# OT: Champ Sheed is leading his Pistons to victory on ring night!



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Why did we trade him again? Please remind me. Somehow, SAR + Theo don't quite seem worth it.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

So we can give Randolph the max :twocents:

resigning the more talented Sheed at $5 mil less was too much to ask for


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> So we can give Randolph the max :twocents:
> 
> resigning the more talented Sheed at $5 mil less was too much to ask for




Is that why? Here this whole time I thought it was because the Blazers were losing huge amounts of money from sponsors and season ticket holders pulling out because Sheed was such a jerk. And that he represented this city in such a horrible light. And that the organization was constantly embarrassed by his"both teams played hard", and "as long as someone CTC type interviews. It's a shame too because tallent wise Sheed is far better than Randolph, just a bigger A-hole. 

Honestly the Blazers could give a crap what you think. And that's not a bad thing. You probably don't support them financialy other than a few times a year.


----------



## Hype #9 (Feb 14, 2004)

Good Sheed: Bought championship belts for each player, with each having a plate with their name on the belt.

Bad Sheed: When accepting his ring from David Stern, he just walked by with a stone look on his face, without acknowledging Stern at all.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mediocre man</b>!
> Honestly the Blazers could give a crap what you think. And that's not a bad thing. You probably don't support them financialy other than a few times a year.


Your barking up the wrong tree here MM.... I was a season ticket holder for over 10 years. How about you? Although the Blazers realistically probably do not care what I think. I support them fully.

Zach is way overpaid IMHO. Sheed is a much better value at $9 mil. But that does nto mean I want him back on the team. Outside of his talent on the court, I do not miss Sheed and his antics one bit.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mediocre man</b>!
> 
> Is that why? Here this whole time I thought it was because the Blazers were losing huge amounts of money from sponsors and season ticket holders pulling out because Sheed was such a jerk.


Nice theory. Ticket sales fell off after he was traded though, and they haven't been exactly hotcakes so far this year. 

As much as some fans seem to enjoy grousing over PR concerns, I think winning and the perception of the club possibly making a championship run is a much bigger factor in generating fan interest. With Sabas and Pippen faded and gone, Portland's championship window had essencially closed with or without Sheed. IMO they were bound to have some tail off in both wins and sales because of this. Just from the standpoint of really enjoying seeing the Blazers win games, I wish we could have seen some more games with the post Miles trade lineup with Wallace... that was a potent mix IMO.

btw, check out the belts Sheed bought his teammates in the pic I linked... funny stuff 

STOMP


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Uh, oh.. Here we go again.. Opening day, and it's already starting. :boxing:


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hype #9</b>!
> Good Sheed: Bought championship belts for each player, with each having a plate with their name on the belt.
> 
> Bad Sheed: When accepting his ring from David Stern, he just walked by with a stone look on his face, without acknowledging Stern at all.


I LMAO when I saw him do that. patted the trophy, took the ring, walked right by the three white guys standing there to shake his hand. Classic Rasheed. 

when he decides he doesn't like somebody, there's not a damned thing on the planet that'll make him pretend he does, even for a championship ceremony. 

still my favorite player in the game.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

We traded Sheed because his relationship with team management had deteriorated to the point where he was not going to resign with the Blazers. Basically, we *had* to trade Sheed. Personally, I love the guy's game! He is definitely an a-hole though.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> 
> 
> Your barking up the wrong tree here MM.... I was a season ticket holder for over 10 years. How about you? Although the Blazers realistically probably do not care what I think. I support them fully.
> ...




Fair enough Trader Bob. I shouldn't have said that. I've been a season ticket holder for the past 15 years FYI. I don't think Zach was over paid though. I mean if Kirilenko and Gasol got the max Zach should too. His basketball numbers are better.


And as for Stomps comments I think it was more the fact that sponsors were backing out because of Sheed


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> Why did we trade him again? Please remind me. Somehow, SAR + Theo don't quite seem worth it.


What it all boiled down to, IMO, was that Sheed had just grown tired of being a Blazer. His antics on and off the court - and his slacker attitude - cast a dark cloud over the franchise, and he wasn't willing to change it. He didn't fit the direction the new regime wanted to take the franchise. It was time for him to move on.

And maybe it's time for us to move on, too. Sheed may have put Detroit over the top, but he was never going to put us over the top. He's gone. Get over it.

PBF


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "when [Wallace] decides he doesn't like somebody, there's not a damned thing on the planet that'll make him pretend he does . . .


Ever notice how most of the guys he doesn't like are white?



> "Check out the belts Sheed bought his teammates in the pic I linked... funny stuff."


Funny is one word. Tacky and tasteless are a couple of others.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Nice theory. Ticket sales fell off after he was traded though, and they haven't been exactly hotcakes so far this year.


actually, both statements are missleading and not true.

for starters, the ticket sales didn't fall off greatly after he was traded. And they have gone up for this year. Whether or not they'd be "hot cakes" isn't exactly the level we should be comparing them too. 

Rasheed was one of the problems with the Blazers, in many fans minds. His trade wasn't all the sudden going to improve the # of people buying seats, nor going to games. And the # of fans who were going to games this year, weren't going to all the sudden increase with him gone, nor probably with him here.



> btw, check out the belts Sheed bought his teammates in the pic I linked... funny stuff
> 
> STOMP


I thought the belts were pretty cool. (uh oh, i wanted sheed gone, but I still like sheed...what the hell?? 8) )


----------



## amd pwr (Jun 24, 2003)

:laugh: What a belt!!! :laugh: 


i want one


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> Ever notice how most of the guys he doesn't like are white?


I've noticed lots of people who he does like who happen to be white as well, certainly you've noticed him embracing and chatting up various white players after games. He lists Andre Agasi as one of the 3 athletes he admires and Dick Vitale as his favorite announcer on his website. 

Wallace has spoken to not agreeing with the way the league is run. The guys in charge happen to be white. Workers not liking management is hardly limited to him. 

I do notice one poster who floats lots of theories on race though... most of them seem to disparage african americans... hmmmm



> Funny is one word. Tacky and tasteless are a couple of others.


yes you are right TH... how dare Wallace smear the solemn majesty of the ring ceremony with championship belts. It was nice of his teammates to pretend to like them. 

STOMP


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> Wallace has spoken to not agreeing with the way the league is run. The guys in charge happen to be white. Workers not liking management is hardly limited to him.


That's a very tender way of putting it, STOMP.

Dude flat-out accused the NBA of racism.

PBF


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

I nominate all Sheed posts be banished, just like Politcal ones. So who's with me? :mob: 


Let's all unite Blazer fans. Put down all the past trades and drafts. Our team starts it's title run tonight.. :rofl:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> I've noticed lots of people who he does like who happen to be white as well, certainly you've noticed him embracing and chatting up various white players after games. He lists Andre Agasi as one of the 3 athletes he admires and Dick Vitale as his favorite announcer on his website.
> ...



Listen I hate Sheed as much or more than most do as a person. he does however call Larry Brown "PFP" for a nickname. That's pound for pound for people that don't know the story, as in pund for pound the best coach in the league. That in itself shows he's ok with white people.......at least some of them. I honestly think Sheeds problem is with authority, not race. Larry Brown might just have a way with Sheed that no one else has had since Dean Smith........Funny, Brown is a NC guy too right?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> actually, both statements are missleading and not true.


Ticket sales/attendance *did* go down after the trade... how is that not true or misleading? Season ticket sales *are not* going like hotcakes... is it those facts or me that you have a beef with?

I could have also pointed to the many empty suites at the RG that recent articles have sited. My point was to counter MM's post that people were leaving because of bad guy Rasheed. If that was so, it only would make sense that sales would gone up with the trade for two good guys... right? Rasheed was traded, the team's record remained about the same, and overall there was no noticable bump in paying customers last year or this as many here contended there would be. I think the drop in attendance (last year and this) has much more to do with the team not being as good as they've been for much of the last couple decades. But thats JMO.

