheed did for 7 games last year... his salary for those 7 games is way more than many of us make in several years, maybe even a career... does that seem fair now for them to get laid off.. no way! Laying off the people who support these players is far from right. But if a business has too much overhead then yes. If they have more employees than most teams.. then yes... but its not right, when you turn around and are not responsible in other areas far more lucrative in staffing the team. That is where I believe the rub really is.. why lay them off when it accounts for about $4 mill in payroll, when the average player on the teams exceed this... $89 mill div by 12 = $7.42 mill per player as an average.. including Sabas salary now

what was Sheeds last year salary ($14.5 mill GUESSING or so / 82) * 7 = $1,237,805 that is $1.2 mill for only 7 games

I will probably not make that $1.2 mill the rest of my life, he gets it in just 7 games, and I get paid pretty decent.... the proportions of professional players to the rest of the world's average worker bee salary is not even close. iots astronomical. Its a fairly tale for birth genetics.

My company had laid off many people back when I first started. Many of those were in my department which indeed had too many people. It was a good call by the owners. I still to this day harbor a resentment towards it. But I understand why they did it. And it was the right thing to do. I am betting 5 years down the road, what the Blazers did was right as well. All of us worker bees with reasonable salaries may not think so, but it may be right. There will even be those who will thank the Blazers for laying them off, forcing them to get other jobs, maybe even better than what they had. They just needed a push.


As far as those 3 utterances by Allen... win, charecter and $... it is seemingly impossible. But I think it can be done, even this year. Its all up to his expectations.... and our read of the expectations.

I just do not expect them to do 3-5 years work in 4 months time. But I do expect them to make progress on it.

Did Paul Allen say he mandated lowering the team salary from $105 mill to $52 mill in one year.. NO! Did he say reduce it ? YES
Is being reduced to $89 mill achieving that goal? $92 mill? or $75 mill or $62 mil.... somewhere there is a financial goal that will make them all happy. Only Paul Allen knows...

Its hard for an owner who might have assets of $500 mill to pay a player $80-90 mill... I have no idea what the net worth of all owners are in the league, but for those who own and assets are small, it has to hurt them. It hurts Mr. Allen even if he has $41 bill still. My gosh Mr. Allen just lost $41 billion dollars last year... that is a bit of pocket change.

It is a business and a hobby.. its a busniess no less. He is not going to loose $100 mill each year on the Blazers and own the team for long if he keeps it up. Mr Allen makes or looses more in one day then many of us together make in a year combined. It hurts so badly to us fans and employees because its personal. Its our livelyhood. Its our survival. It hurts me when the stocks take a plunge each day, its a bigger part of my future than Mr. Allens. Its a higher percentage of my retirement.

Do all of you belive they really are going to go from $105 mill to lets say $52 mill in team salary one year?. :nonono: 

but they already have achieved a large reduction from $105 mill to $89 mill... saving at least $16 mill in luxury payments next year.. so benchmark that and go on from there and now try to reduce it even farther. Its $82 mill without Sabas.. with him its $89 mill+ That $89 mill may have achieved there goal already :whoknows:

Does he want to continue to make the playoffs like the rest of us maybe do? YES

Every owner except maybe Don Sterling wants to win... so does Paul Allen.


If we mark Damon, Bonzi, Sheed and Patterson as our bad charecter players.. maybe even a possibly disgruntled McInnis... 

How many of those players need to be traded to meet YOUR expectations to improve charecter? How about Mr. Allens? Do you think the expectations may be different? What if we brought back more problems in a trade, but the trade was done to meet OUR expectations? What if we did a trade and it worsened our team salary? now that does no good.

Can we do all three of the questions posed? Yes I think we can... but not a huge step all at once in all three areas...

if we moved 2 of those players and reduced the salary down into the mid $70 mill range and still got into the playoffs I would be very happy... and this would satisfy those 3 mandates at least for this year. Its progress.. not the final solution or answer.. but progress

Keep moving forward and improve.. that is what is important. Patterson and Nash are a big improvement and a step forward IMHO.

I really think they will trade Sheed with reasonable talent in return. But I think this will depend a lot on Zach and how well he does defensively this year. If he steps it up, they will do that. If he fails we will have to keep Sheed and try to resign him to lower numbers.

sorry for rambling.... but there are many issues in this thread.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Blazers and Common Sense*



> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> I understand your point. But more endorsements is more work for these guys. I still give Mitch some credit.


