# ESPN Powerrankings, Blazers #26



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Last issue of the powerankings before preseason I believe. A rank of 20-27 is reasonable but I still think we should be on par or above Jazz, Sixers and Celtics. Thoughts? I glad to see they have adjusted Seattle's ranking as well..seems much more accurate having them at #18 rather then number #8 like they did earlier in the summer. 



> Blazers #26
> Seattle undoubtedly will miss Mr. Sonic, but McMillan is bound to pine for the fairy-tale feel of last season after a couple of months nursing Portland's kiddie corps.



http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/powerranking?season=2006&week=-1


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

The clippers above us is what irked me.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I can't believe that the Lakers are 16th. BIAS


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

It's right on the mark.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

we finished up 26/30 last season so they are predicting a same performance this year, itll be a push imo.
ak47 is back for utah and i dont think any jerry sloane team would have 2 seasons like the last one in a row. i think its pretty much on track.


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

Stein's an idiot first & foremost---he's the guy that chose seattle to finish deadlast last year WITH NATE COACHING, & all they did was win the NW division title. Choosing the KNICKS, WIZARDS, & WARRIORS over Seattle that still has *Ray, Rashard, Vladimir*, & Luke & Nick, & other young players that aren't too young, but mid-20's, ready to hit their prime, on the team.....that's just plain assanine...I can understand not ranking them in the top 8 I guess, but they should be in the top 12. & the Grizzlies....what have the Grizzlies accomplished in the offseason to give then a ranking @ 11.....Stoudamire?! Didn't they get swept in the playoffs that they barely made? They couldn't even salvage a game against PHX, & Seattle kills Sacramento & is SA's biggest challenge in the playoffs in the west, & they still don't get @ least a respectable ranking....

Minnesota should be higher too IMO. & the 76ers!? They have a good looking team right now, I don't see how they DON'T win the eastern division or @ least get into the playoffs...NJ is overrated, IMO.


----------



## chevelle (Feb 8, 2004)

myELFboy said:


> Stein's an idiot first & foremost---he's the guy that chose seattle to finish deadlast last year WITH NATE COACHING, & all they did was win the NW division title.



No offense dude, but everyone and their mother picked Seattle to finish deadlast last year.

Except for Seattle fans, of course.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> Minnesota should be higher too IMO. & the 76ers!? They have a good looking team right now, I don't see how they DON'T win the eastern division or @ least get into the playoffs...NJ is overrated, IMO.


Minnesota? What have they done this offeason to deserve a higher ranking...Minny is still KG KG KG and that's it. Sure he is great but he cannot carry them alone. Their offseason moves were minimal, Minnesota will struggle to make the playoffs IMO. If Macants develops they will be good in a few years. 

Philly? see above but replace "KG" with Iverson. They could be decent if Dalembert continues to develop as well as Iguaodala. Webber is a has been and will whine and cry his way through the season about not getting enough touches. 

And yes NJ is overrated.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I think this rating of Portland looks pretty good. I'm worried that there's going to be a significant gap in our conference above us, but that doesn't really matter.

Ed O.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

#26 sounds about right to me.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Minnesota? What have they done this offeason to deserve a higher ranking...Minny is still KG KG KG and that's it. Sure he is great but he cannot carry them alone. Their offseason moves were minimal, Minnesota will struggle to make the playoffs IMO. If Macants develops they will be good in a few years.
> 
> Philly? see above but replace "KG" with Iverson. They could be decent if Dalembert continues to develop as well as Iguaodala. Webber is a has been and will whine and cry his way through the season about not getting enough touches.
> 
> And yes NJ is overrated.


KG was hurt last year, especially heading towards the playoffs he was hurting bad. He is not this year. I think that explains the Minnesota ranking enough.

NY is constantly over rated, and they are again this year. THere is no way That the Knicks are better then the Sonics. Ray Allen and any 11 scrubs are better then the Knicks.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

I just don't understand Seattle at #18 and Golden State at #13 when neither team changed appreciably and the Sonics were easily the superior team last season. 

As for the Blazers, that's probably about right. Sad but true. It's going to be a long season.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Public Defender said:


> I just don't understand Seattle at #18 and Golden State at #13 when neither team changed appreciably and the Sonics were easily the superior team last season.
> 
> As for the Blazers, that's probably about right. Sad but true. It's going to be a long season.



Its just typical bandwagon basketball. When Baron Davis came to GS last year, they won a lot of their games once he started playing, so the writer is probably assuming they will continue at that level of play. I am with you, I do not, and I also assume that like DA, Baron Davis will not stay healthy all year long, he rarely does. Even if he was healthy, I don't think they could keep up that level of play.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Public Defender said:


> I just don't understand Seattle at #18 and Golden State at #13 when neither team changed appreciably and the Sonics were easily the superior team last season.
> 
> As for the Blazers, that's probably about right. Sad but true. It's going to be a long season.


The Warriors were very good (18-10) last year after getting Baron Davis.

The Sonics have lost Nate and Daniels while not adding anything.

Look at the personnel and the coaching and I think that the Warriors should be better, too. I'm not sure that they will be, of course.

Ed O.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i think we should be a little higher


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

Minnesota, for all the chemistry problems & injuries they had, didn't make the playoffs by one game last year. They played uninspired & had a coaching change in the middle of the season.....after all that, they almost made the playoffs still.....I just have a feeling they'll be playing better, & they have KG, that helps.

It bugs me that the Sonics lose 2 players; one a lazy center, the other our PG off the bench & the 'Sonics are destined for 18th'.....we didn't lose Ray, the most important piece of the Sonics, & we didn't lose any other players. We have Vladimir fighting for a starting spot & big contract for next year, & he's our third leading scorer, when healthy of course, which is a worry I have w/ him. We lost Nate & Casey, BUT is that reason enough to say the Sonics forget how to win & they completely collapse because Nate is gone?? Had we lost Ray, then I'd be one saying the SOnics are a mid 20's team, but we didn't, thus I think the Supes are at least a top 12 team.

The Wizards, they lose Hughes, one of their leading scorers, & they are predicted 14th? I know it's the weak east, but come on now.....& the Cavs have pretty much a whole new team, no one knows how these players or the coach who is new to that team, will play with each other & they are ranked 9th already.....I know these rankings mean ****, but still, it bugs me.


----------



## Victory thru Synergy (Aug 21, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> i think we should be a little higher


I am still enthusiastic about the new, young Blazer team. So, until I see them play and they dissuade me, I agree with you, Uther.

I think if the Blazers play well, stay healthy and Zach is back, Portland could make the playoffs. That would put them about 15 or 16. If the youths are taken advantage of by other NBA teams and get schooled, then I think they fall to about 23 or 24. If they turn out an average performance of wins and losses, I think they will be somewhere between 18 and 22.

I think ESPN's low placement of the Blazers has more to do with their negativism towards Portland (which includes: the City, the Organization, the owner, and the Team) rather than solid analysis and an honest appraisal. But this is just my opinion and I could be wrong.

Go Blazers!

:cheers:


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

i think espn's placement of the blazers at 26 is more to do with realism than anything...
solid analysis and honest appraisals point to #26

this is a team that went 27-55 last season and when the team was taken out of the 'vet' hands for the last 25 or so games they were beyond abysmal - things are a bit different now , new coach , new players but in all respects we are back at square one and the only way to go is up , how far up? well thats going to be interesting.

memphis was the 8th and final playoff team last year in the west , their record? 45-37 - to reach that we need to win about 65% more games than we did last year , minus the vets and with a TON of hopes and dreams on a lot of young guys shoulders.

i think if we (considering the team makeup) win 27 games again this coming season and Zach can stay healthy and perform as he has in the past itd be a success and something to build from moving forward. I could deal with that.

i cant see how anyone can predict we're playoff bound next season , i understand optimism etc but that is a stretch imo  id love it to happen dont get me wrong! but this season is the first step in the journey, lets not get ahead of ourselves


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BlayZa said:


> memphis was the 8th and final playoff team last year in the west , their record? 45-37 - to reach that we need to win about 65% more games than we did last year , minus the vets and with a TON of hopes and dreams on a lot of young guys shoulders.


"minus the vets" like Blamon, Quit Van Exel and Der-brick Anderson?

you mean those great vets?

With vets like those, who needs scrubs?


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

As much as I say it, I have to basically agree with ESPN on their placement of the Blazers.

Rag on our now-gone vets all you like but the fact remains, they were proven in the league. We have to temper our optimism with the possibilities of our young group of guys and new coach with the reality that when we played our young guys at the end of the year last year, we were arguably the worst team in the league.

Yes I understand that we didn't have Zach at that time and we had me-first-midget playing significant minutes and didn't really have a coach. Still until this team proves they are a notch better than the group that finished last year, I wouldn't rank them much differently.

Every team's fans are filled with optimism at the start of a new season. There seems to be notably more optimism among Blazer fans this year and even with that, most don't feel like we are going to be a playoff calibre team this year. That alone puts us toward the bottom of the barrel and then combine that with the fact that, in many ways, we have a largely unproven team, I cannot justify any kind of decent ranking even among the bottom half of the league.

Once we hit the court, we'll either start proving ourselves or justify the less-than-stellar ranking. I hope that by the end of the year, we can be ranked in the mid-to-upper teens as far as power rankings go but to start the year, we're about where we should be.

Gramps...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> With vets like those, who needs scrubs?


Memphis, San Antonio, and Houston. All almost certainly better than the Blazers this year and, with the possible exception of Memphis, all locks for the playoffs.