STOMP


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mediocre man</b>!
> Fair enough Trader Bob. I shouldn't have said that. I've been a season ticket holder for the past 15 years FYI. I don't think Zach was over paid though. I mean if Kirilenko and Gasol got the max Zach should too. His basketball numbers are better.



Not a problem at all MM.... glad you have been a season ticket holder 15 years running. 

I agree Zach is in the ball park compared to Andrei and Gasol.... but it just seems the salaries are all of a sudden escalating once again. They probably should not be above Sheeds numbers... but things change quickly. I think Boozer is getting good money as well, if I remember right.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Anyone questioning if we are glad he is gone is just baiting.

I am estatic he is gone,regardless of the direction this team takes.
I said that from the beginning.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mediocre man</b>!
> 
> Listen I hate Sheed as much or more than most do as a person. he does however call Larry Brown "PFP" for a nickname. That's pound for pound for people that don't know the story, as in pund for pound the best coach in the league. That in itself shows he's ok with white people.......at least some of them. I honestly think Sheeds problem is with authority, not race. Larry Brown might just have a way with Sheed that no one else has had since Dean Smith........Funny, Brown is a NC guy too right?


Cool beans we're on the same page... btw, there are players I dislike/hate for various reasons too. Thats probably just part of being passionate about the game. Mostly though, I hate to lose.

STOMP


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> *Cool beans* we're on the same page...


Jennifer / Nakomis, is that you???

PBF


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ProudBFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Jennifer / Nakomis, is that you???


nope... I picked that expression up from an Australian girl named Jennifer though.

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Ticket sales/attendance *did* go down after the trade... how is that not true or misleading? Season ticket sales *are not* going like hotcakes... is it those facts or me that you have a beef with?


because the implied connection is Rasheed Wallace. The increase of season ticket sales has gone up. It's not a race, a marathon.


> I could have also pointed to the many empty suites at the RG that recent articles have sited.


you honestly think thats because Sheed was traded? I mean, seriously?



> My point was to counter MM's post that people were leaving because of bad guy Rasheed. If that was so, it only would make sense that sales would gone up with the trade for two good guys... right?


nope. It's not as simple as that (on both sides actually). He was a big part of the problem (to a fair # of fans). His leaving isn't all the sudden going to make them giddy to jump back on.

It's like the old saying. Trust takes years to build, and a second to destory.



> Rasheed was traded, the team's record remained about the same,


that's a tad missleading. They had traded for Miles, and won (I think?) 5 of 6 or 7. So thats why his #'s were considered as good as the end #'s.

I'd just counter that with how the team , in the last 41 games (35 w/out Sheed) was 7 games above .500..



> and overall there was no noticable bump in paying customers last year or this as many here contended there would be.


I dont think those people were right when they said that. That doesn't really change anything tho. 


> I think the drop in attendance (last year and this) has much more to do with the team not being as good as they've been for much of the last couple decades. But thats JMO.


I think that had something to do with it, but one of the reasons they weren't playing as good was because of Sheed's play. Thats not necessarily fair to dump it on him like some people do, but he was (fairly or not) labled the "key guy" on the team.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> I'd just counter that with how the team , in the last 41 games (35 w/out Sheed) was 7 games above .500..


For a guy who uses "misleading" as a counter to almost every point you disagree with (/hyperbole) I gotta call shenanigans here.

The team DID go 24-17 in the second half of the season. But they went 7-1 with Rasheed to start the second half and 17-16 after trading him.

The team was clearly worse after trading Rasheed.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> For a guy who uses "misleading" as a counter to almost every point you disagree with (/hyperbole) I gotta call shenanigans here.
> ...


d'oh!

so before the McInnis trade the team was sub .500

then for 8 games they were right at .500

then after that, they were .500

so I guess the team wasn't actually that much better with sheed than without.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> ... and 17-16 after trading him.
> 
> The team was clearly worse after trading Rasheed.


Based on W/L, the team was not clearly worse after the trade..

With Sheed: 24-25 = .490

After the trade: 17-16 = .515


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Scout226</b>!
> 
> Based on W/L, the team was not clearly worse after the trade..
> 
> ...


Portland was almost 100% healthy at the end of the year, and Derek Anderson, in particular, was playing. At the beginning of the year, especially after the Blazers dumped Bonzi, the Blazers were reduced to using Jeff freakin' McInnis at the 2.

Look at the records of the team after the Miles trade and after the Rasheed trade and tell me the team wasn't clearly worse after trading Wallace.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

everybody join me in celebrating Saint Sheed's day!

here's the song (sung to "oh Canada")


oh saint sheed, our favorite player now.

you rule the world, by being who you are. 

You shoot really well, and you're awful swell, it's portlands fault you're an ***.

keep shooting 3's,. and blamin' the man

it's not your fault, we're all out to get you...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> because the implied connection is Rasheed Wallace. The increase of season ticket sales has gone up. It's not a race, a marathon.


I have only guesses to what you're trying to say here. If you're trying to say you were wrong in your earlier claims, and that you hope I didn't take offense for implying that I was deliberately lying... appology accepted.



> you honestly think thats ( the suites not being filled) because Sheed was traded? I mean, seriously?


Seriously, how can you miss such simple points? How many times do I have to say that I think ticket sales/fan interest has more to do with winning and losing and the fanbases perception that the club is competing for a championship then anything else? If PR and player conduct is so important, please explain the wild popularity of the NFL where nearly every team has multiple criminals and steroid abusers. The NFL makes the NBA's conduct issues look petty.



> He was a big part of the problem (to a fair # of fans). His leaving isn't all the sudden going to make them giddy to jump back on. It's like the old saying. Trust takes years to build, and a second to destory.


Winning makes casual fans giddy. To me the problem of Portland's fan apathy (then and now) was mostly that the team needs better players, especially guards. To you apparently, it was more about PR. We disagree but thats ok.



> that's a tad missleading. They had traded for Miles, and won (I think?) 5 of 6 or 7. So thats why his #'s were considered as good as the end #'s.


They won 8 of 10 after they traded McInnis for Miles and got DA off the IR. These two things allowed them to bury the suddenly unproductive Dale Davis on the bench. To me that lineup was not only decently talented, but it fit well together. The winning that followed seemed to be a product of this. Optimism was in player comments, this board, and reflected in boosted attendance. 

I have only guesses at what #'s you're refering to... attendance?



> I think that (winning/losing) had something to do with it, but one of the reasons they weren't playing as good was because of Sheed's play. Thats not necessarily fair to dump it on him like some people do, but he was (fairly or not) labled the "key guy" on the team.


I think overall he was the Blazers key guy on that team in most everyone's opinion. It only took Darius Miles a week to come out and compare him favorably to KG. It's my opinion that his play has never been good enough to overcome a bad backcourt and (not to bag on him as he was injured but...) Dale Davis spiralling down the toilet. I don't think his play was down to lack of effort as you seem to be saying... he was busting his hump playing big minutes covering the opponents key frontcourt guy from 3-5 every night while Zach was the focus on the other end. 

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> Seriously, how can you miss such simple points? How many times do I have to say that I think ticket sales/fan interest has more to do with winning and losing and the fanbases perception that the club is competing for a championship then anything else?


than explain why during the 90's, when the team was 1st and out for 6 straight seasons, the attendance #"s at the RG was much higher?

why is it that, despite going to the WCF's 2 years in a row, people were *****ing about the players back then?

why were some companies who owned suites threatening to not renew BEFORE last season?



> If PR and player conduct is so important, please explain the wild popularity of the NFL where nearly every team has multiple criminals and steroid abusers. The NFL makes the NBA's conduct issues look petty.


comparing the NFL to the NBA isn't really a point you want to argue. It's a vastly different sport. Why is it that in MLB, nearly every team *doesn't* have multiple criminal and roid abusers? MLB makes the NBA's conduct issues look outright attrocious.



