# Anyone hear... [Nash ashcanned]



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

did I hear right that KGW is saying that Nash was canned?


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

Already? I thought they had another month? If true, it might explain why they didn't extend Pritchard in his current position. Unless he got the boot too, which I sincerely doubt. The guy's a dynamo.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



Blazer Bert said:


> Already? I thought they had another month? If true, it might explain why they didn't extend Pritchard in his current position. Unless he got the boot too, which I sincerely doubt. The guy's a dynamo.


well, according to a post on realgm, Patterson is named interim GM. 

joy.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

All I can say is wow.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

I think they were saying that _Steve_ Nash was _grand_.

barfo


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



SMiLE said:


> well, according to a post on realgm, Patterson is named interim GM.
> 
> joy.


According to a post on BBB.net, *barfo* is interim GM. And supreme leader. 

barfo


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



www.blazers.com said:


> The Portland Trail Blazers announced tonight that the contract of General Manager John Nash will not be extended for next season. President Steve Patterson will immediately serve as interim general manager and the organization will initiate a search for a new general manager.
> 
> President Steve Patterson said tonight, on behalf of the entire organization, "All of us at the Trail Blazers appreciate John's effort and hard work under difficult circumstances and thank him for the enormous class he displayed throughout his time here."
> 
> ...


barfo


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

Now I feel bad about never sending an email. Thanks John! Hope your replacement is, um how do I say this, better.


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

How soon until you think we get a new GM? I for one am not a huge Steve Patterson fan.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

_terrific fans who want nothing more than for the Team to succeed._

Thanks for mentioning me, John. :biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

well obviously things are going to improve greatly now, as nash had to have been the problem. on to the playoffs!

This is a huge sign of things. 

Had Nash been retained, the team would've stayed in Portland. now that he's been let go and the team is replacing him, it's obvious that the team is moving to Vancouver.

Face it people, its as good as done!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

I just sent an e-mail tonight asking Nash if he plans to take a vacation. Now I just feel bad.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

kinda bummmed...i figured we'd be this bad for a few seasons and bounce back with some young players...we do have a nice core of draft picks.....

trades had not been to our favor...but we did what we had to do....AT THE TIME.

We needed to resign Zbo....we wouldn't have had a PF.

We needed to resign Miles...at the time he was all into Portland and looked like he was going to realize his potential. 

Ratliff seemed like the veteran presence that we needed....

I supported Nash's moves then, and do now. 

Hopefully we have a good GM candidate lined up and this isn't just a cost cutting move or something stupid like that.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

His response:

_Thanks for the e-mail.

We are currently in the process of deciding that, and everyone in the organization is providing valuable input. We, of course, value what you, the fans, think but it's too early to comment specifically._

Happy trails, Mr. Nash...


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



stupendous said:


> How soon until you think we get a new GM? I for one am not a huge Steve Patterson fan.


Hopefully soon, because I can't stand Patterson as well. The guy creeps me out, and I think they should've gotten rid of Patterson before Nash.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

So, Patterson is going to be the GM between now and the draft?

Patterson will be the GM for the draft?

This is not a good thing.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



Blazer Bert said:


> So, Patterson is going to be the GM between now and the draft?
> 
> Patterson will be the GM for the draft?
> 
> This is not a good thing.


I agree. Uggh..remember his look on his face at the Draft lotto.....hire someone!


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



SMiLE said:


> well, according to a post on realgm, *Patterson* is named interim GM.
> 
> joy.


Who is likely even worse...Pritchard better be stepping up to the plate or Kiki better be getting on a airplane sometime soon.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

Yikes


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

Pritchards deal expires towards the end of summer, he will be the unofficial GM and let Patterson carry the title "Interim GM" until the end of KPs contract, when he will receive a new deal as GM.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

I have to think they aren't going to hire anyone as GM. If they were going to promote Pritchard, seems like they would have done it now, rather than saying they were going to start looking.

Now, maybe they'll eventually hire Pritchard, but the draft is only a month away, not enough time to actually evaluate candidates from the outside and hire someone. 

My guess is that they'll leave the job open until ownership is resolved, and Patterson/Pritchard will make the draft selections.

But hell, I could be wrong. Not like it hasn't ever happened.

barfo


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

oh boy  patterson as gm oh boy *closes nose*

this is interesting


> The team will hold a media availability for reporters at the practice facility tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m. to discuss this and *other personnel matters*.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



Schilly said:


> Pritchards deal expires towards the end of summer, he will be the unofficial GM and let Patterson carry the title "Interim GM" until the end of KPs contract, when he will receive a new deal as GM.


I hope that is the case, and that Nate doesn't convince Patterson to fall in love with Roy or something, and that Patterson doesn't overrule Pritchard's opinion. I've never gotten the feeling Patterson knows squat about Basketball. He's supposedly a business end of baseball guy, right?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

They fired the wrong guy. Nash is a scapegoat for Patterson's incompetence. At his very best, John Nash is a mediocre NBA GM. Problem was in Portland he had one hand tied behind his back and was never even allowed to be mediocre. Patterson needs to go. Making him interim GM just makes a bad situation worse.

BNM


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



Boob-No-More said:


> They fired the wrong guy. ... At his very best, John Nash is a mediocre NBA GM.


Sounds to me like they fired the right guy, then. Now, maybe they need to make additional cuts, but if the very best you can do is be mediocre, you probably deserve firing.

barfo


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

Time to move on, but if they do go with Kiki, he better deliver.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



Boob-No-More said:


> They fired the wrong guy. Nash is a scapegoat for Patterson's incompetence. At his very best, John Nash is a mediocre NBA GM. Problem was in Portland he had one hand tied behind his back and was never even allowed to be mediocre. Patterson needs to go. Making him interim GM just makes a bad situation worse.
> 
> BNM


At his best, mediocre? That's a ringing endorsement! In any event, I'm looking forward to Kiki time!!


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



barfo said:


> Sounds to me like they fired the right guy, then. Now, maybe they need to make additional cuts, but if the very best you can do is be mediocre, you probably deserve firing.


Problem is, even at his mediocre best, John Nash is a far better then GM Steve Patterson will be. The timing is curious. Nash's contract does not expire until June 30 - two days after the draft. They could have kept him around until after the draft. Remember when Whitsitt resigned - they kept him around until after the draft. I guess they figured a lame Patterson is better than a lame duck Nash.

BNM


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Anyone hear...*










What is it you want? I can get it for you. I only ask for your soul...

barfo


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

I'm kinda conflicted about this.

I wonder what Nash would have done if his hands weren't tied on a number of deals.

It's too early to tell if he dropped the ball on Telfair, but Webster and Jack look especially promising.

He made some good "Moneyball" moves.

He also signed Theo, Darius and Zach to ... I can't finish the sentence.

I hate to think of Patterson running the show now (even if it's only temporary). It's not like Portland's going to attract a top-flight GM or anything.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

my bad.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

I just hope they have an experienced candidate lined-up who can step in soon and hit the ground running. With the talent relatively equal at the top of this draft, and the Blazers holding two more picks there will be plenty of opportunities for draft day deals. Also, July 1 is the beginning of the free agent negotiation period. This isn't exactly the ideal time to be shopping for a new GM. If they didn't intend to keep Nash, they should have fired him the day after the season ended and been well on their way to getting the new GM on board and up to speed by now.

Maybe they have their heart set on Kiki and will get him hired before the draft. I'm not sure Kiki is the answer (I'd rather see them try to pry Geoff Petrie away from the Kings), but at least he's experienced, understands the cap and knows how to get deals done. He's certianly a lot better than their choice for interim GM.