Those three guys weren't good enough to make the Blazers good by themselves, no more than Bonzi or Dale Davis or even Rasheed Wallace would have been. But removing them ALL leaves us with a bad team, and I don't understand why some can't see that veteran starters--even if they're not MVP candidates--make teams better than young middle-of-the-road prospects or replacement-level veterans.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Memphis, San Antonio, and Houston. All almost certainly better than the Blazers this year and, with the possible exception of Memphis, all locks for the playoffs.
> 
> Those three guys weren't good enough to make the Blazers good by themselves, no more than Bonzi or Dale Davis or even Rasheed Wallace would have been. But removing them ALL leaves us with a bad team, and I don't understand why some can't see that veteran starters--even if they're not MVP candidates--make teams better than young middle-of-the-road prospects or replacement-level veterans.
> 
> Ed O.


because damon would've taken away minutes from Telfair, NVE quit, DA sucked, and Shareef didnt' want to be here. Thats why.

Why get vets that are so-so vets at best, when they're not going to make the team noticably better than the youngin's that are on the team. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

it is hap for those that choose to be doom and gloomers, that think that sar, dmon and da were gods now that they left the blazers.they should jsut enjoy watching a young team under a new coach, a new era!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> because damon would've taken away minutes from Telfair, NVE quit, DA sucked, and Shareef didnt' want to be here. Thats why.


Why does it follow that losing these guys isn't going to hurt the team, though? I can understand why you're not going to miss them (I was never a fan of Damon, and I disliked NVE quite a bit) but I don't see how you can think the team will be the same--or even better--without them.



> Why get vets that are so-so vets at best, when they're not going to make the team noticably better than the youngin's that are on the team. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.


My position is that veteran starters--even those that aren't capable of winning the MVP and/or leading a team to the playoffs by themselves--ARE going to make a team noticeably better.

This team will be noticeably worse because it lacks veterans, IMO.

I agree that Damon, DA, and NVE would take minutes away from the young players... on a team with young prospects, moving out veterans might help in the long run even as it results in more losses in the short run. But I'm not sure that getting rid of them to replace them with mediocrity like Dixon and Blake, though, does the team any good either in the long run OR the short run.

As for losing SAR: we haven't replaced him. We have no decent backup power forward on our roster except maybe Theo, who hasn't played that position regularly in years--if ever. That SAR didn't want to be here isn't relevant to whether losing him will hurt our chances to win basketball games.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

like them or not loosing all that experience and talent with no considerable replacements for Damon, NVE, DA nd Shareeek is going to hurt all year long

we had a mass exodus of talent loss, whethere we liked them personally or not


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Why does it follow that losing these guys isn't going to hurt the team, though? I can understand why you're not going to miss them (I was never a fan of Damon, and I disliked NVE quite a bit) but I don't see how you can think the team will be the same--or even better--without them.


I can see how I can think they'll be better. It's not like we were losing all stars. We lost players who were aging, poor shooting, and (outside of Shareef, to a little bit) all about themselves.

vets don't always mean better.


> My position is that veteran starters--even those that aren't capable of winning the MVP and/or leading a team to the playoffs by themselves--ARE going to make a team noticeably better.


I don't agree with that position (ut oh ed, we gotta stop arguing or people might accuse me of always doing it). I don't think the Vets we had were good enough (or would improve the team enough) to justify keeping them, nor do I think that any vets the team could realistically have signed were good enough to justify signing them.


> This team will be noticeably worse because it lacks veterans, IMO.


I don't think the team would be much different in the long run (this season) because the guys we had last year, or could've signed, were basically Wesley Person type clones.



> I agree that Damon, DA, and NVE would take minutes away from the young players... on a team with young prospects, moving out veterans might help in the long run even as it results in more losses in the short run. But I'm not sure that getting rid of them to replace them with mediocrity like Dixon and Blake, though, does the team any good either in the long run OR the short run.


I dont think the trade off between DA, Damon and NVE and Dixon and Blake is enough to worry about it. 

AND if the difference between the team being good and bad is those 3 guys..well, that speaks volumes.


> As for losing SAR: we haven't replaced him. We have no decent backup power forward on our roster except maybe Theo, who hasn't played that position regularly in years--if ever. That SAR didn't want to be here isn't relevant to whether losing him will hurt our chances to win basketball games.
> 
> Ed O.


a player not being here to me, isn't a player I want here. Replacing him might be a bit overrated, because we do have players who can play spot minutes at the PF (which is what we need). Having *another* player who think he needs good minutes (shareef or an equal replacement) imho, is more detrimental to the team than it's worth.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

There are a couple of perspectives I would like to add.

One, "young" teams never win many games. In fact, in almost all instances, they flat out stink. Professional Basketball is a Vet dominated sport.

The Blazers are now one of the youngest teams in the NBA. The Blazers just dumped proven vets and is planning on replacing their minutes with unproven youth and guys who are deep bench talent.

The Blazers do have proven vets, but not enough, and not enough in the starting lineup. And none are proven franchise talent or powerful leaders that MIGHT be able to carry a team of talented, but green players on their back.

Though most of us are glad to see the nasty guard core we suffered last season gone (Damon, NVE, DA), to say we are better off JUST becasue they are gone is silly. We needed big improvements to the guard core. For this season it seems highly unlikely that what we have now will be much, if any, improvement at all. We are different. We are younger. Better? Not yet. For the future, maybe, and only if Telfair and Webster turn into studs. And that will take 2 to 3 years.

Two, very young prospects seldom make any real impact their first couple of seasons. Certainly they don't lead their team anywhere good right away. What did these SuperStuds who came in the league early do? Kobe, T-Mac, KG.

We don't have any SuperStud prospects among the baby Blazers. To expect big things out of any of them this season, is to wish for something near miraculous.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Masbee said:


> There are a couple of perspectives I would like to add.
> 
> One, "young" teams never win many games. In fact, in almost all instances, they flat out stink. Professional Basketball is a Vet dominated sport.
> 
> The Blazers are now one of the youngest teams in the NBA. The Blazers just dumped proven vets and is planning on replacing their minutes with unproven youth and guys who are deep bench talent.


they also dumpec proven *bad* vets.



> The Blazers do have proven vets, but not enough, and not enough in the starting lineup. And none are proven franchise talent or powerful leaders that MIGHT be able to carry a team of talented, but green players on their back.
> 
> Though most of us are glad to see the nasty guard core we suffered last season gone (Damon, NVE, DA), to say we are better off JUST becasue they are gone is silly. We needed big improvements to the guard core. For this season it seems highly unlikely that what we have now will be much, if any, improvement at all. We are different. We are younger. Better? Not yet. For the future, maybe, and only if Telfair and Webster turn into studs. And that will take 2 to 3 years.


I dont think it's silly to say that in the long run (which is far more important to me than 1 season) we're better. The team IS better off. Sometimes going young hurts, but usually the teams that go young (and suck) have maybe 1 good player, and 11 no-names. Thats not true here. 

Sure, we have really only "1" known player (Zach) but it's not like we're full of Steve Blakes and Charles Smith's filling in the rest of the roster.


> Two, very young prospects seldom make any real impact their first couple of seasons. Certainly they don't lead their team anywhere good right away. What did these SuperStuds who came in the league early do? Kobe, T-Mac, KG.


How'd they do in their 2nd years tho? All but McGrady did much better.

No one is expecting Webster to be leading the team anywhere, so I don't know why you're using 3 of the best players in the league as examples. No one here is expecting the younger players to be "leading" the team "anywhere". It's just that the team won't be as bad as some think, and getting vet's to stay (or signing mediocre vets) isn't worth the stiffling potentially that would happen. 

I don't think that the vets they had, or would have been able to sign, would've improved the team enough for 1 year, to justify their signing.


> We don't have any SuperStud prospects among the baby Blazers. To expect big things out of any of them this season, is to wish for something near miraculous.


we don't know that we don't have any "superstuds". No one knew that McGrady would be McGrady after his first couple years, nor Kobe. Also, I don't think anyone is expecting "big things" out of the players you're implying they are. They expect good things about of Outlaw and maybe Telfair, but it's doubtful that most are expecting much from, nor putting much pressure on, Webster. So really, whats the point of arguing that?

So, for those who want vets, who do they get?

Who was out there, that'd be worth keeping? 

Der'brick? Yah, he's the leader we need...

Blamon? Uh, no.

Quick Van Exel? **** no.

Shareef? He might be a respectable "leader", but he'd be detrimental to the growth of Miles (eh) and especially Outlaw.

So really, who was the vets they should've gotten that'd make a lick of difference this year?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Now that I look at this again I really can't figure out the Memphis ranking either. I don't think the trade with Miami made them any better. It should help them play some better defense but I still don't see them as a team that will consistently win games.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> they also dumpec proven *bad* vets.


Are you serious?

Portland lost 3 starting-caliber NBA players in Damon, DA, and SAR.

Unless I'm missing something, the Blazers didn't get rid of ANY proven "bad" vets.

Ed O.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

none of them are 'bad' vets , they just arent liked by most people here for their own personal reasons

BUT

they are apparently liked enough by the Spurs , Memphis , Kings , and the Rockets - all WC teams with premier coaches who you assume have some idea of who they are signing and their capabilities.

we have lost a lot and gained yet more 'potential' 

nve - 11pts 3rbs 4ast
ds - 16pts 4 rbs 6ast
sar - 17pts 7rbs 2ast
da - 9pts 3rbs 3ast

thats avgs from last season - we lost 53pts of avg scoring by losing our 'bad scrubs vets' and we only avgd 92pts as a team , so well over half the scoring is gone! 

what im saying is its going to be a TOUGH year , i know some people didnt LIKE the players that left but that really has little to do with where we will end up being ranked next season (topic..) we might be a more socially pleasing team and a bit more fan friendly - but fans want wins too , and they are going to be scarce to begin with.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> Portland lost 3 starting-caliber NBA players in Damon, DA, and SAR.
> 
> ...


yes, Im serious. DA, NVE and Damon were bad vets. NVE wasn't helping the team win, nor was DA or Damon.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BlayZa said:


> none of them are 'bad' vets , they just arent liked by most people here for their own personal reasons
> 
> BUT
> 
> they are apparently liked enough by the Spurs , Memphis , Kings , and the Rockets - all WC teams with premier coaches who you assume have some idea of who they are signing and their capabilities.


so..because 3 teams where those guys are now role players...and on teams where they'd basically be very very low on the totem pole, thats the same as our situation?

eeeh..sorry. not true.

do you honestly think that if NVE quit on the Spurs, Poppavich wouldn't kick his sorry *** to the curb?