> Winning makes casual fans giddy. To me the problem of Portland's fan apathy (then and now) was mostly that the team needs better players, especially guards. To you apparently, it was more about PR. We disagree but thats ok.


if you've noticed my stance in the past, it's a combo of both. I liked Rasheed (still do). But HE drove away some fans. (as did JR, and Bonzi). He was also made into a scapegoat by the media, and some fans. 

I think it's better to have a team that doens't have several knuckleheads, than it is to have one with several. I mean, how come Portland was a team that had *several* of them?



> They won 8 of 10 after they traded McInnis for Miles and got DA off the IR. These two things allowed them to bury the woefully unproductive Dale Davis to the bench. To me that lineup was not only decently talented, but it fit well together. The winning that followed seemed to be a product of this. Optimism was in player comments, this board, and reflected in boosted attendance.


IIRC, DA wasn't that productive to start out. I think the change in players made a difference. Same with Bonzi being traded. (Bonzi, remember, is a player I liked, and like today. He just wore out his welcome, and didn't seize the day here).

I think too much has been made into the attendance #'s personally. There were times when the MC and RG were packed (or damn close) and the overal fan base wasn't nearly as interested. Sure, the circumstances were different (size of arena, and cost to go) but it does say something.

we are a loyal fan base, but you can only have piss passed off as wine so many times in your life.


> I have only guesses at what #'s you're refering to... attendance?


I think I meant Sheed's winning %s pre and post trades.


> I think overall he was the Blazers key guy on that team in most everyone's opinion. It only took Darius Miles a week to come out and compare him favorably to KG.


I don't put as much into a player coming into to a new city, sucking up to it's best player(s) as you do apparently. 


> It's my opinion that his play has never been good enough to overcome a bad backcourt and (not to bag on him as he was injured but...)


this i agree with. I think I've said it in the past, I would've rather kept Rasheed had he warmed himself up a tad, and we had a decent backcourt.


> Dale Davis spiralling down the toilet. I don't think his play was down to lack of effort as you seem to be saying... he was busting his hump playing big minutes covering the opponents key frontcourt guy from 3-5 every night while Zach was the focus on the other end.
> 
> STOMP


Dale wouldn't put the effort he used to put out. Maybe it's because he's older, maybe it's because he's just a grumpy man who wasn't getting playing time he felt he needed. But he's a strong buck. And he'd be half assing it for rebounds or put-backs.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Hey NathanLa....

Who freakin' cares.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hype #9</b>!
> 
> Bad Sheed: When accepting his ring from David Stern, he just walked by with a stone look on his face, without acknowledging Stern at all.


Why would he acknowledge Stern?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TP3</b>!
> Hey NathanLa....
> 
> Who freakin' cares.


Not you apparently, though you *did* bother to post about it. And really, this has become a rather long thread, mostly without Nathan's own posts.

There are countless threads here every day that I don't bother reading and usually only one or two that I bother to reply to. I suggest that, if you don't freakin' care, you go on to another thread.

:grinning:


----------



## Hype #9 (Feb 14, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RoddneyThaRippa</b>!
> 
> 
> Why would he acknowledge Stern?


Because its polite. 

All the other players acknowledged Stern with a smile and some words.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Thanks for setting me straight Porter.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I do notice one poster who floats lots of theories on race though... most of them seem to disparage african americans... hmmmm


I resent the accusation, but then I'm used to you taking cheap shots at me. I have never disparaged a player based on his race; but I have criticized players for outrageous behavior, and for less than 100% effort on the court. 

A couple of times I've posted about Wallace's racism, which you always seem to take offense to, as if it's beyond the pale to question a black man's motives. I'll go on telling the truth, and you can go right on defending thugs and jerks like Wallace, which seems to be your specialty.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhards comments reminded me of something that happened on Politically incorrect a long time ago..

some older guy was one of the guests..and Bill was talking about how certain people were really doing themselves bad, and what not (really saying that stupid young people are screwing themselves up big time)..

and this older guy, god bless him, goes 

"hey, thats racist! I can't believe that you're talking about blacks that way!"

and bill (and the other 3 guests look dumbfounded and go)

"hold on, I never mentioned black people. You did. So you think that these characteristics are only true of BLACK people??"

the guy turned beat red, and they went to a commercial..


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Talkhards comments reminded me of something that happened on Politically incorrect a long time ago..
> 
> some older guy was one of the guests..and Bill was talking about how certain people were really doing themselves bad, and what not (really saying that stupid young people are screwing themselves up big time)..
> 
> ...


I guess I don't understand the job of a moderator. I thought you were supposed to help keep peace on the board, not accuse other posters of racism.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess I don't understand the job of a moderator. I thought you were supposed to help keep peace on the board, not accuse other posters of racism.


you apparently missed the point of my post.

YOU didn't say ANYTHING about race (i.e., bill mahr) in the manner you've been accused of. You were then basically told you did by someone else implying that you said only applied to blacks (the old guy).

I was *defending* you.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> I was *defending* you.


Talkhard will hereafter be known as *Insertfoothard*.



PBF


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ProudBFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Talkhard will hereafter be known as *Insertfoothard*.
> ...


I have to say, that's pretty priceless, PBF.

:laugh:


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

I noticed one side argues attendance and suite sales are down the past 3-4 years is because of PR related issues. The argument seems to be that fans are disgusted with players. 

The other argument is that it's primarily wins related, and if we were pulling in the wins again, attendance would go back up.

I thought I'd throw another obvious (yet often overlooked) reason in. Money. Let's face it, the past 4 years, the economy nation wide has sucked, and has been especially bad in Oregon. We had all the tech jobs out here, which went bye bye when the dot com's started failing, when tech company's went out of business/downsized/moved. The average fan in Portland has been struggling to make a living the past few years. 5 years ago, even though I was still a teenager, I had a job in the technology industry that paid insane money for a teen to me making. I was going to Blazer games all of the time, buying Blazer merchandise, along with other stuff... but the company I worked for lost a contract, and closed up oregon operations and then the job market just collapsed. All the similar type of jobs that I could have gotten if I had lost that job suddenly dissapeared, victims of the same fate. Guess what? My Blazers attendance suffered because of that. I just simply can't afford to go to every home game and get decent seats anymore. Even sometimes, getting nosebleed seets often is not easy as good paying jobs are hard to come by.

I remember reading several articles a couple years ago about portland residents citing the economy and lack of funds as a reason for not attending games. Granted... if the product was better (more wins, better character) then yes, people would be more inclined to use that spare money, but... if the economy is the same as it was during the Blazers' last two wcf apearances, attendance would surely be substantially higher than it is currently, imo. 

This issue about the economy applies to businesses which purchase suites as well... it's hard for them to justify that extra expense anymore considering the cost, especially since the product has declined.

I think the issue is a combination of all three, probably more wins related, then character, and then cost.

Just my :twocents:


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

I just saw the replay of the Pistons getting their rings on NBA TV.
Of the entire team,onely one player stood out as rude,unfriendly ,
and just plain no manners.

who was it?

"the champ"..Rasheed Wallace.

His lack of class will always trump his "champness" in my eyes.
He stood out like a sore thumb by his snub.

Thank you thank you thank you...he is gone.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> why is it that, despite going to the WCF's 2 years in a row, people were *****ing about the players back then?


Hap, in addition to your strange take on my recent post in another thread and your immediate deletion of said post, your past PM lambasting me for my previous use of *'s to replace the spelling of a 3 letter version of a mule puzzles me since you regularly resort to said use of *'s to mask "profanity" (see above quote).

Please do not consider this an attack on or a criticism of admins/mods in any way.

It is not meant to be.

I am just having trouble figuring out which rules apply to who and how to post without being threatened with banning every time I attempt to express my opinion.

I will continue to follow your posts for guidance.