I think it had much more to do with the Laker lure of a championship than any talent from Mitch as a GM or their agents... any added work for endorsements by any agent is what they are paid for


all Mitch really had to do is say.. sign here... Magic, Mr. Buss and Shaq courted them as well... 

who would not want to play with Shaq and Kobe if the Lakers wanted you on their team?


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> So far, they have lost Antonio Daniels and Scottie Pippen to Free Agency. Neither bad apples. Pip is playing for Chicago at about 5 million a season. Daniels is probably playing for Seattle for about 4 million (but I am not certain of the exact salary). Not an impressive run thus far, Mr. Patterson and Mr. Nash.


I think Daniels got a 3yr $6Mill deal with Seattle. 

Yeah...it doesn't seem impressive to let AD and Pip walk. I think some moves will happen, but at the moment it all hinges on Sabas...

If Sabas retires, there will be a trade and changes. If he returns, the line-up might be the same....:|


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I think anyone who thought the team would be dismantled by now wasn't being realistic.

There are just too many players who have too much talent making too much money with too many problems. If you remove any one of those 4 factors, things would either be OK and/or easier to change.

The team is not willing to dump players, and they will need to wait out good deals for any players they want to move. Those kind of deals aren't very common and if there are 4 or 5 players you want to move but not dump, that takes years, not weeks or months.

Ed O.


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I think anyone who thought the team would be dismantled by now wasn't being realistic.
> 
> There are just too many players who have too much talent making too much money with too many problems. If you remove any one of those 4 factors, things would either be OK and/or easier to change.
> ...


You can honestly say you didn't expect a trade or something to happen by now? I didn't expect it to be finished (yes, it will take years) but I thought they would have a start on the process. It appears they are building the team around two young players of questionable character. So - what gives? What are the priorities?


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: The Blazers and Common Sense*



> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> Hey, he didn't have salary to work with and he signed them at huge pay cuts. Sure, they have endorsements. But last season they had endorsements and salary. It is a pay cut. Mitch deserves credit for this.


I disagree... Any GM could have swung that deal.

From the GP Malone press conference it seems that they had made up there mind about joining forces some time ago (Mitch did not work any sort of Magic in this case).

_What exactly did Mitch do other than be the active GM on the marquee team in the (currently) most desirable NBA destination (from a marketing and competitive standpoint)?_

In that same press conference both Malone and Payton spoke of Shaq (and Magic) persuading them to join the Lakers, Mitch was just the lucky guy whom happened to be GM (IMO).


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!
> I disagree... Any GM could have swung that deal.
> 
> From the GP Malone press conference it seems that they hade made up there mind about joining forces some time ago (Mitch did not work any sort of Magic in this case).
> ...


Yeah...I kinda agree. The Lakers are such an attractive team to go to. Both GP and Malone obviously want a ring, so they probably had a narrow list of 'teams to join'.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> 
> You can honestly say you didn't expect a trade or something to happen by now? I didn't expect it to be finished (yes, it will take years) but I thought they would have a start on the process. It appears they are building the team around two young players of questionable character. So - what gives? What are the priorities?


Dealing with your questions/statements in reverse order 

I don't know what the real priorities are. The three priorities (winning, salary control, and good character) are mutual exclusive, unless a team gets VERY lucky.

I'm not sure that it's clear that ZR and Woods are going to be the two guys the Blazers build around. Their upsides aren't much, if at all, higher than Rasheed's and Bonzi's, and since we have Rasheed and Bonzi in their prime it would make more sense to build around them. I don't think that ANY of those four guys (or any other Blazers in their current age/state) are good enough to build around, so I'm not sure it really matters.

I thought that the odds of a trade being made by now were better than normal, but I think that the fact that a GM wasn't really in place for July negated those increased odds. I didn't think that the Blazers could get fair value for their players, and so I was hoping that they wouldn't dump Rasheed, Bonzi, or the others. So I'm happy about that. I'm UNHAPPY that the Blazers were unable to get Payton or be a player in the FA market at all (especially considering Sabas's unique salary situation). 