And really, because the players got picked up, doesn't mean **** in relation to the trail blazers. Those players weren't going to help the Blazers (be it choice "starting over" or the fact that if those are the 4 players we're trying to help the team build around, we're a horrible team...so there's no point in keeping them. They won't make us win enough games next year to justify them being here.)


> we have lost a lot and gained yet more 'potential'
> 
> nve - 11pts 3rbs 4ast
> ds - 16pts 4 rbs 6ast
> ...


sorry, doesn't work that way. The points will be replaced, and the team will be better off in the long run. You can't act as tho the points they scored won't be replaced and that it's a given that the # of points that they DID score, is exactly how many points are "gone".

That's a huge fallacy among fans (that and thinking that because a player averaged X points in one city, he'll average the same in another city).


> what im saying is its going to be a TOUGH year , i know some people didnt LIKE the players that left but that really has little to do with where we will end up being ranked next season (topic..) we might be a more socially pleasing team and a bit more fan friendly - but fans want wins too , and they are going to be scarce to begin with.


no one has said it's not going to be a tough year, but you can either have a really crappy team with vets taking minutes and stunting the growth of younger (potentially better) players, or you can have the younger players play. 

And it's not like we have no talent on the team, or are just 15 untalented youngins like some want to say.

So I ask, again, who are the vets we should've kept/signed?

And how would they have made the team noticeably better? Since the only vets of the 4 that are reasonable to assume would say are DA and Damon (Shareef was as good as gone, no matter what any of us think)...do we really want to have a team with DA and Damon corrupting the guys who are on the team?

and for those who say we should've gotten vets..WHO?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> yes, Im serious. DA, NVE and Damon were bad vets. NVE wasn't helping the team win, nor was DA or Damon.


Hah.

First of all, it's hard to prove that ANYONE on the Blazers really was helping the team win. It was a terrible team, and arguing that anyone was really doing a good job is difficult because of that. Using the "they weren't helping us win" explanation, though, doesn't hold water because it could have excused/explained anything the team did. Clearly that's not right, since not all moves are created equal.

Secondly: I think that you've got a short memory. Let's look at the Blazers' first month, after which they sat at 8-6, and see what roles those three guys played to see if they DID help the team win:

Win 1 (78-75 @ GS):
NVE: 20 points, 5 rebounds, 4 assists
DA: 10 points, 6 rebounds, 5 assists
Damon: 5 points, 5 assists, 5 rebounds
Analysis: These three were critical for the win, accounting for 45% of the points and 67% of the assists.

Win 2 (94-81 v LAC)
NVE: 10 points
DA: 16 points, 5 assists
Damon: 5 points, 11 assists
Analysis: Again, these three were important. Shot a combined 14-29 from the field and accounted for 67% of the team's assists (again). 

Win 3 (105-102 v Tor)
NVE: 5 points
DA: 19 points
Damon: 20 points, 6 rebounds, 9 assists
Analysis: NVE was inconsequential, but Damon and DA each had good games. Portland doesn't win without these three.

Win 4 (110-98 v Mil)
NVE: 3 points
DA: 14 points , 7 rebounds, 3 steals
Damon: 33 points, 6 assists
Analysis: Damon had a big scoring game and DA had a nice supporting game. NVE was limited to 10 minutes and 1-2 shooting.

Win 5 (99-87 @ Mia)
NVE: 15 points
DA: 19 point, 4 assists 
Damon: 8 points
Analysis: Damon had a bad game (3-12 from the floor) but the trio was critical in the win as they hit all 8 three pointers the team tallied.

Win 6 (89-83 @ Orl)
NVE: 4 points
DA: 21 points, 5 rebounds
Damon: 7 points
Analysis: DA has a big game while NVE and Damon take the night off.

Win 7 (83-71 @ NJ)
NVE: 6 points
DA: 9 points, 6 rebounds, 5 assists
Damon: 16 points, 5 rebounds, 8 assists
Analysis: Bad games for Damon and NVE, but DA scored a quarter of the team's points.

Win 8 (100-94 v Seattle)
NVE: 14 points
DA: 7 points
Damon: 5 points
Analysis: The weakest of the trio's performances in the 8 wins.

###

I'm not a huge fan of any of these three guys, but the team demonstrated at the end of last year that they simply couldn't win without these guys (Damon was playing the 2, which was a massive disadvantage for the team, and Zach was out, but SAR was a reasonable filler for Zach).

I wish it wasn't the case, and it's possible that this team will be better without these guys, but I simply reject that they weren't very important in whatever meager success this team had last year.

Ed O.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> yes, Im serious. DA, NVE and Damon were bad vets.


And, given the way he cared for Hollywood, you could say Qyntel was a bad 'vet' also.

Hah hah. Eh, sorry.

barfo


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Hah.
> 
> Ed O.


the team with those 3 guys won how many games? 

yah, let's keep 'em!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> and for those who say we should've gotten vets..WHO?


Alternative 1: Bonzi? Rasheed? Dale Davis? McInnis? DA? NVE? Damon? Antonio Daniels? All of these guys are good enough to contribute (and, almost to a man, *start*) for teams that are much much better than the current Blazers. And, with the exception of NVE, all of them were on the roster when Nash took over the team.

Alternative 2: That's John Nash's problem. He strip-mined the team and left it bereft of players in their prime. I'm not going to forgive a bad team simply because Nash left us in a can't-win situation.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> the team with those 3 guys won how many games?
> 
> yah, let's keep 'em!


I'm sorry that my post was cut short. My pizza arrived, and I don't wait to post more when I'm hungry. I've fleshed the post out a bit more.

The argument that the team was bad and so we can get rid of anyone we want and not get worse just doesn't make sense to me.

Ed O.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> the team with those 3 guys won how many games?
> 
> yah, let's keep 'em!


thats not the question , the question is - the team WITHOUT those 3 guys will win how many games?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BlayZa said:


> thats not the question , the question is - the team WITHOUT those 3 guys will win how many games?


who knows, those vets were/would be keeping younger players that might be better, on the bench.

Who's to say that Viktor won't be a vital cog to the team? Or that OUtlaw will make us forget any SF thats ever played on the team?

Who's to say that Telfair won't "blow up" this year?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I'm sorry that my post was cut short. My pizza arrived, and I don't wait to post more when I'm hungry. I've fleshed the post out a bit more.
> 
> The argument that the team was bad and so we can get rid of anyone we want and not get worse just doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Ed O.


did I say we can get rid of "anyone we want"?

I said that the players we got rid of (the vets) weren't good enough to justify keeping them, nor were any of the players we COULD have gotten, good enough to justify *****ing about it to the degree people do.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Alternative 1: Bonzi? Rasheed? Dale Davis? McInnis? DA? NVE? Damon? Antonio Daniels? All of these guys are good enough to contribute (and, almost to a man, *start*) for teams that are much much better than the current Blazers. And, with the exception of NVE, all of them were on the roster when Nash took over the team.


So what? They were all not going to win us any games for any long stretch of time. If this is about winning, those guys aren't winning us what we're in here to win.



> Alternative 2: That's John Nash's problem. He strip-mined the team and left it bereft of players in their prime. I'm not going to forgive a bad team simply because Nash left us in a can't-win situation.
> 
> Ed O.


a can't win situation in Ed O's mind. We don't know how good the players will be because most of them (Viktor, Outlaw, Telfair, etc) haven't gotten minutes to prove themselves. Neither has Miles for that matter.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

well how about this 

do you think we will win , less, same, or more games next season than last season? i cant remember if you've stated what you actually think will happen or not..


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> did I say we can get rid of "anyone we want"?


You discounted three of the best players on the team last year, and if we can get rid of them, then your argument of "look how bad we were last year!" can be stretched to justify getting rid of any player.



> I said that the players we got rid of (the vets) weren't good enough to justify keeping them, nor were any of the players we COULD have gotten, good enough to justify *****ing about it to the degree people do.


As BlayZa asks: do you think this team will be better than last year? You seem to be saying that this team will be as good or better as last year in spite of losing four of our top players--each of whom DID help us win games, in spite of your assertions to the contrart--without adding anyone of significance (outside of Dixon, perhaps, who was a bit player on Washington the last few years).

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

IMO it was very clear the team with Damon, NVE and DA was not going to be a team which could go deep into the playoffs. Yes they had the capability to win games but with their attitudes and egos that was even a 50/50 shot at best. It was time cut our losses and their contracts and move on. 

Now we are in a reuilding mode. We won't win as many games without those three but we are finally rid of the bad attitudes and egos. 

Damon was not a very good PG in my oppinion anyway. Dribble Dribble for 18-20 second then try to make a play late in the shot clock. He never really proved all that effective at getting the ball inside to Zach either. 

DA was simply weak...somewhere along the way he lost his heart. Never took the ball to the hole anymore and settled for 16-20 ft jumpers. Sorry DA you are just not a good enough shooter to make your game one-dimensional. He then became so weak he sat on the bench for long periods with all kinds of maladies. 

NVE was great for awhile..I really loved him as a Blazer. Eventually he soured on the whole youth movement idea and began griping. I cannot say I don't blame him for being upset be he did not behave like a veteran professional should. No need for that garbage on this team anymore. 