GO BLAZESR!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MARIS61</b>!
> 
> Hap, in addition to your strange take on my recent post in another thread and your immediate deletion of said post, your past PM lambasting me for my previous use of *'s to replace the spelling of a 3 letter version of a mule puzzles me since you regularly resort to said use of *'s to mask "profanity" (see above quote).


do you not know that there is a filter system on bbb.net?

so when you spell out certain words (I think the list is about 10 words), there's *'s in place of the words?

That is allowed. Infact, that is what they want you to do. They don't want you masking swear words (which means, exchanging a letter in a swear word/inappropriate word, with another character on your keyboard.).

It's not me who's "masking" the profanity with *'s, thats the system set in place. And thats not masking them, thats automatically censoring them.



> Please do not consider this an attack on or a criticism of admins/mods in any way.
> 
> It is not meant to be.
> 
> I am just having trouble figuring out which rules apply to who and how to post without being threatened with banning every time I attempt to express my opinion.


again, me (or anyone else) typing profanity that comes out as "****" is not masked swearing. And you have been told the reasons why you have been edited or censored.



> I will continue to follow your posts for guidance.
> 
> GO BLAZESR!


being snide about the situation doesn't help. Reading up on the guidelines and rules does.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> do you not know that there is a filter system on bbb.net?
> ...



Okay, now my head is spinning. 

Not snide. Sincere.

Simply put, it's okay if I swear, (although I never post profanity. Not a prude, it's just not my style), but not okay if I simply imply that I'm swearing (by "masking" the word)?

I'm not interested in the why's and wherefore's, just if that is an accurate interpretation of the rules.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MARIS61</b>!
> 
> Okay, now my head is spinning.
> 
> ...


This is accurate. Because people can be creative with their uses of alternate characters (allowing them to fake-spell words that are not allowed) the site has a no-masking policy. This includes inserting alternate keystrokes to leave an otherwise disallowed word relatively intact.

As Hap noted, when the system automatically changes a word to all asterisks, this is not considered masking.

For the three letter word that you mentioned in a previous post: I am not sure why it's in the auto-edit list. The word is a bit crude but considering that it's the name of an animal and not just another term for a backside, it definitely (IMO) should not be.

Ed O.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Thanks, guys, for clearing that up for me.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Yo, the bottom line is that Sheed is a champion, he has been a BIGTIME leader for his team, inspiring them to a Game 2 win vs the Pacers win a GUARANTEE, dominating Game 4 of the Finals (and leading them in blocked shots for the entired FInals), and THEN when they won the title, EVERY SINGLE PLAYER AND THE COACH says that it was "when they got Sheed," that they believed they would win the title. And then, he unselfishly bought them all GOLD CHAMPIONSHIP BELTS, which was a great gift to his teammates and was a FANTASTIC move on his part to promote team unity. He made their championship celebration EXTRA SPECIAL. And THEN.... he went out there and scored 11 of his team high 24 points in the 4th qtr to make sure that the TEAM and the FANS weren't let down as often happens on ring night.

All of this... and he's doing it for 9 million, which is a bargain by today's standards.

If you still hate Sheed, then you hate greatness. If you don't wish that Sheed was buying the BLAZERS championship belts and leading the BLAZERS to victory on ring night, then you have lost sight of the purpose of the game of basketball: to win.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> Yo, the bottom line is that Sheed is a champion,* he has been a BIGTIME leader for his team*..... (more praise).... yadda, yadda, yadda... (more needless praise)..
> 
> ......
> ...


:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: 

Are you SERIOUS? Sheed a leader? Linking Sheed with greatness?

I can understand people liking a lot of the things Sheed does on the court. I also like his raw talent on the court and what he can bring to his team if he wants. But to call Sheed a leader or having greatnes.. Well, that makes me want to... :hurl: 

The one thing Sheed is, is a great role player.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't know if Sheed is "great" (I try to use that term sparingly) but he's a heck of a lot more than a great role player.

He's a very, very good defender. He's a good perimeter shooter and excellent on the blocks. He's 100% unselfish. He's supportive of his teammates and is a leader.

Those things, in spite of whatever other failings he might have, add up to a very good player.

He'll probably make the all-star team again this year. He's got a chance to emerge as the Pistons' best player. 

How will Rasheed's career of success be written off then?

Ed o.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

This makes me sick to hear someone wetting themselves over
this guy

"If you still hate Sheed, then you hate greatness. If you don't wish that Sheed was buying the BLAZERS championship belts and leading the BLAZERS to victory on ring night, then you have lost sight of the purpose of the game of basketball: to win."

Really??

Funny,I don't share your thought at all on his greatness.
Hummm,he had 8 years here and I don't remember anyone using
those grandiose words about him.

He just didn't want to waste the time or the energy here in 
Portland??

By the way,how did you view his sour attitude at ring night??
The guy was very lucky to go to a team where he was a team
member,and not the saviour you make him out to be.
I would have thought he would have been a bit more gracious.

I wouldn't have even talked of the guy unless I see something like your post.
It gagged me.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> If you still hate Sheed, then you hate greatness.


This is proof that you do not understand the game of basketball, or even what constitutes "greatness" in the world of sports.

Great players lead by example. They play hard all the time, they keep a cool head under pressure, they come through in the clutch, and they make their teammates better. In short, a great player puts a team on his back and leads it to victory through his talent and determination.

Wallace has never done this. Period.

We can all point to a few games where he hit the winning shot, or had a big fourth quarter, or an important block, but most of the time he was content to coast along and follow other players. He never applied his enormous talent to becoming a great rebounder, and he preferred to throw up 3-pointers rather than battle under the boards. He could go a whole quarter without doing anything, and it didn't bother him at all. That's not greatness.

Wallace only won a title in Detroit because that team already had leaders in place. Wallace simply became a key cog in the machine.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

opps


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

You haters just don't get it.

EVERY PLAYER ON HIS TEAM said that the moment they believed they would win the title was when they "got Sheed."

Role players don't lead a team in FOUR CRUCIAL CATEGORIES in a pivotal NBA Finals game.

If you think Sheed is great, if you think he's not a leader, if you think he's just a "role player" like Fox or Perdue.....

you are IN DENIAL.

Go Blazers


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> you apparently missed the point of my post.
> 
> YOU didn't say ANYTHING about race (i.e., bill mahr) in the manner you've been accused of. You were then basically told you did by someone else implying that you said only applied to blacks (the old guy).
> 
> I was *defending* you.


Okay, HAP, I'll take your word for it. And thank you.

I find it interesting that STOMP worded his accusation against me in such a way that it wouldn't get deleted. He knows that racial accusations against other posters are forbidden, so he made the charge indirectly.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> I resent the accusation, but then I'm used to you taking cheap shots at me. I have never disparaged a player based on his race; but I have criticized players for outrageous behavior, and for less than 100% effort on the court.


TH the martyr  You resent the feelings I have after reading your posts? Several other posters have put the vibe they've gathered from your stuff in much blunter terms in other threads, but I'm the one you feel the need to call out... 

We all hold opinions on most subjects. Some topics (like race) are bound to push people's buttons. While you might think that you're telling the "truth" when you sound off on racial issues, it's really only your opinion. Since race is such a loaded topic in general, and it always seems to lead to nasty exchanges, maybe you could just avoid bringing it up out of the blue like the rest of us do? That hmmmm I listed is my sugestion to you to think about the impression that I and others have been gathering and maybe encourage you to knock it off. Why not talk hoops instead?

As far as me taking cheap shots at you, what a joke. I've never cursed you or called you derogatory names... which of course you have been edited several times doing towards me. You've assigned me ridiculous viewpoints time and again.



> you can go right on defending thugs and jerks like Wallace, which seems to be your specialty.


I guess this isn't a cheap shot, just more colorful language... TH on the high road. 