BNM


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



Boob-No-More said:


> I just hope they have an experienced candidate lined-up who can step in soon and hit the ground running. With the talent relatively equal at the top of this draft, and the Blazers holding two more picks there will be plenty of opportunities for draft day deals. Also, July 1 is the beginning of the free agent negotiation period. This isn't exactly the ideal time to be shopping for a new GM. If they didn't intend to keep Nash, they should have fired him the day after the season ended and been well on their way to getting the new GM on board and up to speed by now.
> 
> Maybe they have their heart set on Kiki and will get him hired before the draft. I'm not sure Kiki is the answer (I'd rather see them try to pry Geoff Petrie away from the Kings), but at least he's experienced, understands the cap and knows how to get deals done. He's certianly a lot better than their choice for interim GM.
> 
> BNM


Considering how they've handled pretty much every decision (on-court or off-court) over the past few years, I don't have any reason to belive that they have an experienced candidate lined up. They probably don't even have a moderately experienced candidate in mind. I'm not optimistic at all they'll find a well-known or qualified candidate before the draft.

Remember when they fired Mo Cheeks in March so they could start searching for a new coach ASAP? Then they hired Nate in ... what ... July?


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

*Re: Anyone hear... [Nash canned]*

Also ... this team picks the oddest times to issue press releases. Didn't they put out a release about Nate's hiring at something like 7 or 8 p.m. last year? Haven't there been other moves announced well after dinnertime?


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

*Re: Anyone hear... [Nash canned]*

Wow, this is definitely surprising. Maybe the timing more than anything. (What a day for there to be no blazers.com!)

On the one hand, I hope that perhaps this will clarify the chain of command. Clearly, as others have posted, the process of consensus-building among Nash, Patterson, Pritchard, Mo/Nate, and Paul seems to have had a paralyzing effect on consumating trades. Maybe now there will be one guy to make those calls.

But who will it be? Surely (hopefully!) not Patterson. 

Pritchard? I like his eye for young talent and trust his drafting, and I like his schooling in the strong Spurs system, but does he have enough connections around the league to be an effective deal-maker?

An outsider? Kiki? He's available, he's got history here, but was his Denver record really that impressive? Getting Melo was luck (and they left DWade on the table), his FA signings were hit-and-miss, and some of his draft picks (Skita) were downright Bowie-esque.

Or perhaps a return of a prodigal son? But which one? Petrie? Whitsitt?

Things just got more interesting.

Stepping Razor


----------



## BlazeTop (Jan 22, 2004)

You have to assume that with the timing of this, the "Brain Trust" has to have a canidate ready to step in? Why else would they fire Nash when he had a month left on his contract, before the draft and right ahead of the Free Agent system. How will this affect the Pryzbilla resigning process? To me if they were going to promote Prichard they would have done it after the season, to me the reason they canned Nash is because they got a yes from an outside canidate. Whoever the new GM is I hope he carries on the tradition of answering fan emails!


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

*Re: Anyone hear... [Nash canned]*

my dream:

patterson fired!

Geoff as Pres
GM: Kevin
Adelman as DoPP 

that would bring us back not patterson he is been making bad decisions and starting to creep me out


I wish John Nash my best


----------



## J_Bird (Mar 18, 2005)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



Schilly said:


> Pritchards deal expires towards the end of summer, he will be the unofficial GM and let Patterson carry the title "Interim GM" until the end of KPs contract, when he will receive a new deal as GM.


Hmmm, according to the Tribune, Pritchard's contract was up.....today . 



> Patterson and owner Paul Allen have other decisions to make soon. Pritchard’s contract expires May 30. Nash’s pact ends June 30.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



J_Bird said:


> Hmmm, according to the Tribune, Pritchard's contract was up.....today .


According to the Columbians Blazer Blog



> The Blazers still haven't announced a decision about Director of Player Personnel Kevin Pritchard's future with the team. The Blazers had until today to activate the option on Pritchard's contract, but as of 2:30 p.m. the Blazers' communications office said they did not know of an announcement being planned by the team.


Damn....too bad I can't just Email Nash to find out the sitchiation


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



J_Bird said:


> Hmmm, according to the Tribune, Pritchard's contract was up.....today .


Scary stuff coming ... Patterson doesn't strike me as a "basketball guy" but rather a "business guy" and, um, well, I don't know if I should go on because it would be impolite and I may be nuts and I might be biased and I might even be bloody incompentent but I try not to be rude.

I'll just say I don't know if Patterson's the best guy, even temporarily. Any decisions he makes on draft day could have ramifications for the organisation for seasons to come. I would have liked Pritchard taking over, maybe, but maybe he's gone too. 

PS -- J_Bird -- I repped you for your Venture Bros. avatar!  Hope to get the Season I DVD this week.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



wastro said:


> Considering how they've handled pretty much every decision (on-court or off-court) over the past few years, I don't have any reason to belive that they have an experienced candidate lined up. They probably don't even have a moderately experienced candidate in mind. I'm not optimistic at all they'll find a well-known or qualified candidate before the draft.
> 
> Remember when they fired Mo Cheeks in March so they could start searching for a new coach ASAP? Then they hired Nate in ... what ... July?


Nash's own hiring was drawn out and seemed to take forever. Whitsitt resigned in early May, Patterson was hired in mid-June and Nash wasn't hired until mid-July - after all the good free agents had been signed and the major trades completed. That summer of 2003 was a big disappointment. The Blazers had several tradable assets but basically blew the summer hiring new front office personel. Let's hope the summer of 2006 is not an encore performance.

Not that it matters much, but in the Olive "You be the GM" poll, Patterson got only an 11% "keep" rating - second lowest only to Darius Miles' 6%. While Nash only got a 34% "keep" rating, that looks like a ringing endorsement compared to Patterson's 11%. Gee, now Patterson is both our team president AND acting GM. He's done such a great job in his current position, it's easy to understand his promotion and increased responsibility at this critical time - NOT!

BNM


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



Schilly said:


> According to the Columbians Blazer Blog
> 
> 
> 
> Damn....too bad I can't just Email Nash to find out the sitchiation


Boy do I hope that they're just deciding to hand over the reins to Pritchard tomorrow.

If both Nash and Pritchard have been given the heave-ho, this is going to be one rudderless ship at a really crucial time. This is NOT the time for a farcical hiring process like that which brought us Mo and PatterNash in the first place. We have a hugely important draft coming up, a critical free-agent negotiation with Joel, and (hopefully) a couple of key trades to make this summer.

Stepping Razor


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

BlazeTop said:


> You have to assume that with the timing of this, the "Brain Trust" has to have a canidate ready to step in? Why else would they fire Nash when he had a month left on his contract, before the draft and right ahead of the Free Agent system. How will this affect the Pryzbilla resigning process? To me if they were going to promote Prichard they would have done it after the season, to me the reason they canned Nash is because they got a yes from an outside canidate. Whoever the new GM is I hope he carries on the tradition of answering fan emails!


I doubt it. Tomorrow could prove me wrong, but I'd guess that the new GM won't be hired until the ownership situation is resolved. And that could be months from now.

barfo


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

barfo said:


> I doubt it. Tomorrow could prove me wrong, but I'd guess that the new GM won't be hired until the ownership situation is resolved. And that could be months from now.
> 
> barfo


Most. Depressing. Post. EVER.

Stepping Razor


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Stepping Razor said:


> Most. Depressing. Post. EVER.
> 
> Stepping Razor


My specialty 

barfo


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Let's not get too hung up on titles.