Yes will lose more games without these guys then with likely but IMO none of them were guarantees of wins.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> and for those who say we should've gotten vets..WHO?


Jason Kidd, Vince Carter and Baron Davis were (probably) all available in the not distant past.

How would a starting backcourt of:

Davis (or Kidd) & Vince Carter

look with Miles, Zach and Joel?

Playoff bound if you ask me.

If you want to go the lower cost route I will take Antonio Daniels/Bonzi Wells starting over Telfair/????you gotta be kidding me. Telfair still should be coming off the bench.

Why do you repeatedly ask who the better players are supposed to be when the Blazer management and ownership has painted themselves into this corner? I have disagreed or been baffled by move after move.

And in fact, I posted at the very beginning of the Patterson era that the Blazers would be making a HUGE mistake if they listened to the crap coming out of the Oregonian and the Ron Tonkins of the world to guide their personnel decisions. I said trying to go in three different directions at once causes you to end up nowhere.

You can't keep throwing in MY FACE demands for instant solutions when it has taken years of miscalculations and bad choices to get to this point.

My posts in this thread were a response to the notion expressed by others that the team will be BETTER because they have jettisoned proven veteran talent, not replaced it with comparable (or better) veteran talent, and thus the ranking of the team by ESPN is way too low. 

I find that argument to be unsupported by facts and history.

And I don't see what pointing that out has to do with a throwdown challenge of "well, what would YOU have done that would have been better?". You do understand they are separate issues and thoughts, right? 

Just because I point out we haven't actually NET improved the roster for the uncomming season, doesn't tell you weather I agree or disagree with the moves, the direction or the longer-term future of the team.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> Why do you repeatedly ask who the better players are supposed to be when the Blazer management and ownership has painted themselves into this corner? I have disagreed or been baffled by move after move.
> 
> And in fact, I posted at the very beginning of the Patterson era that the Blazers would be making a HUGE mistake if they listened to the crap coming out of the Oregonian and the Ron Tonkins of the world to guide their personnel decisions. I said trying to go in three different directions at once causes you to end up nowhere.


You also must remember that this is a business not just a basketball team. Winning games puts folks in seats but the suggestions you make wouldn't have won enough games to do that IMO.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Masbee said:


> Jason Kidd, Vince Carter and Baron Davis were (probably) all available in the not distant past.


not this summer, not this summer, and not this summer.

They weren't free agents.



> How would a starting backcourt of:
> 
> Davis (or Kidd) & Vince Carter
> 
> ...


who's to say that we would've been able to make that trade? Why act as tho that's a fact?


> If you want to go the lower cost route I will take Antonio Daniels/Bonzi Wells starting over Telfair/????you gotta be kidding me. Telfair still should be coming off the bench.


maybe according to you, but according to people who are more knowledgable than you or I are, he's improved a lot over the summer. (Yes, I know, thats A: typical of a response of someone who's drinking kool-aid and B: said every year).


> Why do you repeatedly ask who the better players are supposed to be when the Blazer management and ownership has painted themselves into this corner? I have disagreed or been baffled by move after move.


I'm asking for people to come up with realistic replacements for the vets we had, and instead of dealing with dream-land trade scenarios that never happened, come up with replacements for what (and here's the kicker) *DID* happen.

So saying we should've/could've had Kidd, Carter and/or Baron Davis really is worthless. Thats not what happened, and it's pointless to bring it up. 

How about, instead, talk about how the team could've signed for *THIS* summer, since thats what we're dealing with?



> And in fact, I posted at the very beginning of the Patterson era that the Blazers would be making a HUGE mistake if they listened to the crap coming out of the Oregonian and the Ron Tonkins of the world to guide their personnel decisions. I said trying to go in three different directions at once causes you to end up nowhere.


there's such a thing as rushing to judgement. Let the team play a year with the team as is (the real first team with little or not _negative_ trader bob issues on it. 



> You can't keep throwing in MY FACE demands for instant solutions when it has taken years of miscalculations and bad choices to get to this point.


and you can't keep throwing in "my face" demands for instant success when it can take a couple years for results to be obvious.

You can't have it both ways.



> My posts in this thread were a response to the notion expressed by others that the team will be BETTER because they have jettisoned proven veteran talent, not replaced it with comparable (or better) veteran talent, and thus the ranking of the team by ESPN is way too low.
> 
> I find that argument to be unsupported by facts and history.


history does not = same result every time.

No team had won 3 straight home games in the NBA finals (the road team)..yet Detroit did.

in 90, the Pistons hadn't won in Portland for 20+ games..and yet they won all 3 games.

No team had won game 7 of the conference finals in 20+ years a couple years ago, and the Lakers did.

History is a reference point, not a photo-copy duplicate.


> And I don't see what pointing that out has to do with a throwdown challenge of "well, what would YOU have done that would have been better?". You do understand they are separate issues and thoughts, right?


yes, but continually *****ing and moaning that they gave up on vets and not accepting that they weren't good for the *good* of the team (and also not coming up with vets that the team could've replaced them with) gets us nowhere.

yes, the team won't be as good as they could be, but the vets weren't going to make enough of a difference (read: the team would still suck) to justify keeping them.



> Just because I point out we haven't actually NET improved the roster for the uncomming season, doesn't tell you weather I agree or disagree with the moves, the direction or the longer-term future of the team.


what we think of as "improved" is based 100% on our ill-informed opinions, and our short attention spans. We refuse to be cognizant of the fact that what we're ***** and moan about, might look silly to people who actually know what they're talking about.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BlayZa said:


> well how about this
> 
> do you think we will win , less, same, or more games next season than last season? i cant remember if you've stated what you actually think will happen or not..


I think they'll be better than last year by about 8-10 games. MOstly due to coaching, and partly due to the fact they're getting players who should know their roles.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> You discounted three of the best players on the team last year, and if we can get rid of them, then your argument of "look how bad we were last year!" can be stretched to justify getting rid of any player.


if three of our best players are Damon, DA and Shareef (or NVE in that group), than we're not as good as we should be, and those guys should be cut so we can see if the younger guys are better.



> As BlayZa asks: do you think this team will be better than last year? You seem to be saying that this team will be as good or better as last year in spite of losing four of our top players--each of whom DID help us win games, in spite of your assertions to the contrart--without adding anyone of significance (outside of Dixon, perhaps, who was a bit player on Washington the last few years).
> 
> Ed O.


I think the team will be better than last year, BECAUSE they lost "four of our top players". 

They may have helped us win games, but they also helped us *lose* games. 

Just like when Kiki was traded for Byron Irvin, if you have someone in the wings to take someones place who'll be better (Jerome from that point in their respective careers onward, WAS better), you can still improve.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> not this summer, not this summer, and not this summer.
> 
> They weren't free agents.


You can't set the rules and arbitraily limit it to "this summer". What are you gonna do? Hold your breath until you turn blue if I mention moves that had to be made last season again? That is just beyond silly. Mega silly. Super silly. Just knock it off already.




> who's to say that we would've been able to make that trade? Why act as tho that's a fact?


They are examples because two of them in fact were traded. Am I using Shaq and T-Mac as examples? No. Those guys were traded too.

You ask what COULD, let me repeat as it is key, YOU DEMAND WHAT COULD have been done to avoid this current roster destined to lose a lot of games and fairly get ranked #26 by ESPN. Then you shoot it down by saying it couldn't have possibly happened because of the fact that it didn't.

Well there you go. Another DEAD END Hap conversation. If you already know the answer why bother asking the question? Clearly, in your mind, every move the Blazers make is the best move that could have been made. And if they didn't make a particular move, then it wasn't possible. Isn't that convenient? Makes analysis pretty easy doesn't it?



> maybe according to you, but according to people who are more knowledgable than you or I are, he's improved a lot over the summer. (Yes, I know, thats A: typical of a response of someone who's drinking kool-aid and B: said every year).


Give me 5 examples of players at the same age of Telfair who have been top 15 for their position. Give me 2 examples that are point guards. Then maybe we can talk. I have ALREADY addressed this point.

Decades of history and the example of thousands of players backs up my position. What backs up yours?




> there's such a thing as rushing to judgement. Let the team play a year with the team as is (the real first team with little or not _negative_ trader bob issues on it.


Huh?

We still have Ruben Patterson. We still have Zach. Remember Zach sucker-punched Ruben. The trade for Miles was considered a very Trader Bob esq type trade at the time. If fact, I am certain Bob would have gleefully pulled the trigger on that deal. Some consider Miles a negative. The early and fat extensions for Zach, Theo and Miles was very much in the style of Bob. There is still plenty of "Bob" smeared on this team - whatever that is supposed to mean anyway.




> and you can't keep throwing in "my face" demands for instant success when it can take a couple years for results to be obvious.


It has been 2 full years already.

Two years already gone by.

There is virtually no chance that the team will be very good this season. That is another season gone by.

Three full years. Three years gone by. And where are we then?

No cap space. If Joel has a good year, a year to remember, a year where the Blazer fans look forward to resigning him, the odds of keeping him are very slim.

So, in the 4th year, with no cap space, losing Joel, how much improvement could we possibly see in the 4th season?

You can take your "demands for instant success" line and put it back in your pocket. It's crap.




> yes, but continually *****ing and moaning that they gave up on vets and not accepting that they weren't good for the *good* of the team (and also not coming up with vets that the team could've replaced them with) gets us nowhere.
> 
> yes, the team won't be as good as they could be, but the vets weren't going to make enough of a difference (read: the team would still suck) to justify keeping them.


Strawman, meet Hap.

I don't continually ***** and moan about giving up on vets. 

I occaisionally (look at my post count) ***** and moan about the poor plan, the massive cost-cutting, the contradictory plan elements, the shifting sands of the planning, the poor execution and reactionary rather than proactive nature of the management.