Yeah... I'm terrible. I'd rather defend a player I've rooted for from offensive speculations then pretend I'm telling the truth by repeatedly floating theories that some guy I watch on TV playing basketball is a rascist. What a sick mind I have... I ought to "get a life" eh?

STOMP


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

http://www.oregonlive.com/nba/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/1099401362226090.xml

Here's a quote from the article:

They also have Rasheed Wallace, the former Blazers power forward whose arrival in Detroit just before last season's trading deadline helped put the Pistons over the top. 

"Rasheed was everything," Brown said. "We had no chance of winning without him." 


You hear that, folks. EVERYTHING. "NO CHANCE" of winning without him.
None.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

*More truth from Larry Brown*

"We just looked at the results and the fact that he made his teammates better. 

"It was difficult when he was in Portland. The expectations were so high, and I think they were all directed at him. But with us, he can score six points and be as good as any player we have on the floor, and nobody in Detroit would be upset with him for doing that. All they'd look at is the result, and that would be the only thing that mattered, and I don't think that was always the case in Portland."


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

What exactly is your point Nathan???

You had 12 exclamation points about a lackluster ugly win
last night for Portland..

You keep bringing up Rasheed as if Portland could do better
if he was still here..
Where were you the last 8 years?????

He looked like a rude crude moron accepting his ring.

Accepting a ring for the sport you love and get paid for...
what on earth more would it take to put a snile on your
face???

I think he is racist,lazy,and a poor representation of a team's
personality.
Every time...repeat...every time a game started on tv,whether it
be national,local,NBA TV...it was always about Rasheed's poor
personality and his big scraggly opened mouth.
What on earth can make you overlook that and be gushing
about his winning in Detroit????

Does that not matter to you at all????????????


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Several other posters have put the vibe they've gathered from your stuff in much blunter terms


A "vibe" eh? Is that anything like karma, or spiritual energy? Is this what they talk about in the coffee shops in San Francisco, STOMP?

Maybe instead of reacting to vibes, which are notoriously unreliable and subjective, you should stick to the facts, and what is written on the page. Clearly if you had any evidence of racism on my part, you would throw it in my face. But since you don't, you must resort to talking about my "vibe."

Very weak.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

TH if you'd rather split hairs over words then catch a clue as to what sort of overall impression you've been making, what can I say... 

STOMP


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> 
> He looked like a rude crude moron accepting his ring.


"Looked like" is the key part of your phrase there. Sounds like you judge books by their covers. And it sounds a bit racist too.

Did you notice all those belts that his teammates were wearing and that was making their celebration extra special and led to some fun team bonding??? Sheed bought those belts for them. How is that rude? And did you hear what Larry Brown said? "Sheed was everything." But you don't know the guy and you've never played with him, but you say he "looked like" a moron. 

That's really really weak, Jackie.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> EVERY PLAYER ON HIS TEAM said that the moment they believed they would win the title was when they "got Sheed."


I'm sure they did. Sheed was just the last piece of the puzzle they needed. It's not like the Pistons sucked and had no D before Sheed arrived.



> Role players don't lead a team in FOUR CRUCIAL CATEGORIES in a pivotal NBA Finals game.


Why not?



> You haters just don't get it.


Ah, thanks for calling all of us "haters" when we don't fall in love with Sheed and announce his greatness/leadership skills.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Looked like" is the key part of your phrase there. Sounds like you judge books by their covers. And it sounds a bit racist too.


Huh? How is Jackie's statement racist? 

You should team up with STOMP, Nathan. You both seem very good at detecting racist "vibes" that no one else can see.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> than explain why during the 90's, when the team was 1st and out for 6 straight seasons, the attendance #"s at the RG was much higher?


Those teams won more games and always had some title hopes.



> why is it that, despite going to the WCF's 2 years in a row, people were *****ing about the players back then?


because there are always some fans who lash out after the disappointment of losing. I hear it multiple times a year every year here in SF. I recall some fans complaining up a storm about Portland players after being eliminated in 77-78. IMO its just the nature of things. 



> why were some companies who owned suites threatening to not renew BEFORE last season?


I'd guess that it's many reasons (mediocre team, bad economy/high prices, fans tired of the players...), but if the team had better talent/chemistry and was percieved as having a good shot at a championship, I contend they'd have had no problems selling suites and seats.



> comparing the NFL to the NBA isn't really a point you want to argue. It's a vastly different sport. Why is it that in MLB, nearly every team *doesn't* have multiple criminal and roid abusers? MLB makes the NBA's conduct issues look outright attrocious.


Wah? So your implication is that MLB and the NBA are more alike? MLB *does* in all likelyhood have multiple roid abusers on every team throughout the league. Even though players knew the date that steroid tests were coming, 6% of the league tested positive. It only makes sense that a lot more were using but stopped in time for the tests... right? Geez, former NL MVP Ken Caminiti just died at age 41 of a coke habit he had for years. Former AL MVP Kirby Puckett beat his wife and tried to rape a stranger in a restaurant and on and on and on...

Geez #2 the USA couldn't even qualify a team for the Olympics. Why? Reportedly none of the better college talents even tried out because they knew that they wouldn't pass the drug tests. 

Baseball history is full of drunks and punks, but hey, it's America's past time... bring the kids and your glove. Like football, ratings and attendance have never been better.



> if you've noticed my stance in the past, it's a combo of both. I liked Rasheed (still do). But HE drove away some fans. (as did JR, and Bonzi). He was also made into a scapegoat by the media, and some fans.


yup, though I'd again claim that most every player generates some fans that don't like them. Comes with the job. 



> I think it's better to have a team that doens't have several knuckleheads, than it is to have one with several. I mean, how come Portland was a team that had *several* of them?


It's my opinion that pro sports is mostly made up of spoiled knuckleheads. I think Portland will always have several of them, and unless they get someone who transends the game from a marketing standpoint (like KG or Labron), the national media will always root against the Blazers because of the poor ratings they bring. Relatively speaking, no one outside of Portland is from Portland... or... they have little following outside their market.



> IIRC, DA wasn't that productive to start out. I think the change in players made a difference. Same with Bonzi being traded. (Bonzi, remember, is a player I liked, and like today. He just wore out his welcome, and didn't seize the day here).


DA while not healthy last year was still 6'5. Size wise, he matched up much better on 2's then Jeff.



> I think too much has been made into the attendance #'s personally. There were times when the MC and RG were packed (or damn close) and the overal fan base wasn't nearly as interested.


I don't know what would be a better guage of fan interest then ticket sales... sure there are some other variables that could effect things (like the economy going in the toilet) but still... I was only bringing up the drop in attendance after he was moved to counter the assertion that he was the reason sales were down. Sure some fans were driven off by his surly personality/image, just as other fans have undoubtably been driven off by Damon, JR, Rod Strictland, PJ, Audie Norris, and that dastardly Tom Owens. 

That Sheed and Co had a contentious relationship with JQuick gave those who didn't like him a daily fanning of their flames. That sort of press coverage doesn't lighten up the water cooler talk for the casual fan either. 

Well thats my takes, nice chatting with you.

STOMP


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> What exactly is your point Nathan???
> 
> You had 12 exclamation points about a lackluster ugly win
> ...



Speaking only for myself.....

WHY THE HELL SHOULD IT!!!

"Sheed doesn't like Stern"...."the press doesn't like Sheed"....blah yada blah. He isn't as good as KG or Duncan - must be because he is lazy, not because they are just better players! 

His new team-mates and coach have no problem with him, and he helped them win the title. The Detroit fans and media seem to have no problem with him either. Of course, all of that is irrelevant. :whatever: 


The next time Sheed meets Stern, I hope he not only smiles....I hope he gives him a big kiss on the mouth! Then we will see what *else* people can find to complain about!


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Complaining is bad about Sheed,but putting out absolute
puke about him is ok??
I will always speak up when somebody puts out such dribble.
You don't like it? 
too bad.

Choose your own poison grouch..