It used to be that the the "DOPP" was the guy who handled the draft and the "GM" had more to do with the business end of things. (EG contracts) Pritchard may just keep his current title with more power. The team may merely be tightening the chain of command and eliminating a job that overlaps with both Patterson and Pritchard. 

Another possibility? Allen has decided that he is keeping the team for the time being - whether he likes it or not. If he can't sell (right now), he might as well try to improve the value of the asset. This could mean bringing in someone Allen trusts and believes will be more dynamic. (or at least look that way to the public)

Worst case, this "someone" is Kiki. Best case, Petrie could be unhappy and want out in Sactown. Other options would be someone like Adelman or Porter who may not be highly qualified, but have a reservoir of good will in the community. At least, any of these guys could buy Allen some breathing room.

Ah hell.........I have no clue! :whoknows:


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

actually thats the option on kevin's contract his is up in july 

i hope paterson goes too


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

the pres of the rockets resigned yesterday too


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Utherhimo said:


> the pres of the rockets resigned yesterday too


Well, that's interesting. Perhaps Patterson is headed back home.

barfo


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

barfo said:


> Well, that's interesting. Perhaps Patterson is headed back home.
> 
> barfo


Now that's what I'm talkin' about! A barfo post that doesn't leave me fumbling for a prozac... 



Stepping Razor


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

so this is crazy....patterson does seem liek a business man and seems to not know much about hoops...i hope pritchard is the new GM....anything but patterson...i dont like this guy either


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

Shockingly decent Canzano column on Nash firing has been posted at Olive. 

One of the first times I can say this... but I competely agree with the bald-faced one.

Stepping Razor


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Whitsitt anyone?


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

Does anyone else feel like John Nash's ashcanning just can't be appreciated in its proper historical perspective without a few posts on the subject from our friend Mixum?

Come back, Mixum, your hour has arrived!

Stepping Razor


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

I looked at blazers.com ... the breaking news thing really kind of takes away from that sweet opening with Martell Webster.

I have mixed feelings about Nash ... I know I just have huge misgivings about Patterson even temporarily being GM. Too critical a time for this transition.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

This is a shame, he made some bad contract decisions early on but I think he's been on track with the rebuilding process. They should have given him one more season. Telfair and Webster seem ready to breakout, with an off season move or two and our draft choice the upcoming season could have proved a lot of his skeptics wrong.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

If it's not Pritchard which it probably will be I wonder if Nate might have some influence and want a certain guy?


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

In Memory...


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

TP3 said:


> Whitsitt anyone?




I would love for him to be back he was a great gm in my book , made a couple of bad bad moves tho , the guy knows talent


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

patterson back to houston 

geoff to pres and adelmen to be director of player personel

wonder how adelmen would do as gm!


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i agree with cannedham for once lets scariface the vulcans cus since they came into the picture we have sucked! 

put Patterson on the block too! 

azteca flay god menu anyone?  ,,,,,,,,mmmmmmm thigh of patterson......darn its rough and greesy....MORE GRAVY!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I wonder if this makes it more likely Telfair will be traded? He was Nash's guy wasn't he?


----------



## tobybennett (Jun 12, 2003)

I'm glad they finally fired Nash. I don't know what the next step is though. Kiki could be a good gm, he got rid of some pretty bad contracts for Denver and turned them around into a contender pretty quick. This doesn't look good for the draft though.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

HORRID move


I'm a Telfair guy AS MANY KNOW and so was Nash. He is a very good gm who was doing a good job getting the team out of that big-*** financial hole the last guy left them in. However on the negative side he was the GM who was responsible for the Blaze missing the playoffs for the first time in 10?? years.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

knicksfan said:


> HORRID move
> 
> 
> I'm a Telfair guy AS MANY KNOW and so was Nash. He is a very good gm who was doing a good job getting the team out of that big-*** financial hole the last guy left them in. *However on the negative side he was the GM who was responsible for the Blaze missing the playoffs for the first time in 10*?? years.


Do your homework, much more than 10.


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

Congratulations Mr. Nash, your lifeboat is ready. Steve Patterson, Captain HMS Titanic.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah i dont think patterson will do us good if we end up picking williams, roy or foye at #4 it will be the end!


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Nash did an admirable job given the circumstances. It will be interesting this off season with player movement. Nash was the one that sold the team on Telfair. I hope Kiki gets the job for no other reason than I don't think he would take the job just to be a figure head. Pritchard might take it knowing full well it's PA and Patterson calling the shots on trades and player signings. I think Pritchard might be a good GM, but we'll never know just like with Nash.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Blazer Bert said:


> I've never gotten the feeling Patterson knows squat about Basketball. He's supposedly a business end of baseball guy, right?


he's been a front office guy in a variety of roles and sports, but never anything baseball related. Among those roles he was the President/GM of the Rockets, which I recall was a position that his father Ray held as well.

http://www.nba.com/blazers/sights_sounds/Steve_Patterson-80565-41.html

There has been a lot of talk here about how Nash may not have been very much of a factor in the decision making inner circle. While I don't really know whats the case, I'm hoping that that speculation was just empty guesses and that having a new guy at the reigns will bring better basketball decisions. Who ever the new GM is, they're inheriting quite a mess... hopefully they'll have the Midas touch come the next lotto.

STOMP


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I asked Nash often about the team's three-headed management team, and he usually said something like, "This franchise isn't run unlike a lot of others."


Huh? This makes no sense. Perhaps what he actually said was, "This franchise isn't run like a lot of others," which is probably true. 

I thought Nash handled himself very well as GM, given the limitations placed on his authority. And he's the only GM I know who actually answers emails from fans. I wish him well.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I also have mixed feelings about Nash. Unlike some Whitsitt holdovers, I don't consider him solely responsible for everything that has gone wrong the past few years. I do think he drafted well, leveraging one pick into Webster and Jack and I think Telfair really will be special in a couple of years. PIcking up Joel was great and the Blake/Dixon combo, while hardly hall of famers, were respectable and low risk - low cost. While some trade failures were not his fault - NJ backed out of the Reef deal and Toronto inexplicably sent Vince Carter to NJ for less than what Portland offered - the failure to land much of anything for Wallace, Wells, McInnis, Patterson, Stoudamire, Abdur-Rahim, Anderson (beyond an injured Theo Ratliff and Darius Miles, and the kindest way to describe him is inconsistent).

I think Patterson is just to put a name plate for the time being. I can't see him as GM I HOPE!!!

I really hope Kiki is not seen as the answer. I also favor Petrie or Adelman, or try some new blood (Terry?)

A problem with hiring on this team has been what I can call a lack of imagination. Just keep recycling the same old same olds. When you look at successful teams, they sometimes took risks. I recall seeing Mark Cuban talk about hiring Avery Johnson, despite his youth, as head coach when he could have hired anyone, someone with a longer resume, and Cuban said Johnson had always shown himself as a leader and so Cuban decided to give him a chance. That's the kind of thinking I want to see. Remember, Phil Jackson was an unkown coach at one time. (That being said I have no quarrel with the hiring of Nate McMillan as coach, these are just examples of unorthodox thinking that have succeeded.)

I am being longwinded but I will summarize: if you cannot get a guy (or lady for that matter) with a proven track record, instead of hiring a mediocrity take a few risks and let someone with leadership and ambition and basketball smarts give it a whirl. Hell, the team could hardly be worse off!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> Well, that's interesting. Perhaps Patterson is headed back home.
> 
> barfo



since the team is moving to Vancouver () I don't think that Patterson is headed back home..he's headed to vancouver of course!




mgb said:


> I wonder if this makes it more likely Telfair will be traded? He was Nash's guy wasn't he?