That's different. Maybe a little too layered and complicated for some.

I wanted the team to strike in a bold direction and pursue that objective. There is no guarantee a bold objective can be achieved. But you have a chance. When you plan is doomed from the start because the objectives are contradictory, you have almost no chance of success - and if you did it would be due to dumb luck.

They could have become the "Bad Boys" of the West and played up their image WWF style. Keep Sheed and Bonzi and go for it.

Or, they could have purged these guys in trades for future picks and/or youth.

Or, they could have set themselves up to trade for a couple of Star players on the move. A dozen star players have moved or been in heavy play the last 2 years.

They half-heartedly tried rebuilding on the fly. It cost Allen a bundle and didn't succeed on the floor, so he pulled the plug. But, they snagged average players making huge bucks. They needed to either - stay committed to flipping average, but overpaid veterans, or hold out for a star player for that salary slot.

Then they went young, but not very agressively, as they were trying to save money too. So we have lots of prospects, but no sure things, no blue-chippers. And the best picks we will get will be our own from losing, losing and losing some more.

THAT's what I ***** about.

You can't tell me to fix this problem because the team two years later still doesn't have much flexibility. And that it is is because of the decisions they made in the past that I didn't understand at the time. You and others said, they have their reasons. It is all part of a solid plan. IF they had a solid plan, their execution has been poor. IF their execution has been solid, the plan or plans have been junk.

I don't have a problem with the idea of going young. But if you do it - DO IT. Stockpile picks. Make room. Dive into the lotto with your picks and other teams. We should have flipped more of our talent into lotto picks. You have to strive to get your mitts on a stud (like a Dwight Howard, Chris Bosch, Dwane Wade, Amare or of course LeBron). If you don't give yourself a good shot at snagging one, it is a wasted effort. Telfair and Webster might be good players someday, but they aren't likely good enough to make years of losing worthwhile.



> what we think of as "improved" is based 100% on our ill-informed opinions, and our short attention spans. We refuse to be cognizant of the fact that what we're ***** and moan about, might look silly to people who actually know what they're talking about.


You can call me ill-informed if you like. And it may be true that I might look silly.

But, I am not the group that declared it my plan to improve character, reduce payroll and maintain a winning tradition all at the same time.

History has proved me to be quite informed about the realities of the world and the ones who espoused that plan to have all the egg on their face - thus being the silly looking ones.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

what were those stats in the last 25ish games last year when they turned the team over to the young guys? its somewhere in the forum but i hope the person that pointed it out can help me 

we seem to be wavering a bit off the topic here - its about last seasons placings vs predicting the upcoming seasons end placings. - not about who we could have signed , who we personally would have signed etc - these are all moot as none of them happened and we are where we are.

i still cant understand the addition by subraction argument in regards to wins/loses when the 4 key personel loses equated to so much production and their replacements have been ho-hum to say the most. 

the only key addition has been the coach.

and hap , damon - reef - da - nick were 4 of our best players during the year , yes it was that 'bad' but if you think that was bad - hold tight this season...

i think it was a good idea for the team to cut the ties with the people that left , it was important to the blazer brand - thats the emotional part BUT talent and production wise they are leaving huge holes which will be harder to fill than most people suspect.

blake , dixon , smith - hope springs eternal


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Masbee said:


> You can't set the rules and arbitraily limit it to "this summer". What are you gonna do? Hold your breath until you turn blue if I mention moves that had to be made last season again? That is just beyond silly. Mega silly. Super silly. Just knock it off already.


why can't I set the "limit" to this last summer? thats the summer we lost "4 vets".


> They are examples because two of them in fact were traded. Am I using Shaq and T-Mac as examples? No. Those guys were traded too.


they were also players who, in a nutshell, could pick and choose where they played.

so it's not the same.


> You ask what COULD, let me repeat as it is key, YOU DEMAND WHAT COULD have been done to avoid this current roster destined to lose a lot of games and fairly get ranked #26 by ESPN. Then you shoot it down by saying it couldn't have possibly happened because of the fact that it didn't.


so, setting up unrealistic circumstances is a valid arguing tactic?



> Well there you go. Another DEAD END Hap conversation. If you already know the answer why bother asking the question? Clearly, in your mind, every move the Blazers make is the best move that could have been made. And if they didn't make a particular move, then it wasn't possible. Isn't that convenient? Makes analysis pretty easy doesn't it?


have I ever said that "every move" the blazers make is the best move?

But to continually harp on things that are out of our hands, is insane. Move on, the team didn't trade for Carter, Kidd or Baron Davis. What they DID do, and what we know we can argue about factually, is the fact that they didn't keep 4 vets. 



> Give me 5 examples of players at the same age of Telfair who have been top 15 for their position. Give me 2 examples that are point guards. Then maybe we can talk. I have ALREADY addressed this point.


Not sure whats the point of trying to counter that, because I don't recall saying that Telfair would be a "top 15" for their position. 

Parker was pretty good at a young age, as was Marbury too. And Lebron was too, and Carmello. Kobe wasn't too bad in his 2nd year either. 


> Decades of history and the example of thousands of players backs up my position. What backs up yours?


well, I'm not sure how to respond to that. It seems to me that since it never happened before, it'll never happen period.


> We still have Ruben Patterson. We still have Zach. Remember Zach sucker-punched Ruben. The trade for Miles was considered a very Trader Bob esq type trade at the time. If fact, I am certain Bob would have gleefully pulled the trigger on that deal. Some consider Miles a negative. The early and fat extensions for Zach, Theo and Miles was very much in the style of Bob. There is still plenty of "Bob" smeared on this team - whatever that is supposed to mean anyway.


Ruben isn't someone I like on the team. Zach punched Ruben back when trader bob was running things..I think.

As for the trade for miles being "very trader bob", the problems that miles has had aren't on par with the problems the bad trader bob trades had.



> It has been 2 full years already.
> 
> Two years already gone by.
> 
> ...


well, for starters, rushing into labling what has been "2 years" to blame nash for things, is odd. This is really the first year that Nash has been able to build a team with players he's mostly picked.

where would we be with the players he traded? not good. Maybe better than we are, but not good enough to justify keeping them.



> No cap space. If Joel has a good year, a year to remember, a year where the Blazer fans look forward to resigning him, the odds of keeping him are very slim.
> 
> So, in the 4th year, with no cap space, losing Joel, how much improvement could we possibly see in the 4th season?


who knows? We don't know how Travis will mature this season. He might have a really good year, and make us not worry so much about Joel leaving. We don't know.

What if Joel doesn't have a good year, and doesn't get any offers? would people complain that Nash re-signed Joel?


> You can take your "demands for instant success" line and put it back in your pocket. It's crap.


you're right, your demands for instant success are crap.


> I don't continually ***** and moan about giving up on vets.
> 
> I occaisionally (look at my post count) ***** and moan about the poor plan, the massive cost-cutting, the contradictory plan elements, the shifting sands of the planning, the poor execution and reactionary rather than proactive nature of the management.


sometimes people can't see the forrest for the tree's.


> That's different. Maybe a little too layered and complicated for some.


yah, me dumb.


> I wanted the team to strike in a bold direction and pursue that objective. There is no guarantee a bold objective can be achieved. But you have a chance. When you plan is doomed from the start because the objectives are contradictory, you have almost no chance of success - and if you did it would be due to dumb luck.


Just as we don't know that the team would've been good with the potential trades that might have happened, we don't know that this team has no "studs" in the waiting. 


> They could have become the "Bad Boys" of the West and played up their image WWF style. Keep Sheed and Bonzi and go for it.


yah, that would've worked. 


> Or, they could have purged these guys in trades for future picks and/or youth.


kinda like they did?


> Or, they could have set themselves up to trade for a couple of Star players on the move. A dozen star players have moved or been in heavy play the last 2 years.


or they could groom their own players and trade for some.


> They half-heartedly tried rebuilding on the fly. It cost Allen a bundle and didn't succeed on the floor, so he pulled the plug. But, they snagged average players making huge bucks. They needed to either - stay committed to flipping average, but overpaid veterans, or hold out for a star player for that salary slot.
> 
> Then they went young, but not very agressively, as they were trying to save money too. So we have lots of prospects, but no sure things, no blue-chippers. And the best picks we will get will be our own from losing, losing and losing some more.
> 
> ...



blah blah blah blah..you done?

look, there's certain things fans refuse to accept sometimes. For starters, the GM and the team actually does know a WHOLE lot more about who's a good player, than we do. We can sit here and act like we know that they could've traded for someone, when we don't actually know that. We can sit here and act like a player that was rude to management, personal, fans, and other players, should've stayed because we believe he was a difference maker..and we can act like nothing good will ever come of things because we need things now now now now now now now now!!!

but at least admit that we're just fooling ourselves.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

da? what a joke people are acting like he is a god I question if anyone actually watched him play it was brutal.

damon? dribblemire enough said

sar? injured plus never wanted to be here, big loss rigghthttt

nve? oh is a god now that he is somewhere else? played just above da's level and was a cancer crying on the bench

the blazers have veteran leadership and mayb ebetter quality than last year too! The blazers will be way better than last year with a win total around 35-40 wins thanks to coach Nate being a better coach and running plays on either side of the court.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BlayZa said:


> what were those stats in the last 25ish games last year when they turned the team over to the young guys? its somewhere in the forum but i hope the person that pointed it out can help me
> 
> we seem to be wavering a bit off the topic here - its about last seasons placings vs predicting the upcoming seasons end placings. - not about who we could have signed , who we personally would have signed etc - these are all moot as none of them happened and we are where we are.
> 
> i still cant understand the addition by subraction argument in regards to wins/loses when the 4 key personel loses equated to so much production and their replacements have been ho-hum to say the most.


you can replace a player with someone who's already on the team. See: Jerome Kersey and Kiki Vandeweghe.