----------



## Rod Strickland (Oct 29, 2004)

*...*

man....i wish i could have gotten in a little earlier on this slugfest.

sheed is a great player, nobody who's watched him play can deny that. as for a supreme leader, i don't think so. it was nice to see sheed getting a ring. too bad it wasn't with the blazers, and the rest of the blazers wearing boxing belts. i always joke to my laker fan brother that sheed is like saying in his mind, "i got em (lakers) back!" But i found it funny was how they introduce sheed. "tayshawn...the shot heard round the world. sheed....THE ULTIMATE TEAM PLAYER." hahahah. i'm laughing because i know that sheed is not the ultimate team player. i've seen him be the exact opposite sometimes. what i feel they should have said is this..."sheed, the player with the potential to be the ultimate team player." i think he has the talent of KG, TD, and CWEBB. nathanlane...i think what you see in sheed is his talent and ability to be a great player. it's kind of how i feel for ROD STRICKLAND, being one of the best PGs in history. Sheed, like Rod, lack a certain quality that makes them really GREAT. a lot of talent...but perhaps no heart. i really can't say what that "great quality" is. If i did, i would be more than just a mediocre player who can jump high and score every once in a while. And that, is why sheed is not my hero. Bonzi is not my hero, and sadly, Rod strickland isn't. JORDAN is. .......and maybe sabas.

ROD.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> If you still hate Sheed, then you hate greatness.


This part is hilarious. For some reason it reminds me of "lovers of liberty"...


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Dear NathanLane:

It's over. Sheed's gone and he's not coming back. 

Deal with it.

Your's truly,

e_blazer1


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>e_blazer1</b>!
> Dear NathanLane:
> 
> It's over. Sheed's gone and he's not coming back.
> ...


Some of us enjoy looking back at players that we had. If we limited discussion to just our current roster this board would get old ever more quickly than it sometimes does.

If YOU (or someone else) doesn't want to talk about Rasheed, that's cool. Don't act like NathanLane or anyone else shouldn't be able to talk about Rasheed... especially when so many on this board were calling him a cancer and a loser who would never win anything.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Those teams won more games and always had some title hopes.


the teams in the 90's didn't have title hopes. Outside of 90-92 (which wasn't the era in question) the Blazers were not in the title picture again till 99. 

and what about the carlisemo and dunleavy teams that won 44-45 games? 



> I'd guess that it's many reasons (mediocre team, bad economy/high prices, fans tired of the players...), but if the team had better talent/chemistry and was percieved as having a good shot at a championship, I contend they'd have had no problems selling suites and seats.


which is kind of what we're talking about. Having Rasheed back wouldn't bring back fans as much as having a team thats not full of knuckleheads and winning (more than last year).


> Wah? So your implication is that MLB and the NBA are more alike? MLB *does* in all likelyhood have multiple roid abusers on every team throughout the league. Even though players knew the date that steroid tests were coming, 6% of the league tested positive. It only makes sense that a lot more were using but stopped in time for the tests... right? Geez, former NL MVP Ken Caminiti just died at age 41 of a coke habit he had for years. Former AL MVP Kirby Puckett beat his wife and tried to rape a stranger in a restaurant and on and on and on...


for starters, wasn't Kirby found completely innocent of the "charges"?

what I was saying is that you can compare any league to another league to make the league look good or bad. It doens't prove anything.


> yup, though I'd again claim that most every player generates some fans that don't like them. Comes with the job.


chances are, terry porter and clyde drexler didn't generate fans that were turned off by their antics. Chances are Buck Williams didn't either.



> It's my opinion that pro sports is mostly made up of spoiled knuckleheads. I think Portland will always have several of them, and unless they get someone who transends the game from a marketing standpoint (like KG or Labron), the national media will always root against the Blazers because of the poor ratings they bring.


so how come they don't root against the Sonics (a city thats really not that much bigger)? Or Utah? Or other cities that are in our size?


> Relatively speaking, no one outside of Portland is from Portland... or... they have little following outside their market.


thats probably true of most teams. and is it Portlands fault that people don't generally move out of Portland compared to other cities?


> I don't know what would be a better guage of fan interest then ticket sales... sure there are some other variables that could effect things (like the economy going in the toilet) but still... I was only bringing up the drop in attendance after he was moved to counter the assertion that he was the reason sales were down. Sure some fans were driven off by his surly personality/image, just as other fans have undoubtably been driven off by Damon, JR, Rod Strictland, PJ, Audie Norris, and that dastardly Tom Owens.


jokes aside, Rasheed was a problem here. People don't like it when players accuse billionaire owners of being racist. Especially when those billionaire owners are making those people millionaires. Yes I know that they could still be racist, but the fact that it was such a stupid thing to say, is a black eye for the team.

The main crux of the problem with Rasheed was, his ON COURT work didn't outweigh his OFF COURT antics.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Some of us enjoy looking back at players that we had. If we limited discussion to just our current roster this board would get old ever more quickly than it sometimes does.
> ...


it's not about talking about rasheed thats the issue. It's about being told that you hate greatness because you disliked rasheed. or that sheed is a saint. or that sheed could do no wrong.

it's not about him winning a title in detroit and not here. Bully for him. It's about that his time here was up, and who's at fault for it. To some, it's all Rasheeds fault. To some, it's not his fault at all.

Truth of the matter is, it was as much his fault as anyone elses.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

> If YOU (or someone else) doesn't want to talk about Rasheed, that's cool. Don't act like NathanLane or anyone else shouldn't be able to talk about Rasheed... especially when so many on this board were calling him a cancer and a loser who would never win anything.


Ed, I know that many people were big Rasheed fans and that there's a case to be made that the Blazers would be better this season if he were still in a Blazer uniform. The problem is, that case has been made over and over and over again. When Rasheed has a big game, his supporters start threads like this. When he screws up, his detractors chime in. I think there's a point when it's time to move on. I'm way more interested in talking about what it's going to take to rebuild the Blazers than I am in rehashing ancient history.

But you're right. This board is an open forum (almost) for discussion of all things in the NBA world. While I may be tired of the whole Rasheed diatribe, if others want to continue it, so be it. From now on I'll just ignore those posts.

My apologies to NathanLane and others who may have been offended by my somewhat snotty post.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> Truth of the matter is, it was as much his fault as anyone elses.


That's the truth YOU see.

If everyone agreed with you, we wouldn't have this thread.

Since not everyone does (and NathanLane's clearly not an isolated voice in general sentiment, even if he's more extreme than some others), people stating that NathanLane should move on/get over it/shut up (not quoting anyone here) is not what this board should be about, IMO.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>e_blazer1</b>!
> 
> My apologies to NathanLane and others who may have been offended by my somewhat snotty post.


I actually was going to go back and edit my post because it might have sounded more abrupt than I meant it to. Sorry about that.

Go Blazers.

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

> I actually was going to go back and edit my post because it might have sounded more abrupt than I meant it to. Sorry about that.


I think we all may have our nerves a little more on edge this week. I attribute it to post-election stress syndrome.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> That's the truth YOU see.


is that not the truth as YOU see it?

was it not his fault that he was traded? is he completely blame free? 



> If everyone agreed with you, we wouldn't have this thread.


actually, I think the people who are arguing in this thread (sans nl) are just arguing semantics, trying to get the last word in.


> Since not everyone does (and NathanLane's clearly not an isolated voice in general sentiment, even if he's more extreme than some others), people stating that NathanLane should move on/get over it/shut up (not quoting anyone here) is not what this board should be about, IMO.


thats not what i said. what I said was that it's not about being able to talk about Rasheed. It's that we're being told we hate greatness if we hate sheed.

I don't recall anyone ever saying "if you love rasheed, you love stupidity" or anything like that.

I could careless if someone likes a player I don't like. I don't tell people who like Rick Fox (winner of 3 titles, and a very important cog on the Lakers 3 title teams) that because they like him, they're scum.

a fan saying that they're glad Rasheed is gone, and that he WAS the cause of some of the ticket sales problems, ISN'T the same as NL saying that people who hate Sheed hate greatness.