I think that this loops around to the first part of this post: the financial realities are the top priority, with winning second and character (or perceived character) improvement third. Finances and winning might be tied... it seems the team isn't willing to decrease their chances of winning to save $, but they aren't willing to commit more $ to win more games. The third priority would potentially adversely affect both of the other two priorites, so I'm not surprised it's slid to the bottom of the heap, in spite of some people thinking that the image crisis is such a dire situation for the Blazers.

With ALL of this said: it's only August. There is plenty of time for very significant change if the Blazers can get a move that makes sense to their priority structure.

What happens with Sabonis might be a litmus test. Trade him (either to move some issues off the team or to improve the team in another way... this would by my personal fav) and the team is probably still prioritizing winning highly; bring him back? bump up the perceived character priority and maybe the winning, and downgrade the finances; cut him & save salary (worst case scenario, IMO): bump up finances at the expense of the other two).

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> The three priorities (winning, salary control, and good character) are mutual exclusive.......


Say, Ed, this reminds me of that old marketing adage we tossed around in here awhile back...

In this case:

Winning = Quality
Salary Control = Price
Good Character = Service

You can have any _two_. :yes:


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> 
> The Lakers signed Gary Payton and Karl Malone for a HUGE cut in pay. Who have the Blazers signed? I remember thinking Mitch Kupchik was a horrible choice to interview for the Blazers' GM job. I am starting to change my mind.


Really?

I give Mitch credit for the following:

1) Setting up a meeting with Karl Malone first thing out of the gate. Smart move.

2) Taking Karl seriously when Malone offered to take the LLE if Payton would come play for the MLE. I actually believe that some GM's might not do this.

3) Getting the word out about what Malone offered.

4) Getting Payton to agree to a meeting where the MLE would be offered.

5) Making lots of follow-up calls with Malone, Payton, and their agents.

6) Having his staff put the actual contracts together.

7) Signing his name on the dotted line.


Other than that, the signings were pretty much gift-wrapped for him. As soon as Malone made his offer, the wheels were set in motion. Shaq played a part in the signings, too (lest we forget) and I have no idea how much input Mitch had in encouraging him to make phone calls to Payton and Malone. As long as he didn't miss a crucial (yet obvious) step in the process, he'd be able to make the signing.

Mitch, IMO, did nothing spectacular or superhuman. He simply did his job and accepted the generous gifts given to him by Malone and Payton. I give him this much credit, but no more.

Do you not believe that Nash could have had the same exact "success" were he GM of the Lakers this summer? I sure do.


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: The Blazers and Common Sense*



> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> Mitch, IMO, did nothing spectacular or superhuman. He simply did his job and accepted the generous gifts given to him by Malone and Payton. I give him this much credit, but no more.
> 
> Do you not believe that Nash could have had the same exact "success" were he GM of the Lakers this summer? I sure do.


I never said he did something superhuman or spectacular... he did his job. The Lakers have signed two future Hall of Famers... for a heck of a lot less money than what they made to play last season. What have the Blazers done? Fined Damon 250K... what else???

If I were hand picking a GM tomorrow, it wouldn't be Nash or Mitch. But at least Mitch has accomplished something this summer.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

I think some people here are assuming that Allan is turning into a penny pincher, but I don't think this is ture at all. He doesn't want to pay money if it is unnecassary (as evident by the layoffs) but I don't think he is going to put a less competitive team on the floor for financial reasons.

I think the reason Allen didn't want Pippen and AD resigned is they arn't helpful to making this a better basketball team in the long run. AD would not accept a role with the other players currently on the roster, and Pippen has almost nothing left in his tank, plus the blazers want time for their younger guys. These were decent players who left but neither of them had a huge upside.

Allen tried paying excessively just to get a championship, similar to what Cuban is doing with his huge contracts he has given out to Finley, LaFrentz, Bradley, etc... but Paul realized this can actually make your team LESS competitive. Big salaries are worth less in a trade, it makes your players less movable and your roster harder to improve. There is just no reason to pay someone more then their market value.

I think Allen figured out that you can pay more and usually get a better employee, but just paying the same employee more doesn't make him better.


And Mitch doesn't really deserve any praise, although he did do his job adequately. Yes he could have screwed it up by not signing them, but Mitch wasn't the reason Malone and GP signed. I would hope any GM of a professional multi-million dollar athletic francise would be able to sign two hall of famers who had been convinced by others to sign with them.