Jim Paxson and Clyde Drexler.

Mychal Thompson and Kevin Duckworth.

If you prime your own pump right, you don't need to always trade for players to perpetuate mediocrity.



> the only key addition has been the coach.
> 
> and hap , damon - reef - da - nick were 4 of our best players during the year , yes it was that 'bad' but if you think that was bad - hold tight this season...


they might have been 4 of the best, but they weren't the *4* best players.

A big reason why the team wasn't good last year was made up of 2 things. for starters, they had a horrible coach with no recognizeable coaching ability, or plan. Another is injuries. And as much as everyone thinks that Shareef was a good enough replacement for Zach, the fact of the matter is, he wasn't a good fit on the team. Not having Zach and Theo for big chunks of last season (even with Theo playing) is a worse loss than losing Damon and NVE this year is.



> i think it was a good idea for the team to cut the ties with the people that left , it was important to the blazer brand - thats the emotional part BUT talent and production wise they are leaving huge holes which will be harder to fill than most people suspect.
> 
> blake , dixon , smith - hope springs eternal


Blake Dixon and Smith are the same as Richie Frahm, Gino Carlisle and that other guy we had.

Not that important.

but the return of a healthy zach, an older improved telfair, a maturing travis and viktor showing any signs, CAN make up for the losses, and more. And thats not including the improvement of the coaching ALONE that can help get the team wins.

Just look at the Padres this year. Their manager sucks..with a decent manager, they could've won 10-15 more games easily. 

having a plan..a scheme...and a set role for players goes a long way to winning. Why do you think some teams with "little to no talent" can have decent seasons? Look at the jazz 2 years ago. They were basically Andre Kirilenko and Matt Harpring (who missed 51 games) and a bunch of so-so's..and they won 42 games and almost made the playoffs. 

Why?

not because they were loaded with talent or had vets on their team (they didn't).They won because they had a system and players who bought into that system.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> kinda like they did?


Please remind me what young player we got for Rasheed. Please inform me that we somehow got a draft pick out of him.

Maybe you're confusing the Blazers with the Hawks. Atlanta got cap relief and a pick that turned into Josh Smith.



> blah blah blah blah..you done?


You mocking people for being verbose is funny. 



> look, there's certain things fans refuse to accept sometimes. For starters, the GM and the team actually does know a WHOLE lot more about who's a good player, than we do.


Teams fail. GMs get fired.

Whether teams "know more" than we do or not isn't really relevant, since opinion and subjectivity in a competitive environment almost always makes one team look bad and the other look good.

Does Nash know more than I do, when he signed two guys the Wizards didn't want back? Or does Washington's brass know more than you do by letting those two guys go without compensation?



> but at least admit that we're just fooling ourselves.


Who's claiming that we could have done better than Nash? Certainly I am not.

But that doesn't mean that he's done a good job. It doesn't mean that the Blazers are going to be better in the upcoming season. And it doesn't mean that we shouldn't criticize things that we see as wrong, especially considering Nash's record so far in winning games as Blazers's GM and his longer history of building perennial lottery teams.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

It seems like the Blazer fans that didn't have a problem with the negative image the team had with Rasheed, Bonzi, and all the other pukes we got rid of don't live in the Portland or Oregon area and take it as personal as those of us who do live here and have to listen to the constant negative criticism about the local team and blah, blah, blah.....Just my :twocents: (and I'm not trying to imply that you aren't as "good" of a fan or anything like that, so don't take offense).....

I actually agree with everything that Hap has been saying....

The team wasn't going anywhere in its current state with washed up veterans who didn't give a damn....So why keep them around and become perennial 35 game winners with those guys instead of cleaning house and bringing in fresh blood to try and revamp and connect again with the community that was bored with the same ol' same ol'....We have an exciting young team, with players who are on the cusp of becoming stars IMO, this new era is a lot more exciting than reading up every other week about a Blazer doing something boneheaded....Anybody who thinks that Bonzi should still be a Blazer needs to look deep into reality....The guy is as dumb as a board, racist and on top of that talked trash about our own fans in the media and even more on top of that he is a mediocre player who had one big game in the playoffs whooped-di-do..We can find a player who is much less of a headache to get us 12 points a game....

You can blame Nash all you want, but the bottomline is that he got hired into a job where the man upstairs is calling the shots...He was given the order to cut payroll and that is what he is doing while stockpiling on solid young talent and draft picks....This team may not be that great this year, or next year, but the future is very bright and I'm going to be able to cheer for a team that I can be proud of.....But sadly have to listen to a spoiled fan base complain about not making the playoffs for a couple years....

With that being said, this season can't start any sooner....


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:



> It seems like the Blazer fans that didn't have a problem with the negative image the team had with Rasheed, Bonzi, and all the other pukes we got rid of don't live in the Portland or Oregon area and take it as personal as those of us who do live here and have to listen to the constant negative criticism about the local team and blah, blah, blah.....


Very strange observation to make when two of the three posters on the other side of this argument don't list where they live... also strange that you'd claim you aren't trying to be offensive when you're first totally mischaracterizing their argument(s) and then surmising their points as blah blah blah. 



> But sadly have to listen to a spoiled fan base complain about not making the playoffs for a couple years....



Is this your idea of positive chat? Nobody is making you read threads on this site or participate. You could do any number of things besides continuing to ignore the rules and calling posters names.

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> It seems like the Blazer fans that didn't have a problem with the negative image the team had with Rasheed, Bonzi, and all the other pukes we got rid of don't live in the Portland or Oregon area and take it as personal as those of us who do live here and have to listen to the constant negative criticism about the local team and blah, blah, blah.....Just my :twocents: (and I'm not trying to imply that you aren't as "good" of a fan or anything like that, so don't take offense).....
> 
> I actually agree with everything that Hap has been saying....


thats generally agree'd upon as the 3rd sign of the apocolypse.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

why cant some fans just watch the team? You never know what could happen in the NBA thats why the games are actually played, heck our only title came from the youngest team ever to win a championship. 

They should wait to see what Nate will do with this team, he might just push some players into being stars. 

Teddy's great white flieet was the greatest navy the world had seen but it didnt stay that way for by ww1 that navy was crusty, dusty and rusty out gunned by all the imperial navies. What happened? The once great fleet was scrapped for a new shiny potentally power navy but unproven, this navy was the building blocks for the grand fleets of the pacific and altantic oceans of ww2 which became the most powerful navy in the world. 

The blazers have scrapped the great white fleet of the Jail Blazer for the shiny new unproven fleet now lets see what this new navy can do under is new Admiral! 

you know the aircraft carrier and the submarine were scuffed at first, the two are now the backbones of every navy in the world with any power. 

Give our new fleet(team) a chance why so much venom and hate for a team that is new and let them prove themselves for you can pine for the days of the teddy ( whitlst) team but that is as practical a taking a horse and buggy to work.

we are fan of the blazers are we not? Why dont we support the team and hold the venom till after the all-star break? 

Just give Nate's fleet a chance and give them some support instead of trying to rip them down all the time. *gets of soapbox*


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Utherhimo said:


> why cant some fans just watch the team?
> 
> we are fan of the blazers are we not? Why dont we support the team and hold the venom till after the all-star break?
> 
> Just give Nate's fleet a chance and give them some support instead of trying to rip them down all the time. *gets of soapbox*


I think that most of the ripping and blaming within this thread has been from those (including you) who don't agree with ESPN's analysis and have been trashing the outgoing talent... don't you recall all those clever names that you made up for those guys who've been picked up by various projected playoff teams/contenders? 

Personally, I've been scratching my head on most every one of the moves they've made outside of the draft picks (I don't pretend to know about players I've never seen play)... patiently hoping over the last two years that a solid master plan would eventually reveal management's reasoning. Unfortunately after alls spent and done, I'm not a big fan of the way that they've used their limited salary space. For two years I placed hope that management knew what they were doing... unfortunately I'm all but resigned to hoping that the club's future lottery appearances will provide them the opprotunity to draft the players necessary to round out the club. It bothers me to no end that with all the losing we've been watching and are expected to continue to see, they've got the club solidly over the cap and no legit big man in place for the future... IMO thats a recipe for mediocrity. I guess with Joel expected to leave after this year and the dreck they've got manning the 5, that maybe management is angling for a shot at Odem in the '07 draft.

I'm still hoping for the best from the young guys they've acquired, but it almost always takes a well rounded team to contend. I'd love it if Telfair, Outlaw, Webster, and ??? improve enough to make up for the gaping hole in the middle... heck, how great would it be if Ha actually took his career seriously, got his butt in shape and developed into that guy... but sorry, it's unreasonable (IMO) to expect posters on a message board to continue to sit on their honestly held opinions when so much evidence is in. Quality 5s do not grow on trees and I can't think of one that was acquired via an MLE. The current management has created this situation, and as a diehard Blazer fan, I'm not happy about it.