For starters, the first one is about the PLAYER, and the second one is about


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

I'll try and keep this short and non-confrontational, but is there anyone who is a Pro-Sheed fan think he was partly at fault for his rep, or fall in attendance, or partly responsible for Blazers negative image?

I ask only because some of the love for Sheed is so strong, that some think he has done NO wrong. On the flip side, a lot of the people on the other side can give Sheed his props, but still hold him accountable for the past..


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> is that not the truth as YOU see it?


Absolutely not.



> was it not his fault that he was traded? is he completely blame free?


No and no.



> actually, I think the people who are arguing in this thread (sans nl) are just arguing semantics, trying to get the last word in.


I think that sometimes you miss subtleties and think that the questions you're asking are probative when they're not. But that's just me 



> thats not what i said. what I said was that it's not about being able to talk about Rasheed. It's that we're being told we hate greatness if we hate sheed.


If it's not what you said, then I wasn't talking to you.



> For starters, the first one is about the PLAYER, and the second one is about


I think I replied before you finished, but I see what you're getting at. The thing is, the word "you" is ambiguous. I'm not going to speak for NathanLane, but these two sentences mean the same thing:

"If you don't like Cadillacs, then you don't like great cars."
"Cadillacs are great cars."

The third option, of course, is "You don't like great cars." I think that the first pair of meanings was what NathanLane was going for, rather than personally assaulting people who disagree with him.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

The thing that gets me about these Rasheed arguments is that people don't seem to realize that we have a *better* team now without him! And yes, that means you *Ed.* Theo and Reef are much more valuable than Sheed was to us. It is clear in the team's play. We have argued this point before and I have proven it although not to your satisfaction for some reason. I do believe Sheed is a great player though. He just wasn't doing jack for us on a consistent basis.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Is Rasheed Wallace a great player?

Depends on what you think the word "great" means. If you believe it means good or outstanding in some general way ("This is a great beef sandwich!" Or, "That's a great tan, Buffy!") then I suppose Wallace is "great" too.

But if you think "great" in NBA terms should be reserved for players like Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, who were men among boys, then Wallace doesn't qualify. In fact, he doesn't even come close. Wilt Chamberlain was great. Bob Petit was great. Elgin Baylor and Jerry West were great. So were Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Bill Russell. But Wallace is a pale imitation of those guys, and always will be. 

Magic Johnson and Larry Bird never stalked referees around the court, screaming and waving their arms like some loony stork, and they never led the NBA in technical fouls, and never got kicked out of a playoff game for throwing a hissy fit. No, they kept their heads and saved their energy for the game, rather than berating some official who was just trying to do his job. 

Great players know what's important, and how to keep their cool during a heated moment in a game. Wallace never learned that trick.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Scout226</b>!
> I'll try and keep this short and non-confrontational, but is there anyone who is a Pro-Sheed fan think he was partly at fault for his rep, or fall in attendance, or partly responsible for Blazers negative image?
> 
> I ask only because some of the love for Sheed is so strong, that some think he has done NO wrong. On the flip side, a lot of the people on the other side can give Sheed his props, but still hold him accountable for the past..


In most painful break-ups, there is fault on both sides. I cheerfully admit that is the case here.

My problem is with people who give Sheed ZERO credit for anything. (except being the anti-christ) Sheed is not a "great" player, nor a savior who can carry a team single-handed. He is a good to very good player who flourished as part of a well coached *team*.

If people stop attacking the guy - I will gladly stop defending him!:angel:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap- First off, I find it sort of annoying that you rarely qualify your opinions as such. You have no more claim at knowing the truth then I or anyone else does. Emphatically stating what the crux of some problem is and so on is only your guess. 



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> the teams in the 90's didn't have title hopes. Outside of 90-92 (which wasn't the era in question) the Blazers were not in the title picture again till 99.


Really? We completely disagree on this I guess. Some of those teams featured some real talent on both ends of the floor. I don't know about you, but the teams featuring a healthy Sabas had title hopes dancing in my head yearly. I certainly thought all of those clubs had a much better chance of making the playoffs then our current one.

IMO, it's probably much less accurate to use ticket sales from decades past then inside a couple year span to gauge fan interest as the other variables increasingly come into play... for instance the economy was rocking in the 90's. People (in general) had much more $$$ to spend on entertainment, and salaries and ticket prices were much lower.



> Having Rasheed back wouldn't bring back fans as much as having a team thats not full of knuckleheads and winning (more than last year).


Where did I ever say it would? It's my contention that the fans were keeping away mostly because of the clear decline of the talent on the club and the declining chances of wins and a legit title shot. Surrounding Sheed with better teammates was my hope as I didn't view him as the weak link in the lineup. I was incredibly disappointed in the trade because I didn't trust that Theo could stay healthy, and the players didn't compliment their other talent as well as Wallace did IMO. I stated at the time that I would have rather have dealt him for prospects/picks and a bad contract. 

It's my opinion that the team will *always* have knuckleheads, as in my experience thats generally who pro athletes are. Time and again I've heard the dirty laundry of players who were once billed as "great guys" aired after they were gone. Just the other day, the same local Warriors beat writer who used to write feel good stories about Gilbert Arenas, was dishing the dirt. Story after story about immature stupid pranks and decisions, half time showers with his uniform on, and teammates who "hated him." I've experienced firsthand and heard unbelievable things from friends who work with pro athletes way too many times about supposively "good guys" to believe the next batch is going to be much different. That includes guys on current and past Blazer teams who are idolized on this board. If you're hanging your hat on things being different now that Sheed and Bonzi are gone, again we disagree. They might be written about differently (for a while) and things might be percieved as different by some fans (for a while), but IMO the more things change... 



> wasn't Kirby found completely innocent of the "charges"?


http://www.cracksmoker.com/MLB/MLB PuckettK.htm

It's innocent until proven guilty, which is different then completely innocent. He's rich, and got off... regardless, I enjoy watching pro athletes play, but I don't hold any illusions about them being great people/I don't want them over for dinner.



> chances are, terry porter and clyde drexler didn't generate fans that were turned off by their antics. Chances are Buck Williams didn't either.


I recall whining about the character and actions of Buck and Clyde, and I'd guess that someone somewhere didn't like Terry Porter. I recall gripes about Clyde being "dumb," not playing/practicing hard, and about how he whined to refs and got a lot of Techs. I recall Buck being chastised for destroying a TV (or something) in the locker room after a loss. Here's SI's take on the Buck, Clyde, TP led Blazers following the 92 finals... 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/flashbacks/jordan/920622/

-"_the Blazers did nothing to shed the image that has clung to them over the past few seasons. To wit: that they are a team with outstanding talent and an astounding capacity for self-destruction in the stretch because of nerves (too many) or brains (not enough)._"

-"_the Blazers' identity now seems clear -- they're the Denver Broncos in tank tops._"

So the guys you are claiming were above this sort of critism were, according to the national sporting publication of it's day, a collection of dumb, weak in the knees losers... oh and Buck is a terrible flopper too.



> so how come they don't root against the Sonics (a city thats really not that much bigger)? Or Utah? Or other cities that are in our size?


IMO this is mostly because the PTB were the evil threat to the golden goose of ratings, the Lakers. Conviently they wore black and the name rhymes with jail. For the press to hype up good vs evil, they have to overlook issues with their premise on both sides. I think time passing has proven the Lakers were not the collection of lovable great guys they were billed as.



> ... is it Portlands fault that people don't generally move out of Portland compared to other cities?


Of course not. But it is a fact that people in the states are generally moving from the East to the West. So you'll find more Cleveland fans in Portland then Portland fans in Cleveland. 