Doubtful, although not impossible. It appears that there are 3 guys that are the hardest to trade from the team, based on who the coach and GM (at the time) and Pritchard liked. Meaning yes, they could be traded, but they're kind of close to the "untouachable" list (beaause realistically, they aren't going to get fair trade). 

They're 3 guards, and I'll give you a hint. The list does not include the names Juan and Steve.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i know i know! Kemp, martin larue and otis thorpe! am i right hap 



 hehe


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Just think of the problems this move will cause: 

People on message boards who wish to speak in deprecating terms about Blazers management will be forced to come up with a new nickname. Patter-Blank doesn't cut it. And if they promote Pritchard, Patter-Pritchard doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. Patter-Pritch? And if they go with Kiki? Yikes! This is going to take some serious work by certain posters around here.

And if you think that's bad, what about poor John Canzano? His "Three Amigos" just got one guy shot out of the saddle. If they just promote Pritchard there will only be two guys running the team. Canzano's going to have to head to Blockbuster in search of a new put-down title. Dumb and Dumber?

Man, what a mess.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Nash did an admirable job given the circumstances.


Um. No. He helped build the worst team in the NBA. That happens to have no top-tier prospects on the roster and no cap flexibility. Attendance is way down and there has been little or no reconnection with the fan base.

Given ANY circumstances, his tenure as GM was an absolute and dismal failure.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Glad to see that the Blazers are willing to shake things up. They brought Nash back last year because they knew the season was doomed. While I believe that 2006-07 is looking bad, as well, maybe they know something I don't.

Even that _possibility_ makes me smile and gives me hope as a Blazers fan.

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Okay... so we went from Bob Whitsitt as President & GM to Steve Patterson as President & GM.

Happy days are here again. (sarcasm)

My guess is that it will only be a couple of days before the Blazers announce Kiki as their new GM. If it was going to be Pritchard, it seems they would have announced the move at the same time as Nash's firing.

I know the reviews of Kiki as Denver's GM are mixed, but one thing no one can deny is that the guy was aggressive. I think that would be a stark contrast to Nash's move-making.

PBF


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Um. No. He helped build the worst team in the NBA. That happens to have no top-tier prospects on the roster and no cap flexibility. Attendance is way down and there has been little or no reconnection with the fan base.
> 
> Given ANY circumstances, his tenure as GM was an absolute and dismal failure.
> 
> Ed O.



Let's role play Ed. 

You are Blazer GM I am owner. You think we shouldn't extend Theo, re-sign Miles or Zach and re-sign SAR. I say no I want Theo Darius and Zach. Is that your fault? 

You work out trades for Theo and Darius to bring in better players or expiring contracts. I say no. Is that your fault?

You draft Telfair, Webster, Jack. Decent job

You sign Joel, and Blake. Decent job

You trade away players like Sheed and Patterson when no one wanted either of them. Decent job

You are told to cut payroll, and improve the character of the team. You did that. 


What has he done so poorly?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Given ANY circumstances, his tenure as GM was an absolute and dismal failure.


Wrong. One of Nash's primary tasks was to cut the payroll dramatically, which he did. He was also charged with getting players of good character, which he did. And he built a young team with lots of potential that will begin to blossom after he is gone, and which provides a foundation for many years to come. And he did all of this even though his hands were tied by Allen and Patterson.

That's more success than failure, in my book.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

While I feel bad for Nash, I am excited for the Blazers. Now the question is, how much does Paul have left in that Blazer wallet? To my suprise, PA showed he still cared about this team last summer when he brought in Nate McMillian, arguably the most sought after coach last summer. Can he, or more appropraite, will he do it again? The question I saw repeated in this thread is why would a GM want to come to the Blazers? I think the answer is PA.

So, I sound like I am in the very small minority who sees this as an opportunity for the Blazers to not only improve, but greatly improve. Time to get aggressive and get the sought after GM of the summer or maybe even steal one away from another franchise.

Of course I could be setting myself up for disappointment . . . but that is what makes sports fun.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

The problem is that we have no real way to judge Nash's job performance or to tell what his departure means for the Blazers' future. As has been alluded to above by other, we have no way of knowing which moves were the ones Nash wanted to make, which ones he was told to make, and which ones he was not allowed to make. One thing about the three-headed management team style is that it provides way too much deniability and provides for a convenient scapegoat when things go wrong. 

As for what it means for the Blazers' future, you'd like to think that this will lead to the hiring of a new GM who will have a plan to successfuly rebuild the Blazers within a reasonable time period. It could also be just another cost-cutting move to dump Nash's salary and give his duties to another guy who's already on the payroll. Only time is going to answer that one.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Let's role play Ed.
> 
> You are Blazer GM I am owner. You think we shouldn't extend Theo, re-sign Miles or Zach and re-sign SAR. I say no I want Theo Darius and Zach. Is that your fault?


Too bad we don't know if this is true or not. Pure speculation.



> You work out trades for Theo and Darius to bring in better players or expiring contracts. I say no. Is that your fault?


Again, too bad we don't know if this is true or not. Pure speculation.



> You draft Telfair, Webster, Jack. Decent job


Actually a horrible job considering Al Jefferson and Chris Paul could have been selected instead.



> You sign Joel, and Blake. Decent job


An inconsequential move.



> You trade away players like Sheed and Patterson when no one wanted either of them. Decent job


No one wanted either of them? That's just not true.



> You are told to cut payroll, and improve the character of the team. You did that.


He cut payroll yet re-signed Zach, Darius, and Theo to over-inflated contracts.



> What has he done so poorly?


See comments above.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I sound like I am in the very small minority who sees this as an opportunity for the Blazers to not only improve, but greatly improve. Time to get aggressive and get the sought after GM of the summer or maybe even steal one away from another franchise.


Agreed. I think the Blazers represent a great opportunity for any GM in the league. We're an up and coming team that can get good very fast, with a few good player moves. If a GM knows how to play his hand, he's got a lot to work with in Portland.

I'd love to see Petrie come back. That would have even bigger consequences than who we pick in the draft.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Well if Kiki comes in, he'd better do something better than what he did in Denver. Every time we get Kiki we get fleeced by Denver in the deal.

If Vulcan is serious about cutting costs, they should just fire Patterson and Pritchard as well and let the draft be done by office lottery at Blazers' HQ. Maybe the water cooler could even have a vote.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Seems like the Blazers are painting Nash as the scapegoat here. Everyone knows (or should know) that Nash wasn't allowed to make decisions in a vaccuum. Allen clearly had the final say in each and every move the Blazers have made, even when Whitsitt was the one doing the leg-work. Patterson? Pritchard? I think the odds are pretty good that they had some say, too.

I see the Blazers canning Nash as an indication that Allen is nowhere close to selling the team. If he was, why bother? Why not extend Nash 1 year so the eventual new owner(s) can replace him with "his" (or "her"... or "their") guy (or gal)? I guess the eventual new owner(s) could can whoever the Blazers bring in now at any time - the buyout has to be a lot less than it would be for any of the players. But it seems like Allen wants to put a "better GM" in place soon, which to me indicates he's planning on working with that person for a while.

But will it really matter who the new GM is? Is Allen still going to be "hands-on" in player personnel decisions? Will Patterson, Pritchard, and Nate want their say, too? Because if so, it doesn't seem that it matters much who the Blazers bring in. Or maybe the key is that it be someone who can collect input from all those guys (Allen, Patterson, Pritchard, and Nate), throw his (or her) own two cents into the mix, and creatively come up with scenarios that make it all work.

I'd put money on us finding out in just a couple of days.