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> I think that most of the ripping and blaming within this thread has been from those (including you) who don't agree with ESPN's analysis and have been trashing the outgoing talent... don't you recall all those clever names that you made up for those guys who've been picked up by various projected playoff teams/contenders?
> 
> Personally, I've been scratching my head on most every one of the moves they've made outside of the draft picks (I don't pretend to know about players I've never seen play)... patiently hoping over the last two years that a solid master plan would eventually reveal management's reasoning. Unfortunately after alls spent and done, I'm not a big fan of the way that they've used their limited salary space. For two years I placed hope that management knew what they were doing... unfortunately I'm all but resigned to hoping that the club's future lottery appearances will provide them the opprotunity to draft the players necessary to round out the club. It bothers me to no end that with all the losing we've been watching and are expected to continue to see, they've got the club solidly over the cap and no legit big man in place for the future... IMO thats a recipe for mediocrity. I guess with Joel expected to leave after this year and the dreck they've got manning the 5, that maybe management is angling for a shot at Odem in the '07 draft.
> 
> ...


what was trader bobs "main goal" when he first came here? or was it ok that we were a 1st and out for the first 4 years that he was here that we didn't need to "know" what he was doing?

because he'd stock pile talent, and then trade them..and there was no clear cut "goal" back in his first 2 years. It wasn't until his 3rd year here that he hired his first coach (Dunleavy) and it wasn't until the 5th year that his team actually did anything in the playoffs.

so why don't we show a little paitence and realize that things take longer than we want to admit they do? 

This is truely the first year that Nash has been able to field a team that he's built from the ground up (minus of course, Zach and maybe Travis). If the team shows no signs of improvement over the year (Telfair shows nothing, Outlaw shows nothing and the rest of the newbies are worthless) complain then. But to act as tho we should expect results now now now, when it's unfair to act like things have to happen now now now..well, it's short sighted.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> so why don't we show a little paitence and realize that things take longer than we want to admit they do?
> 
> This is truely the first year that Nash has been able to field a team that he's built from the ground up (minus of course, Zach and maybe Travis). If the team shows no signs of improvement over the year (Telfair shows nothing, Outlaw shows nothing and the rest of the newbies are worthless) complain then. But to act as tho we should expect results now now now, when it's unfair to act like things have to happen now now now..well, it's short sighted.


Why in the world would you say "maybe Travis"? Nash wasn't hired for weeks after Travis was drafted... it's pretty well documented who ran that draft.

You can keep your short sighted crap to yourself thanks, I've bitten my tongue plenty enough already over the past two years and will express my opinion of how management has succeeded/failed in their rebuilding process as I see fit. Feel free to disagree with my reasoning, but why not respond to what I actually write instead of stances you imagine I'm holding? 

for instance... in what you quoted above I express my hopes for the developement of the young guards and swing players, but I express my doubts that they'll be able to add decent bigs down the road in avenues outside the draft because of managements spending blunders. Those clear mistakes limit the upside of the potencial of the club becoming contenders (IMO). Most of the rest of your critique of my post seems to be pulled out of thin air as well.

That you so often attribute views to posters that they don't express is one of the main reasons why I haven't been responding to your posts of late. You continue to throw out plenty that I disagree with, but I've found our past conversations to be mostly an uphill battle of trying to combat your mischaracterizations and making my views clear. I don't know (or really care) why this is, but I find it tiresome and overall unproductive. Sorry. 

STOMP


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

stomp cant you just wait till the season starts?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Utherhimo said:


> stomp cant you just wait till the season starts?


can't you? Like others, I agree with ESPN's ranking Portland near the bottom of the league. You and some others don't. This is a board where we are allowed to express our views on the club and we hash out why we hold those views... maybe there is a board out there for those who hold views that are only glowing or only critical, but this ain't that spot. Hopefully you can learn that at bbb.net we agree to disagree rather then asking those who don't agree with your views to clam up.

STOMP


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

STOMP said:


> Very strange observation to make when two of the three posters on the other side of this argument don't list where they live... also strange that you'd claim you aren't trying to be offensive when you're first totally mischaracterizing their argument(s) and then surmising their points as blah blah blah.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 you bore me with your internet arguments....I would counter-respond to this post, but I'm not going to because it will just give you more things to attempt to dissect, pick apart and breakdown in an attempt to make me look like a fool for just a simple observation that wasn't intended to be offensive.....So I won't add anymore fuel to your fire, so you can get your jollies somewhere else instead of trying to make a fool of a sports fan in an internet message board.....So, I'm going to leave you be to argue with the other posters rapid fire, back and forth for I have to off to work....


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Is this your idea of positive chat? Nobody is making you read threads on this site or participate. You could do any number of things besides continuing to ignore the rules and calling posters names.


And can you tell me where I have "continued" calling anyone a name or ignored the rules in this post....I haven't.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> Why in the world would you say "maybe Travis"? Nash wasn't hired for weeks after Travis was drafted... it's pretty well documented who ran that draft.


because at this point, we don't know if Travis will actually be someone we can hang our hat on or not.


> You can keep your short sighted crap to yourself thanks, I've bitten my tongue plenty enough already over the past two years and will express my opinion of how management has succeeded/failed in their rebuilding process as I see fit. Feel free to disagree with my reasoning, but why not respond to what I actually write instead of stances you imagine I'm holding?


trader bob is god.


> for instance... in what you quoted above I express my hopes for the developement of the young guards and swing players, but I express my doubts that they'll be able to add decent bigs down the road in avenues outside the draft because of managements spending blunders. Those clear mistakes limit the upside of the potencial of the club becoming contenders (IMO). Most of the rest of your critique of my post seems to be pulled out of thin air as well.


what decent bigs are they even realistically able to add? That's a big thing people seem to forget when they complain about the team not doing something. 

I guess they can trade a bunch of our players for ending contracts or no contracts, and be even worse and have no one on the team..so we can maybe sign a guy who other teams would want to sign too.

Yah, thats smart.



> That you so often attribute views to posters that they don't express is one of the main reasons why I haven't been responding to your posts of late. You continue to throw out plenty that I disagree with, but I've found our past conversations to be mostly an uphill battle of trying to combat your mischaracterizations and making my views clear. I don't know (or really care) why this is, but I find it tiresome and overall unproductive. Sorry.
> 
> STOMP


than stop reading my posts than. I know I'm not the only one who gets tired of reading your posts.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

oops double post


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> trader bob is god.


Is Nash your personal Jesus, and in your black and white world do you view TB as the devil incarnate? If so, that would go a long ways towards explaining your obsession with putting those who levy critisism against Nash as in league with evil Bob. 

I don't see things that way... back when Bob was at the helm I critisised him many times for things I viewed as mistakes. I have never made a post that pined for having him back at the helm... yet here you are with more out of the blue nonsense attributing more ridiculousness to me that I've never expressed. 



> what decent bigs are they even realistically able to add? That's a big thing people seem to forget when they complain about the team not doing something.


I'm not forgetting anything, especially not how management misspent the clubs capspace by overpaying Darius and prematurely and lavishly extending Theo and Zach. With capspace available to a shrewd GM, all sorts of options would have been available or would have existed into the future... volumes could be writen on those options. You want one? If they hadn't done what they did, I'm sure I'd feel a lot better about their chances of resigning Joel.



> I guess they can trade a bunch of our players for ending contracts or no contracts, and be even worse and have no one on the team..so we can maybe sign a guy who other teams would want to sign too.
> 
> Yah, thats smart.


hello strawman



> than stop reading my posts than. I know I'm not the only one who gets tired of reading your posts.


I couldn't care less if you or others are tired of reading my posts... I figure that most everyone has their likes and dislikes, and if someone wants to put me on ignore thats Kool Moe Dee by me. I'm only telling you why I don't respond to your nonsense outside of when you're quoting me... I guess I'll let that bleep float down the river from now on too. Good suggestion!

STOMP


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

STOMP said:


> thats Kool Moe Dee by me.


Do you even know who Kool Moe Dee was and what he endured in his career? Or did you just say it because you thought it sounded good?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> can you tell me where I have "continued" calling anyone a name or ignored the rules in this post....I haven't.


sure you labeled those who are airing their concerns as "spoiled". Perhaps you didn't notice, but in the last thread you and I went back and forth in, 3 of your posts either had portions crossed out or were eliminated entirely for the same sort of stuff.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> Do you even know who Kool Moe Dee was and what he endured in his career? Or did you just say it because you thought it sounded good?


I put _Go See the Doctor_ on some mix tapes I made for friends years back, and I know a little bit about him having a fued with LL... but mostly that comment was inspired by having watched Pulp Fiction in the last week. 

I like all sorts of music...whats your point?

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

STOmp said:


> I couldn't care less if you or others are tired of reading my posts... I figure that most everyone has their likes and dislikes, and if someone wants to put me on ignore thats Kool Moe Dee by me. I'm only telling you why I don't respond to your nonsense outside of when you're quoting me... I guess I'll let that bleep float down the river from now on too. Good suggestion!
> 
> STOMP


you done?


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Wow - is the question could the Blazers be in a better position this season if they'd done some things differently in the past few years? I find it hard to believe that the answer to that question is anything other than a resounding "yes!".

How far back do the problems go - and how many of the Blazers' past decisions warrant hindsight? Certainly they go back to Trader Bob. He made some very good moves - such as landing Scottie Pippen for several underperforming veterans, and landing Steve Smith for JR Rider and Jim Jackson. But he made two enormous missteps: utterly mishandling the development of Jermaine O'Neal (in concert with Mike Dunleavy) and then trading him for Dale Davis, and trading Brian Grant for the ludicrous salary loadstone of Shawn Kemp (not that BG was really that big of a loss in retrospect, but the team's hands were tied financially for years after bringing Kemp on board). 

But Trader Bob can't be blamed for all that's wrong with today's Blazers, and I can't for a minute agree with the idea that letting four players walk for nothing is going to improve this team - certainly not in the short run, and it takes a leap of faith to say it will longer term. Sure, you can say that Nick Van Exel is a headcase and not worth much, and that Damon Stoudamire dribbles too much and is too short to play defense. Derek Anderson's always hurt and Abdur-Rahim has never been on a winning team. But take all four of them and there should have been a time and opportunity to get something in return that'll help the team win. 