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: The Blazers and Common Sense*



> Originally posted by <b>trifecta</b>!
> The layoffs. To compare 88 employees to Chris Dudley is unfair. Talent always supercedes support and layoffs are the American Way. I won't argue this point much because I respect that you've probably looked into the layoffs more than I have but I've been told by two current employees (both of which have been with the Blazers for 10 years or so) that most of the layoffs included WNBA residue and Whitsitt's staff. If this is true, it's simply good business sense to cut fat.


I should have pointed this out last night... if Whitsitt's staff is gone, why is Mark Warkentien and Brad Weinrich (Scouting Services Assistant) still employed? Someone sold you quite a line of crap. Both of these men were an intregal part of Bob Whitsitt's staff. Warkentien is a solid scout, no doubt. But many of the 88 employees that were let go were very solid, if not outstanding, at what they did, also.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Question: Did Allen go entirely with Vulcan's, Vulture's, whatever's recommendations? In other words, were the layoffs decided and determined by them alone?

How the heck did that company get involved, anyway?


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: The Blazers and Common Sense*



> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> 
> 
> I should have pointed this out last night... if Whitsitt's staff is gone, why is Mark Warkentien and Brad Weinrich (Scouting Services Assistant) still employed? Someone sold you quite a line of crap. Both of these men were an intregal part of Bob Whitsitt's staff. Warkentien is a solid scout, no doubt. But many of the 88 employees that were let go were very solid, if not outstanding, at what they did, also.


I completely agree with the line of crap line. It could be true but my feeling has always been if it was, it seems like it would have been a nice PR move to leak that info to the public.


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> Question: Did Allen go entirely with Vulcan's, Vulture's, whatever's recommendations? In other words, were the layoffs decided and determined by them alone?
> 
> How the heck did that company get involved, anyway?


It is my impression that Vulcan hired some wallstreet suits to do an analysis of all pro sports teams and to make a recomendation on how to reduce costs. The team found out that the Seahawks and Blazers probably had the most bloated staffs in their leagues. So they said cut cut cut.... 

I agree the staff was bloated. But not by 88 PEOPLE!!! There was fat that needed to be cut. But it should have been cut in a respectful way... not you have one hour to get out of your office, you will be escorted by security while you pack you personal belongings and by the way, your phone and e-mail have been shut down and you have no access to that information. That is a hell of a way to treat long standing loyal employees. 

And, I do not think Erin Hubert or others in the current Blazers' management wanted it to be this way - I think this came from those Vulcan Vultures, Bert Kolde and Paul Allen.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> 
> 
> It is my impression that Vulcan hired some wallstreet suits to do an analysis of all pro sports teams and to make a recomendation on how to reduce costs. The team found out that the Seahawks and Blazers probably had the most bloated staffs in their leagues. So they said cut cut cut....
> ...


Gee, how do you *really* feel?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Well I do not blame her at all...

That is a terrible way to do it.. no doubt about it.. and I am sure Mrs. Hubert and the gnag did not want to do it that way... higher ups probably deemed it that way



I would like to hear how other organizations do it...

With our company, its done similarly.... they have done the same, and in some cases, they have met people at the door as they come in, in the morning and escort them around until they are packed and out. No email, no phones.. nothing... 

no way to start the morning that is for sure, and we are not exactly a high security company


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> 
> 
> It is my impression that Vulcan hired some wallstreet suits to do an analysis of all pro sports teams and to make a recomendation on how to reduce costs. The team found out that the Seahawks and Blazers probably had the most bloated staffs in their leagues. So they said cut cut cut....
> ...


Totally agree with you. I think that the way that they let these people go was wrong. If they were that worried about their public relations they should have forecasted this move and gave 90 day notice to those getting the axe to make arrangements. Giving them till 12:30 to be out of the building with their personal effects was wrong. Jobs needed to be cut, but there is a wrong way and a right way to do everything. :sigh:


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Um yeah, that was wierd!


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> Well I do not blame her at all...
> 
> That is a terrible way to do it.. no doubt about it.. and I am sure Mrs. Hubert and the gnag did not want to do it that way... higher ups probably deemed it that way
> ...


Many companies give employees 90 days notice. Others give employees a week's notice. Some say you will be finished at the end of the day but are given an opportunity to say farewell to their co-workers, trade home numbers, etc. etc. But to have everything shut off, an hour to get out with security looking over your shoulder and no way to even make a phone call is ridiculous. If there are security issues - I completely understand and would support laying off employees in such a manner because REAL security issues exist. 