PBF
PS: I'd give "Nash" an A- on drafts, a C on free agent signings, a C- on trades, and a D- on re-signings.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Wrong. One of Nash's primary tasks was to cut the payroll dramatically, which he did. He was also charged with getting players of good character, which he did. And he built a young team with lots of potential that will begin to blossom after he is gone, and which provides a foundation for many years to come. And he did all of this even though his hands were tied by Allen and Patterson.
> 
> That's more success than failure, in my book.


If one is willing to blame all the bad stuff on either Patterson or Allen, and leave the minor successes (Joel, Blake), then he "succeeded".

If one is willing to give me a billion dollars, then I would be rich.

Unfortunately, you all seem much more disposed to the former than the latter... even though me being rich is a better idea than giving a career-long unsuccessful GM a pass for building the worst team in the NBA.

If Nash was GM, then he's responsible for dismantling the team and getting nothing of value for our best players. If Nash was GM, then he's responsible for EXTENDING (not just re-signing) Theo Ratliff and Zach Randolph. If Nash was GM, then he's responsible for the Blazers team that was almost certainly the worst that the NBA has seen this millenium.

If he was GM, he deserves blame for this disaster. Perhaps not ALL of it. But not absolution based on speculation of the failings of his bosses.

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> If one is willing to blame all the bad stuff on either Patterson or Allen, and leave the minor successes (Joel, Blake), then he "succeeded".
> 
> If one is willing to give me a billion dollars, then I would be rich.
> 
> ...



What's it like to live in a world where everything's black and white? Must be nice to have none of those doggone shades of middle gray to confound your opinions.

I don't think Nash deserves a free pass for the blame, but I certainly suspect that the guys above him don't deserve to get away with dropping his carcass into the pirhanna tank of PO'd fans and washing their hands of the mess. Let's face it, when we heard the 3 part pledge to cut costs, clean up the Blazers' character, and remain competetive, we were all pretty certain that the priorities were in the order listed. Nash was never given the Whitsitt carte blanch ability to go and get whatever basketball players he thought would make the team better. 

The Blazers' management style and team policies are not designed to achieve success. And the problem starts from the top down.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> What's it like to live in a world where everything's black and white? Must be nice to have none of those doggone shades of middle gray to confound your opinions.


I love it when people paint my positions in absolute terms in spite of language in the PREVIOUS POST that runs directly contrary to the assertion.



Ed O said:


> If he was GM, he deserves blame for this disaster. Perhaps not ALL of it. But not absolution based on speculation of the failings of his bosses.


Only through absolution can one with a straight face say that Nash did an "admirable job". This team absolutely, positively sucks on almost every front. That someone can both blame Nash for some of it and call his role "admirable" is an inconsistent position, IMO. So Nash doing an "admirable job" is the absolute position... and absolutely wrong, of course 

Ed O.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

I liked Nash , he was in a lose lose situation . I knew we were tearing things down when we traded Bonzi wells for wesley person


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> I love it when people paint my positions in absolute terms in spite of language in the PREVIOUS POST that runs directly contrary to the assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


After re-reading your post, I offer my apologies, Ed. I originally mentally inserted the word "the" before the word "blame in your sentence, "If he was GM, he deserves blame for this disaster." 

I'm in agreement with the way you actually wrote it. :biggrin:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Let me get this straight............

The people who are DEFENDING Nash are arguing he had no real power or input? Gee, maybe he WOULD have had power if he had had any credibility. Maybe he WOULD have had influence if his boss had trusted him.

This "defense" doesn't even qualify as "damning with faint praise." It is just damning - period.

For the record: Patterson and Pritchard didn't exactly cover themselves in glory either. The whole Cerberus approach smacks of a "no confidence" vote!


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Point of clarification. Nash was not fired. They decided not to give him a new contract. There's a fairly big difference. People get fired for doing a poor job. People get new contracts for doing a good job. Nash didn't do a "good" job (regardless of how blame is assigned for the decisions) in my opinion, therefore he didn't deserve a new contract. I'm glad they've made this decision, I just hope they follow it up with a solid hire.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Nash was never given the Whitsitt carte blanch ability to go and get whatever basketball players he thought would make the team better.


Absolutely right. This needs to be repeated a lot around here, so the slower people will get it.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I am ambivalent towards Nash being let go...

The problem I have is that I think Pattersen as a GM is even worse...

Say what you will about Nash, but he at least had a few decent moves....not nearly enough...but we will never know how much his hands were tied...

So before you all go sheer the demise of Nash...be fearful of what is next to come...I know I am...


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

I agree that the three-headed approach to running this team has lead to a lack of accountability, a shifting of blame and often paralysis by over analysis. And while Canzano likes to mockingly refer to Patterson, Nash and Pritchard as the three amigos, he's leaving out the biggest amigo of them all in Paul Allen (and his Vulcan buddies). At least when Whisitt was in charge, you knew who was calling the shots and making the moves. During the Patterson/Nash era, it seems like Paul has been a lot more involved in the player/personel decisions - and this has been a disaster. His inexplicable man-crush on Darius Miles alone should prove beyond a doubt that our billionaire owner and his alien bean counters have no business being involved in player personale decisions. It's like he's hoping beyond hope that Darius will be his Jermaine O'Neal - a guy drafted out of high school loaded with potential who everyone gave up on who suddenly becomes a superstar in the right environment. Paul, here's a hint - no such environment exists and if it did, it wouldn't be here.

So, when it comes to accountability, yes Nash deserves a healthy portion of the blame for the deals that did and didn't occur while he was GM. At the very least, he should have grown a spine and stood up to Paul and Patterson and been more forceful in his convictions. They fired him for bending to their will, so caving in accomplished nothing.

So, what about Patterson? Where is the accountability there? If Nash gets fired for being a career-long unsuccessful GM who built the worst team in the NBA, why does the guy who hired him in the first place get promoted and given even more responsibility? It always amazes me how the person who fails takes the blame, but the person who hired the failure gets to keep their job. Where's the accountability for them? If Patterson hired one career-long unseccessful GM what makes anyone think he'll do better this time? If Nash is gone, Patterson needs to go to. In fact, when Nash leaves town, Patterson should be carrying his bags to return the favor for the way Nash fell on his sword repeatedly to cover for Patterson and Paul Allen. Nash may have been a poor GM, but he was loyal to a fault to the guys who made it hard for him to do his job and then turned around and stabbed him in the back. If he's going to be held accountable for this mess, why stop there? Show Patterson the door, too and get somebody in here that can do more than cover their own *** and shift the blame to others.

BNM


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

BNM, I think Allen was the 3rd "amigo", not Pritchard.

As for Nash growing a spine, none of us know what went on behind the scenes. He could have argued vociferously against certain moves for all we know. Maybe the not extending his contract was by mutual consent. I am not saying this is the case, I am saying none of us know and it is wrong to assume. We don't know he was fired for bending to their will or for being defiant or because someone is available whom they like better or what. And I still think that Patterson is just GM for a couple of weeks, hopefully NOT on draft day.
Allen went from one extreme to the other IMO. With Whitsitt it was carte blanche (what term will I use if English becomes the official language?), he could do anything and Allen signed the checks. It has also been reported that Whitsitt controlled the information Allen was given. With Nash it was over-interfering. I can see the original signing of Miles, Ratliff and even Randolph. Miles played and behaved very well his first half season as did Ratliff. Nearly all of us wanted them to stay. Randolph was young and talented, a 20-10 guy, and we did not want to lose another Jermaine. Where I blame is for not dealing Miles at least when it appears there was a chance and when reportedly McMillan said he was uncoachable.
The way to run the team (easy to say from my keyboard, I know) is to put competent people in charge, let them do their job but exercise supervision. And be informed of what is going on, there is no excuse for a president of a team or a country to be a bubble boy.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Nash was given three things to do:

Get better character guys. He succeeded in that.