I am still giving Nash and Patterson to the end of the season to demonstrate that their vision is headed in the right direction. I could be vastly underestimating this team's talent, and it may be that a little experience and Telfair, Outlaw, Miles, Z-Bo and company will be finding a winning rhythm. But I bet we'll be wishing the Blazers had paved the road to success with a move or two involving one of our four departed veterans before the year's out.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

dixon smith and blake are veterans


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Public Defender said:


> .
> 
> I am still giving Nash and Patterson to the end of the season to demonstrate that their vision is headed in the right direction. I could be vastly underestimating this team's talent, and it may be that a little experience and Telfair, Outlaw, Miles, Z-Bo and company will be finding a winning rhythm. But I bet we'll be wishing the Blazers had paved the road to success with a move or two involving one of our four departed veterans before the year's out.


I too am giving till the end of the season, and if the group of newb's don't show any promise (outlaw in particular) I'm hoping they do make a trade for someone who will. But I want to find out that the players we DO have, aren't that kind of player before I complain about a lack of movement.

If it's obvious, by Jan (or earlier) that Outlaw is pulling a Ronnie Murphy on us, then I say you trade him. If it's obvious by the same time that he's pulling a 15 ppg type #'s, I won't be too upset.

There are too many unknowns, that we don't..well, know, to proclaim things are either one way or the other. Are things perfect? Nope, hardly. But at the exact same time, things aren't absolutely horrible. There could be a lot of surprises with the younger guys on the team.

However, if we're getting a full season of Charles Smith and Steve Blake being main cogs on the team, and Outlaw, MOnia, Viktor and Jack (or Telfair too) doing bupkiss...well, then it'll be a big mistake. I just don't think it will be that bad, and that the young players will prove they're good enough to justify that the vets who left weren't worth keeping, and that the vets we could've signed, weren't worth signing.

Do I wish we could've gotten more for those 4? Yes..but considering what happened, I don't see the point in harping on it forever. Move on (not reffering to you PD, or anyone in particular), and go with what happened, not what we think could've or should've happened.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yup i am giving them this season to improve, i am hopeful that the additions are hungry prove to be hungry and good example for our younger players, better than 3 of the 4 players we lost.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Geez people...it isn't like that ESPN article actually means anything! No team has ever been denied a play-off spot because they won more games then some writer predicted.....or vice versa.

As for the "losing the vets" argument, how does a young player become a "vet?" He gets a chance to play. IMHO, Nash has made plenty of mistakes. Waving good-bye to Damon, DA, and NVE isn't among them. ( Losing SAR without compensation is another matter entirely.)


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

STOMP said:


> sure you labeled those who are airing their concerns as "spoiled". Perhaps you didn't notice, but in the last thread you and I went back and forth in, 3 of your posts either had portions crossed out or were eliminated entirely for the same sort of stuff.
> 
> STOMP


I'm using the word "spoiled" regarding the fanbases 21 years of consecutive playoff basketball...not because they're airing their concerns....I could careless about that..And seriously if someone is going to take offense personally to word "spoiled" they shouldn't be debating on a public internet forum...Sure I had some posts in the Mixum thread crossed out, but that was in past threads regarding a certain poster and you decided to bring it up in this post?....And I'm sure you have had posts edited by mods in the past too, what are you trying to insinuate?....


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

IMO it's time for some folks to realize the Trader BOB big spending days are over...Allen has decided he has spent enough chasing a championship with pure $$. It's not only Trader Bob that is over but the entire era of spend spend spend in order to win a championship. It never worked here in Portland, didn't work in Dallas or Sacramento either. Those days are over. 

I am not saying i agree with every move the Blazers have made this summer, but you can no longer expect us to acquire a new high caliber player every year. The days of big spending are over.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I'm sure you have had posts edited by mods in the past too, what are you trying to insinuate?....


Actually I've only had one post edited... it was for compiling a list of all the insults that you'd called me within a thread. I didn't call you the same stuff back, I just listed all of the mud that you'd slung my way. That multi-page thread was locked because of those insults. Though of course that post is largely deleted, I could link it if you want...

So what am I trying to insinuate? As I've expressed before many times, I'm hoping that you'll knock those sorts of tactics off and try to be respectful of those who hold opinions who you don't happen to agree with. I'm fine with you (and other diehards) feeling that this team is bound for championships (or thereabouts). I'm glad that you have the opprotunity here at bbb.net to express why you feel this way. That we disagree about this assessment does not make it OK for either side to characterize the other in degrading terms like "spoiled" by the rules here. Those are set up to help us avoid becoming an O-Live type cesspool. 

We both agreed to abide by those rules when we registered.

STOMP


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

STOMP said:


> Actually I've only had one post edited... it was for compiling a list of all the insults that you'd called me within a thread. I didn't call you the same stuff back, I just listed all of the mud that you'd slung my way. That multi-page thread was locked because of those insults. Though of course that post is largely deleted, I could link it if you want...
> 
> So what am I trying to insinuate? As I've expressed before many times, I'm hoping that you'll knock those sorts of tactics off and try to be respectful of those who hold opinions who you don't happen to agree with. I'm fine with you (and other diehards) feeling that this team is bound for championships (or thereabouts). I'm glad that you have the opprotunity here at bbb.net to express why you feel this way. That we disagree about this assessment does not make it OK for either side to characterize the other in degrading terms like "spoiled" by the rules here. Those are set up to help us avoid becoming an O-Live type cesspool.
> 
> ...


I really don't think your understanding my usage of the word "spoiled".....as I have said in the previous post, my use of the word spoiled has nothing to do with a certain person or group of persons who think a certain way....I said _we_ as a fanbase have been spoiled because of the fact that before the last two years we were in the playoffs more frequently than any other team....The fact that you take the word "spoiled" as offensive is laughable and silly..and there's a reason why nobody has said anything about it except for you, because your the one who likes to make a mountain out of a mole hill and start pointless arguments out of nothing....

Now that I have explained my usage of the word "spoiled" twice do you understand what I mean or am I going to have to explain it again?.....

Since when are you Mr. Respectful of everyone's opinion, last time I checked you were the one getting in long drawn out pointless arguments with people on a daily basis....and I can think of about 3 or 4 different posters that you mostly attack due to their not holding the same opinion as you...

As for me being getting a post deleted thats great, sometimes my emotions get in the way and I say things I don't neccessarily mean....You starting back and forth pointless arguments with people on here on a regular basis and your illusive attempts to put people down with out actually breaking the rules is a nice little trait of yours and I think should be against the site rules...

But anyways thanks for the refreshing look back of when I broke the site rules, especially since when I broke rules for something that has nothing to do with this post, but nice job digging up dirt on me in I'm sure an attempt to make me look foolish.....

Now thats it I'm done responding to your little counter attacks at me....Please carry on and annoy someone else now, its old and lame to me now...


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

I beleive that NVE, DS, and DA can be replaced easily by average play of many players on the current roster. 

NVE was very "gimpy" by seasons end and not very effective with the bad knees. 

DS was just horrible as a point guard last year and failed to get others effectively involved in the game. 

DA, whom I have stuck up for for some time either was debilitaed by injury or just gave up and was not effective after those first few games. 

All of these sometimes had good scoring games and were effective for short streches yet could not sustain the "good". 

SAR was not very effective as a sf and they should have played Miles much more in MHO.

In light of these opinions I believe that any number of our much younger healtier players will be more effective team players and comtribute to the success of the team better than any of the departing veterans making the players we have, make the Blazers a better team this year. 
This will consequerntly cause them to register more wins. 
That is why I believe the team will do better this year. 
More wins and more players progressing instead of regressing. 

Many of the arguments that Hap and some others have made in this thread are the arguments that I agree with. 

Even so, I hope you _all_ are with me when I say I _hope_ I am right. :cheers: 

Just think training camp starts tomorrow and I look forward to some tidbits of info on my favorite team. By the way my only favorite team. 
A long time ago I decided that there was way too many teams to follow in all sports and I decided I would give all my allegence to the Blazers. 
Over the susequent 34 + years I have enjoyed many very good teams and one championship. I have been amply repayed. 

Thanks Trail Blazers and I look forward to year 35. (it is 35 isn't it?) 

LETS GET IT STARTED!! 


gatorpops


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> IMO it's time for some folks to realize the Trader BOB big spending days are over...


I don't see a lot of evidence of this. If Paul Allen wants to keep someone he'll spend the money, i.e. Zach, Miles and Theo. If Outlaw or Webster become stars there's no doubt that PA will pay them big money to keep them. 

What's really over is the trading for big contracts. At least for the time being. We're not going to get someone else's (likely fading) star but there's no reason we can't keep our own. If the organization turns around and can become great by spending the money then PA isn't going to go Donald Sterling on the team.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Don't disagree with the ranking... in fact, I'm thrilled with it.

I'm pretty sick of the national media setting high hopes for the Blazers team and then lambasting them when they don't achieve those standards.

I think the Blazers can easily beat this ranking and that's why I like it...


----------



## casebeck22 (Jul 20, 2005)

I like the Blazers but I agree with the rating until it is proven otherwise.

Good luck this season. :cheers:


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

media day is here!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> IMO it's time for some folks to realize the Trader BOB big spending days are over...


Amazing that they let him back into the office long enough to give huge EXTENSIONS to Zach and Theo and hand Darius a generous package as a RFA.

The whole "Paul Allen won't spend money" thing flies in the face of what Nash has actually done as a GM.

Ed O.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Amazing that they let him back into the office long enough to give huge EXTENSIONS to Zach and Theo and hand Darius a generous package as a RFA.
> 
> The whole "Paul Allen won't spend money" thing flies in the face of what Nash has actually done as a GM.
> 
> Ed O.


What Goldmember said a couple of post before this is probably about accurate, it seems to me. 
PA will spend to keep who he wants but not trade for large long contracts on possibly "over the hill" players. 
Evidenced by the reported "disapointment" of JN that he did not get Carter. 


gatorpops


----------