It makes me wonder what the heck the organization is so paranoid about. It isn't like employees have all trade considerations, contract info, and trade secrets (ie. Mo Cheeks' playbook) in their computers or on their voice mail. Show them some dignity and respect. Don't treat them like a bunch of criminals! Many were long time loyal employees that will probably become part time workers when the season starts. Geez.


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> Um yeah, that was wierd!


Howie I thought you liked your statement so much it deserved to be quoted!!!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> 
> It makes me wonder what the heck the organization is so paranoid about. It isn't like employees have all trade considerations, contract info, and trade secrets (ie. Mo Cheeks' playbook) in their computers or on their voice mail. Show them some dignity and respect. Don't treat them like a bunch of criminals! Many were long time loyal employees that will probably become part time workers when the season starts. Geez.


I think that you're looking too hard for bad guys. As you know, that method, however strange it seems, for laying people off is not unique to Portland and it's probably not even that uncommon (my wife was laid off by a company in the same fashion).

I don't think that it's a matter of paranoia, and it's not a matter of protecting trade secrets. When you lay off such a high percentage of people, there's no nice way to do it and I'm sure the Blazers had their reasons for their abrupt treatment.

Ed O.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> Question: Did Allen go entirely with Vulcan's, Vulture's, whatever's recommendations? In other words, were the layoffs decided and determined by them alone?
> 
> How the heck did that company get involved, anyway?


Vulcan manages Allen's investments. The Blazers are one of Allen's investments. It's not such a huge stretch.

And, I've said it before, but lots of Allen's companies have had layoffs this year, including Vulcan itself. Laying off team staff may or may not have been a good decision, but it probably had little if anything to do with the evil TBob, or player salaries, or the various conspiracy theories voiced here.

I just hope that some of the people the Blazers axed were in the PR department. Inept barely begins to cover that subject.

barfo


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> 
> Howie I thought you liked your statement so much it deserved to be quoted!!!


Yeah?  

I thought that I was in edit and I hit the darn quote button instead. To tell you the truth I scared myself when it came up so I tried to delete it, Yeah that wasn't happening either! So I did a cover up and thought no one would be any the wiser. I thought that I was quick on the draw to get rid of it, little did I know that someone would see it!


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> I work for a large corporation. 8 years ago, the company hired a CEO who, essentially, raped the company. Without going into the gory details, he made several (SEVERAL) moves which served his self interests, alone. Unfortunately, by the time the Board realized what was truly happening (yes, their ignorance and fault, too), it was too late.
> 
> Of course, he was fired - but, not without him receiving his proverbial and, dare I say, GIANT, _golden parachute_ - which, BTW, I hate "GP's" with a passion!!!
> ...


What a horrible situation, but a great analogy ABM. Gets the point through quite vividly. 

Stuart


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Gym Rat</b>!
> Give them realistic goals to achieve.
> 
> And answer the question - which is more important - reducing the payroll, cleaning up the image of the team, or put a winning team on the floor? It can't be all of them.


Barring Nash and crew somehow getting hugely lucky, I have to agree that achieving all three goals at the same time is pretty much out. How much further out are they, I wonder, for having announced all these goals? Ol' Bob took a lot of flak for his silences and occasional moments of verbose non-information. However, it seems to me (hindsight being 20/20 and all) a better tactic would have been to keep Bob on, seemingly as normal, to spearhead this make-over so that the Blazers would be dealing from a more even playing field. The reigns could then have been handed over at the start of the season or somewhere further down the road but, as it stands now, it seems like Nash and company will be significantly disadvantaged in any trade that might happen for the next six months to a year.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> the financial realities are the top priority, with winning second and character (or perceived character) improvement third.


Crap, you got there before me. But like you kind of said it's more of a passive heirarchy. We won't change character if it's going to hinder winning and we're not going to try to win if it will cost more money. In the practical application of the theory I think all three are really on a level. If another team proposes a deal and it does one of the following; lower our character, lower our chances of winning or increase our long term spending we're not gonna do that deal. So for the Blazers to do a deal it would have to be one in which the players we got in return had the same if not better character, talent and contract as the players we're sending out. That's extremely hard to do. So I'm not at all surprised that no deals have been done.


Edited for masked cursing.


----------