Cut payroll. He did that, though gave some back with a couple bad contracts. 

Win games. He clearly failed at that.

All in all, he gets a C- in my book, considering what he was asked to do.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

crandc said:


> BNM, I think Allen was the 3rd "amigo", not Pritchard.


From Canzano's blog:

"_The Three Amigos charged with running the Trail Blazers spent Saturday scattered around the world.

Team President Steve Patterson was in Portland, general manager John Nash was in Philadelphia, and player personnel director Kevin Pritchard was in Paris with his wife._"

It's pretty clear his three amigos nickname was aimed at Patterson, Nash and Pritchard.

BNM


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> From Canzano's blog:
> 
> "_The Three Amigos charged with running the Trail Blazers spent Saturday scattered around the world.
> 
> ...


Yeah, Canzano and I once agreed in an email exchange that Allen was El Guapo.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> From Canzano's blog:
> 
> "_The Three Amigos charged with running the Trail Blazers spent Saturday scattered around the world.
> 
> ...


Sorry, my bad.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Um. No. He helped build the worst team in the NBA. That happens to have no top-tier prospects on the roster and no cap flexibility. Attendance is way down and there has been little or no reconnection with the fan base.
> 
> Given ANY circumstances, his tenure as GM was an absolute and dismal failure.
> 
> Ed O.


When you have the second highest payroll in the NBA it takes a couple years to have "cap flexibility", Webster will be considered a "top tier prospect" within two years IMO, fans will slowly reconnect as the team improves, sponsorship is on the rise. The Whittsiit era of making big moves and buying players every year is over, IMO we have reached a era where patience and player development is required. 

While I am not particulary sorry to see Nash go since he was mediocre IMO I do feel he got somewhat screwed because everything he was asked to do takes time, 3-5 years probably. He simply wasn't given that amount of time to watch the changes he made pay dividends.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

sa1177 said:


> While I am not particulary sorry to see Nash go since he was mediocre IMO I do feel he got somewhat screwed because everything he was asked to do takes time, 3-5 years probably. He simply wasn't given that amount of time to watch the changes he made pay dividends.


Personally, I've seen enough dividends to realize it's time to sell. :biggrin:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:



> When you have the second highest payroll in the NBA it takes a couple years to have "cap flexibility",


OK. He had a couple of years. Where's the flexibility? Theo, Zach, and Darius are going to make over $30m next year, which is over half of the team's salary.



> Webster will be considered a "top tier prospect" within two years IMO,


That's great that you think that, but unfortunately if he's not a top tier prospect now he probably never will be. He'll certainly improve as a player, but that doesn't change the fact that he's simply not a guy that's viewed by (m)any as an impact player.

That Portland doesn't have any clear future all-star candidates after having 5 first rounders in the last two years is pretty sad.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Unfortunately if [Webster's] not a top tier prospect now he probably never will be.


Are you serious? That has to be sarcasm right? No one could honestly believe that if a player isn't a top tier player in their rookie year then they never will be, could they?


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Ed O said:


> OK. He had a couple of years. Where's the flexibility? Theo, Zach, and Darius are going to make over $30m next year, which is over half of the team's salary.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now I'm not one of those who wants to give every player 3-5 years to reach their "potential", but come on...Webster should at least get another 1/2 season before we can make such bold predictions about his true impact. I haven't seen many quotes one way or the other on his effectiveness as an impact player. A couple of vague statements by Nate and that was it.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i always felt that vulcaninc is the torita running everyone 

paul is the sour cream nash the rice on the outside kevin is the salsa Patterson is the refried beans


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> OK. He had a couple of years. Where's the flexibility? Theo, Zach, and Darius are going to make over $30m next year, which is over half of the team's salary.


Ok so I should have said 4-5 rather then "a couple." My mistake. 





> That's great that you think that, but unfortunately if he's not a top tier prospect now he probably never will be. He'll certainly improve as a player, but that doesn't change the fact that he's simply not a guy that's viewed by (m)any as an impact player.
> 
> That Portland doesn't have any clear future all-star candidates after having 5 first rounders in the last two years is pretty sad.
> 
> Ed O.


Who says he isn't a "top tier prospect?" You? Well considering it's taken a couple years for most HS players to develop into NBA stars (Howard, Kobe, Jermaine, Garnett) I don't understand how you coud even begin to make that judgment. Frankly I am more likely to trust the oppinion of the Blazers scouts and management then your oppinion. I simply haven't seen anyone anywhere saying Webster isn't anything but a player who will eventually be a potential all star. 

If you consider your definition of "top tier" to be a smaller subset of players including only the elite (Kobe, Lebron, Arenas, Iverson, Garnett, Duncan etc.) then well I suppose I can understand your reasoning a bit better as Webster may never reach that level of super stardom...but then only a very select few do.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> i always felt that vulcaninc is the torita running everyone
> 
> paul is the sour cream nash the rice on the outside kevin is the salsa Patterson is the refried beans


 What I want to know is who is the Corona?


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

any news on the new GM??

did they mention anything at the conference??

is it patterson or pritchard??


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Nash clearly needed firing. I'm just puzzled as to why Patterson and Pritchard still have jobs. When things go as horribly as they have for this team, you can't just scapegoat one guy when it appears that three guys shared control. 

If we were contending for a title right now, all three would be looking for serious raises. As we have just recently extended three horrible contracts (Miles, Randolph, Ratliff), passed on the one guy who's proven to be the superstar of the draft (Paul), and gotten basically nothing for a handful of vets who became important pieces for other playoff teams, the answer is simple: we should fire them all. 


On another note: someone posted that this would be an exciting team for many GM's. Full of opportunity. Compared to whom? What other teams in the NBA can anyone think of and say, "Yeah, I'd much rather be in charge of the Blazers than those guys." 

Shakey ownership, no fan support, lots of bad contracts, worst record in the league (yet only the 4th pick the draft). Youngsters so young that you'll get lampooned if you decide to trade any of them. ("You want to trade TELFAIR? WEBSTER? But they could be the next JERMAINE!" Of course, you'll get no credit for NOT trading them, because you didn't draft them.) Veterans so expensive that nobody wants them. Nate McMillan signed on to this train wreck and look at how it's worked out for him.

We may yet get a decent GM. I certainly hope so. But if we do, it'll be because our owner decides to lay out some serious coin to compensate for the disaster the new GM is taking on. (See Nate McMillan.) Certainly not because anyone thinks this is some great opportunity to build a champion.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

good points tw. but don't forget we have short sighted fans who think things have to be fixed today for it to be any good in 2 years. Holding up GM's and players to unrealistic expectations (both in good times and bad times) isn't always the best thing to do.

and we also have the reputation as the team who 'takes high schoolers' (as if we're the only ones) but if you ask why that's a bad thing in relation to how the players *TAKEN AFTER THEM* (which means you can't compare webster to paul since paul was taken...regardless of whether or not the team had the pick before the draft, they traded it. get over it) are doing, they really can't say.

btw, tw, this isn't directed at you or your post. I'm just adding onto it because I thought it needed it.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> What I want to know is who is the Corona?


thats easy Lucas!

orange soda pop - bobby medina

mole pork - Nate!

salsa and chips - mike and wild rice 

salad and gauq - wheelz and tone!

me? i am chicken enchilada with salsa verde :cheers: :cheers:


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> That Portland doesn't have any clear future all-star candidates after having 5 first rounders in the last two years is pretty sad.