> jokes aside, Rasheed was a problem here. People don't like it when players accuse billionaire owners of being racist. Especially when those billionaire owners are making those people millionaires. Yes I know that they could still be racist, but the fact that it was such a stupid thing to say, is a black eye for the team.
> 
> The main crux of the problem with Rasheed was, his ON COURT work didn't outweigh his OFF COURT antics.


I wasn't really joking. My neighbor let me in on several sencere rants about Tom Owens... Bobby Gross as well. Rasheed definitely had some problems here in Portland. My point is that I expect character problems from guys who've been fawned over since early in their teenage years. I don't think anything has or will likely change. As long as the players aren't endangering lives with their stupidity, I really don't care to buy into the media bleep about who's good and who's bad. I don't think the general public really cares either. They want a winner and as soon as Portland has that potencial again, I bet the seats will be filled. Until then...

Whew! what a novel.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> If people stop attacking the guy - I will gladly stop defending him!:angel:


me too! 

Sheed was no saint for sure. He did and does dumb stuff. I also feel there are lots of shades of gray, and us mere fans have a very poor vantage point as far as knowing whats what.

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> Hap- First off, I find it sort of annoying that you rarely qualify your opinions as such. You have no more claim at knowing the truth then I or anyone else does. Emphatically stating what the crux of some problem is and so on is only your guess.


and that of the team. and that of the media. and that of the fans.

oh wait, those guys are all against sheed..



> Really? We completely disagree on this I guess. Some of those teams featured some real talent on both ends of the floor. I don't know about you, but the teams featuring a healthy Sabas had title hopes dancing in my head yearly. I certainly thought all of those clubs had a much better chance of making the playoffs then our current one.


you HONESTLY thought the team with Kenny Anderson was in the title hunt? Or Gary Trent? Or Harvey Grant and Cliff Robinson?



> http://www.cracksmoker.com/MLB/MLB PuckettK.htm
> 
> It's innocent until proven guilty, which is different then completely innocent. He's rich, and got off... regardless, I enjoy watching pro athletes play, but I don't hold any illusions about them being great people/I don't want them over for dinner.


a web site called "cracksmoker" is the source?



> I recall whining about the character and actions of Buck and Clyde, and I'd guess that someone somewhere didn't like Terry Porter. I recall gripes about Clyde being "dumb," not playing/practicing hard, and about how he whined to refs and got a lot of Techs. I recall Buck being chastised for destroying a TV (or something) in the locker room after a loss.


so basically, clyde was dumb, and someone didn't like TP, and Buck broke a TV.

yep, thats on the same scale of Sheed and Bonzi...


> Here's SI's take on the Buck, Clyde, TP led Blazers following the 92 finals...
> 
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/flashbacks/jordan/920622/
> 
> ...


how does this change the fact that far mor fans didn't like Rasheed than you're willing to admit? 

Because the media had a bad article about the team, thats supposed to put them on par with the antics of Sheed?

likely.


> IMO this is mostly because the PTB were the evil threat to the golden goose of ratings, the Lakers. Conviently they wore black and the name rhymes with jail. For the press to hype up good vs evil, they have to overlook issues with their premise on both sides. I think time passing has proven the Lakers were not the collection of lovable great guys they were billed as.


hm..I don't necesarrily buy into this thinking, but it's probably somewhat true. What team since the Lakers has had a free reign in the media (as much as the Lakers did). I don't think anyone has gotten off scott free, other than the Spurs and Rockets and Bulls. (granted, thats basically the only other champs since then).

Utah was ripped, so were the sonics, suns, charles barkley, karl malone, etc..



> Of course not. But it is a fact that people in the states are generally moving from the East to the West. So you'll find more Cleveland fans in Portland then Portland fans in Cleveland.


thats on fault of Portland. But it's a bad example. I doubt you'll find, outside of front runners, many fans of other teams in any city, that outrank their own teams fans.


> Whew! what a novel.


twas a good read


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> 
> In most painful break-ups, there is fault on both sides. I cheerfully admit that is the case here.
> 
> ...



Fair enough. I think some people go a little overboard with praising Sheed, so that brings out the negative aspects of Sheeds career. Then comes the Sheed support, then comes the negative aspects, then comes... etc, etc, etc.. hmm, sounds like the previous Political discussions on here.. :yes:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> 
> 
> In most painful break-ups, there is fault on both sides. I cheerfully admit that is the case here.
> ...


who's given Sheed zero credit?

this isn't a case where people are giving him 0 credit for the good he did, it's a case where people are saying that his on court production didn't cover his off court attitude.

No one is saying ( or atleast i haven't found) that he shouldn't be credited with being a good PF who helped lead us to two WCF's.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap- I've made my points, and I'm a bit tired of restating and clarifying, but I'll briefly respond.



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> and that of the team. and that of the media. and that of the fans.
> oh wait, those guys are all against sheed..


IMO the team wasn't against Sheed at least in their comments and actions pre and post trade. The negative attention of JQ grinding his axe daily was probably tiresome though. As I've noted many times some fans didn't like him.



> you HONESTLY thought the team with Kenny Anderson was in the title hunt? Or Gary Trent? Or Harvey Grant and Cliff Robinson?


should I quote myself? -"_I certainly thought all of those clubs had a much better chance of making the playoffs then our current one._"



> a web site called "cracksmoker" is the source?


They do a pretty good job of compiling (not writing) bad guy stories IMO.



> so basically, clyde was dumb, and someone didn't like TP, and Buck broke a TV.
> yep, thats on the same scale of Sheed and Bonzi...
> 
> how does this change the fact that far mor fans didn't like Rasheed than you're willing to admit?
> ...


no silly. Those same sort of complaint were being echoed around the Portland fanbase even after making it to the championship. Fans whine and lash out after being eliminated. It happens everywhere not just Portland... I recommend seeing Friday Night Lights.



> thats on fault of Portland. But it's a bad example. I doubt you'll find, outside of front runners, many fans of other teams in any city, that outrank their own teams fans.


I didn't say outrank. My point is that Portland has a very limited fanbase both in size and in the regions of the country that follows them. You should have seen all the Red Sox fans that flooded SF this last season. I sold a set of $30 seats for $150 each.



> twas a good read


thanks, just the ramblings of an overly obsessed fan... I'm probably offbase as well as biased with some of my views, but thats the way of things from my obstructed vantage.

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> should I quote myself? -"_I certainly thought all of those clubs had a much better chance of making the playoffs then our current one._"


you also said:



> Really? We completely disagree on this I guess. Some of those teams featured some real talent on both ends of the floor. *I don't know about you, but the teams featuring a healthy Sabas had title hopes dancing in my head yearly.*





> I didn't say outrank. My point is that Portland has a very limited fanbase both in size and in the regions of the country that follows them. You should have seen all the Red Sox fans that flooded SF this last season. I sold a set of $30 seats for $150 each.


it's a little strange to be comparing a baseball team, which has historically been in a more popular sport and older, than to a basketball team. 

you find teams that have been around the leauge for the last 35 years, and I bet that they all basically have the same # of fans around the country. 

of course there's more sox fans in Portland than Blazer fans in Boston. 

the blazers fans aren't in a "nation" like sox fans are.


> thanks, just the ramblings of an overly obsessed fan... I'm probably offbase with some of my views, but thats the way of things from my biased and obstructed vantage.
> 
> STOMP


no more off base than I am.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> who's given Sheed zero credit?
> ...


Hap, 

I try to not "call people out" and make these arguments too personal. Besides, I think you know what/who I am refering to.

There are posters who gloat over him leaving, belittle his contributions (here and in Detroit), and equate his every missed jumper with proof of attitude/character flaws.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> 
> 
> Hap,
> ...


I see.

I too yearn for the days when we don't continually get reminded he's been traded, or how great he was..or how evil he was, or how he did this, did that, ate babies and walked on water.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> I see.
> ...



As I said in a thread months ago:

Sheed is gone...get over it!

Sheed is not the antichrist.....get over that too!


----------