OK, I agree with most of your points, but this one I take exception with. Three of those five picks were in the 20s. There isn't a single player in either draft chosen after Khryapa/Monia and Jack that can be considered a "clear future all-star candidate".

So, that leaves the Telfair and Webster picks. While many continue to question taking Telfair at 13, there isn't a single player chosen after him that is a "clear future all-star candidate". It cracks me up when people like Darius Miles say things like, "Man, we could have had Al Jefferson!". BFD. It's not like Al Jefferson has done anything to distinguish himself in his two years in the league. From what he's shown so far, if Al Jefferson is a "clear future all-star candidate", Sebastian Telfair is a future Hall-of-Famer. There were a couple decent players taken after Telfair (in particular, Jameer Nelson and Delonte West), but nobody who has future all-star written all over them.

So, now we're down to Webster. I think it's pretty clear that Chris Paul will be a perennial all-star. So, the Blazers could have had their "clear future all-star candidate" if they would have kept the third pick and used it on Paul. Personally, I think it's too early to write off Martell Webster. While he hasn't proven he's a "clear future all-star candidate", I think he has the potential to be an all-star, but you're right - the Blazer passed up a "sure thing" in Paul to take the potential of Webster (and the ability to also land Jack). Only time will tell if Paul >> Webster + Jack (+ this years 30th pick).

Nash failed in a lot of ways, but I think he actually did pretty good in his two drafts in Portland. He got Khryapa and Jack in the 20s and they both appear to be solid NBA players - about the best you can expect from players taken in the 20s (half end up as total busts). Telfair may not be the all-star many people wanted with that first lottery pick, but again I don't see any perenial all-stars taken after him. Webster has the potential to develop into something special. If he doesn't, then we can go back and bash Nash for trading down and passing on Chris Paul. Still, in two years, I think Nash did prety well in the draft compared to his predecessor. In his nine years, the only future all-star Whitsitt drafted was Jermaine O'Neal - and we all know how that all worked out. Of course, most of Whitsitt's first round picks were in the high teens to mid-20s, but he did hold the 8th pick in the 1995 draft (2004 may have been the first time Portland was in the NBA draft lottery, but Sebastion Telfair was not their first lottery pick). Obviously Whitsitt was a much more active trader than John Nash, but I don't think he did any better in the draft.

I'm not sorry to see Nash gone (I'd be much happier to see Patterson joining him), but I do think his performance, particularly WRT the draft, should be evaluated fairly.

BNM


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Foulzilla said:


> Point of clarification. Nash was not fired. They decided not to give him a new contract. There's a fairly big difference.


IIRC, Nash's contract is not up yet, I believe it has another month. His contract was not renewed, and he won't be around to see the end of it. He's gone now, with the draft coming up. Closer to "fired" than "not rehired."



Stepping Razor said:


> Yeah, Canzano and I once agreed in an email exchange that Allen was El Guapo.


That's hilarious. :greatjob:


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

double


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

sa
If you consider your definition of "top tier" to be a smaller subset of players including only the elite (Kobe said:


> Well yes, that is what "top tier" tends to mean. :biggrin:
> 
> Seriously, if you look at the straight out of high school crowd, the only really good one who didn't show much as a rookie was Jermaine. KG, Howard, and James were all starters. Even Kobe got minutes and showed flashes of brilliance. Furthermore, Kobe and Jermaine had the excuse of being behind good vets on play-off teams.
> 
> Telfair and Webster didn't excel as rookies, nor did they have the excuse of being buried on a good team. It would be premature to say they will not be good, solid NBA players - but IMHO it is not too soon to predict that they will not be "stars".


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I just realized that I've been contradicting myself a bit: One of my mantras when it comes to the Blazers is that they need "star power". They really do. They need a player or players that the NBA can make household names and ride to financial gain. The Blazers would benefit (both on and off the court), vicariously. I've been watching the NBA for nearly 30 years now, and you just can't tell me it doesn't happen.

Where I contradict myself, though, is with the Telfair vs. Jack debate. Telfair seems destined for NBA stardom. I'm not saying he's close yet, but he's got the pedigree, the roots, the video, and the shoe deal. Yet when I think about which of the two I'd prefer to see leading the Blazers on the court, I keep coming back to Jack. I think he's going to be Payton-esque in his NBA career (but I could be wrong).

I guess my decision would be much simpler if I thought Jack had the same kind of "star potential" that Telfair seems to have.

Does he? Is there a difference between "granted" star power and "earned" star power? 'Cause Jack doesn't seem to have much of the former, but if he has a chance to work his way to stardom I'd probably want to see the Blazers keep him and trade Telfair while the trading is good.

PBF


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

to be a star you have to have stern actually like the team in the first place.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> I just realized that I've been contradicting myself a bit: One of my mantras when it comes to the Blazers is that they need "star power". They really do. They need a player or players that the NBA can make household names and ride to financial gain. The Blazers would benefit (both on and off the court), vicariously. I've been watching the NBA for nearly 30 years now, and you just can't tell me it doesn't happen.
> 
> Where I contradict myself, though, is with the Telfair vs. Jack debate. Telfair seems destined for NBA stardom. I'm not saying he's close yet, but he's got the pedigree, the roots, the video, and the shoe deal. Yet when I think about which of the two I'd prefer to see leading the Blazers on the court, I keep coming back to Jack. I think he's going to be Payton-esque in his NBA career (but I could be wrong).
> 
> ...


Not sure how "Payton-esque" doesn't equate to star power, considering Payton is arguably a top-five point guard of all-time.

I don't think Jack is much like Payton, though, in talent or style. I think he's more like a Doug Christie, before Christie became an all-league defender (I don't think Jack will be a truly great defender, more of a solid one).


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> I just realized that I've been contradicting myself a bit: One of my mantras when it comes to the Blazers is that they need "star power". They really do. They need a player or players that the NBA can make household names and ride to financial gain. The Blazers would benefit (both on and off the court), vicariously. I've been watching the NBA for nearly 30 years now, and you just can't tell me it doesn't happen.
> 
> Where I contradict myself, though, is with the Telfair vs. Jack debate. Telfair seems destined for NBA stardom. I'm not saying he's close yet, but he's got the pedigree, the roots, the video, and the shoe deal. Yet when I think about which of the two I'd prefer to see leading the Blazers on the court, I keep coming back to Jack. I think he's going to be Payton-esque in his NBA career (but I could be wrong).
> 
> PBF


I thought that Jack reminded you of Terry Porter?

he's more like TP than he is like Payton (by a long shot) and he's really not a lot like TP.

Payton was one of the best PG's to play in college when he played (and one of the better PG's to play in college period.)...jack wasn't. 

I like Jack, but I think Telfair is closer to being "the one" than Jack is, and I'm not even sure Telfair is all that close to being "the one" yet.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Yeah let's cry a little more about Chris Paul....

Give it a rest...that is beyond old...


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

PBF, I think there is such a thing as "granted" star power but it does not last unless it is real star power. Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan, LeBron James and to a lesser degree Allen Iverson were "granted" star status before they were drafted. All of them became real stars. But look at Harold Minor, for example, or Jason Williams - they were "granted" star although not superstar status but never became real stars. As for the future, I heard Greg Oden already called a future hall of famer, which to me is surely stretching things. Let him play at least one game first! 
As for Jack/Telfair; right now I think Jack is the better player overall. But I think Telfair has the higher ceiling. I'd like to see them both stay in Ptown.
Some people, a lot of people actually, are not "granted" stars but become them.
This draft has no one who has been "granted" star power. But remember that no one "granted" star power to Nash, Nowitzki, Parker, among others. They became real stars.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazed said:


> Are you serious? That has to be sarcasm right? No one could honestly believe that if a player isn't a top tier player in their rookie year then they never will be, could they?


Are you unable to read or are you being disingenuous?

I didn't say "top tier player".

I said "top tier prospect".

Ed O.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Seriously, if you look at the straight out of high school crowd, the only really good one who didn't show much as a rookie was Jermaine. KG, Howard, and James were all starters. Even Kobe got minutes and showed flashes of brilliance. Furthermore, Kobe and Jermaine had the excuse of being behind good vets on play-off teams.
> 
> Telfair and Webster didn't excel as rookies, nor did they have the excuse of being buried on a good team. It would be premature to say they will not be good, solid NBA players - but IMHO it is not too soon to predict that they will not be "stars".


I *DO* think it's too soon to predict that Martell Webster won't be a star. He may not be a superstar like Kobe or Lebron, but I do think he has the potential and the work ethic to develop into a multi-time all-star. Let's face it Chris Paul is good, but there isn't a single player in last year's draft taken before or after Webster that will end up being the next Kobe or Lebron. Those types of superstars are few and far between. Hard to blame Nash for not drafting one when none were available even if he'd have had the first pick in the draft.

And while I don't think Martell will reach the same superstar level as Kobe or Lebron, if you look at his rookie numbers, they aren't that far behind Kobe's:

Kobe Bryant = 71 games, 15.5mpg, 7.6ppg, 41.7fg%, 37.53fg%, 81.9ft%
Martell Webster = 61 games, 17.4mpg, 6.6ppg, 39.9fg%, 35.73fg%, 85.9ft%

And while you can argue that Martell didn't have the "_excuse of being behind good vets on play-off teams_", I can turn that argument right around and say playing on a loaded team helped Kobe and hurt Martell. Playing on a team with Shaquille O'Neal in his prime, and several other quality veterans, created many easy scoring opportunities for Kobe. Given the choice, most opposing defenses would double and triple team Shaq in the post and leave the rookie wide open for an uncontested jumper on the kick-out. By comparison, the Blazers didn't have a single player worth double teaming on their roster this year and Martell didn't have the benefit of playing with talented veterans so he could benefit from the opportunities they create. That Lakers' roster was loaded with veterans who knew how to run an offense, create mismatches, draw double teams and get the ball to the open man. We all wish we could say the same about the Blazers, but it couldn't be further from the truth.

BNM


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

crandc said:


> This draft has no one who has been "granted" star power. But remember that no one "granted" star power to Nash, Nowitzki, Parker, among others. They became real stars.


Good point, crandc. Manu Ginobili was taken... what... 56th in his draft class?

Not saying he played the role of "star" this season, but he had a HUGE hand in the Spurs last title run and is most definately considered a "superstar" in his home country.

PBF


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Boob-No-More said:


> I *DO* think it's too soon to predict that Martell Webster won't be a star. He may not be a superstar like Kobe or Lebron, but I do think he has the potential and the work ethic to develop into a multi-time all-star. Let's face it Chris Paul is good, but there isn't a single player in last year's draft taken before or after Webster that will end up being the next Kobe or Lebron. Those types of superstars are few and far between. Hard to blame Nash for not drafting one when none were available even if he'd have had the first pick in the draft.
> 
> And while I don't think Martell will reach the same superstar level as Kobe or Lebron, if you look at his rookie numbers, they aren't that far behind Kobe's:
> 
> ...


I too don't think Webster will reach the same superstar level as Kobe, so why argue it by showing stats and comparing the stats. Regardless of stats or who is on the roster during their rookie year, realistically I hope you aren't trying to compare Webster to Kobe.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Kobe Bryant = 71 games, 15.5mpg, 7.6ppg, 41.7fg%, 37.53fg%, 81.9ft%
> Martell Webster = 61 games, 17.4mpg, 6.6ppg, 39.9fg%, 35.73fg%, 85.9ft%
> BNM


I think, also, that the 3 point line back in 95-96 was still the shorter distance. Wasn't it also 96-97? 

it explains why Kobe went from 37 and 34% to 26% from 3 in his 3rd year.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I too don't think Webster will reach the same superstar level as Kobe, so why argue it by showing stats and comparing the stats. Regardless of stats or who is on the roster during their rookie year, realistically I hope you aren't trying to compare Webster to Kobe.


Nowhere did I say Martell would be the next Kobe. In fact, that's exactly the opposite of what I said. My point was that even if he isn't the next Kobe Bryant level superstar, there is still room for him to be a plain old ordinary "star" (think Ray Allen or Michael Redd). Since his rookie stats are just a notch down from Kobe's I'm hoping long term he can develop into a player that's a notch or two below Kobe's superstar status. I'd be real happy if Martel developed into a player that averaged in the low to mid-20s and think that is a reasonable possibility, but would never expect him to average 35ppg like Kobe.

BNM


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> good points tw. *but don't forget we have short sighted fans who think things have to be fixed today for it to be any good in 2 years. Holding up GM's and players to unrealistic expectations (both in good times and bad times) isn't always the best thing to do.*
> 
> and we also have the reputation as the team who 'takes high schoolers' (as if we're the only ones) but if you ask why that's a bad thing in relation to how the players *TAKEN AFTER THEM* (which means you can't compare webster to paul since paul was taken...regardless of whether or not the team had the pick before the draft, they traded it. get over it) are doing, they really can't say.
> 
> btw, tw, this isn't directed at you or your post. I'm just adding onto it because I thought it needed it.


Good post. It's like someone tore down a house to build another and in mid rebuild someone saying they built the worst house in the world! Patience is needed. Nash wasn't perfect, I'm not going to give him a free pass, sure he made mistakes, but he did do a lot that needed to get done. A lot of times you have to get worse before you get better. Someone else will get credit for the work he's done. Of course that's just my opinion.

I doubt we will get a new GM outside of someone already under contract until the ownership is settled. Who'd want to come in knowing the new owner might want to go with someone else? If we do get someone not with the team it'll be a good sign Allen isn't going anywhere.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mgb said:


> A lot of times you have to get *worst* before you get better.


I don't know if that's a joke or not. If it is: it's kinda funny.

If it's not a joke or a typo, I think you're WAY off.

Ed O.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> I don't know if that's a joke or not. If it is: it's kinda funny.
> 
> If it's not a joke or a typo, I think you're WAY off.
> 
> Ed O.


Well, by definition, once you're the worst you can only get better. You can't finish any lower than last place. So, the optimist in me says the Blazer are halfway home. The realist says they still have a long way to go before getting back to the play-offs.

BNM


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I really do think that Nash got the short end of the stick because he wasn't given the freedom that Bob Whitsitt used to have here. However, I am interested to see who ends up replacing John. 

Geoff Petrie would be an absolute godsend, albeit near impossible. Kiki doesn't intrigue me much. Pritchard may be an answer here, but maybe he'd be better as president. I really like KP and I hope he sticks around in some way, shape or form.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



SMiLE said:


> well obviously things are going to improve greatly now, as nash had to have been the problem. on to the playoffs!
> 
> This is a huge sign of things.
> 
> ...



Funny you should mention that. Looked who struck again... this time on the Sonics' board:

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=274336


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



SheedSoNasty said:


> Funny you should mention that. Looked who struck again... this time on the Sonics' board:
> 
> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=274336


lol..guess he is searching elsewhere for someone sympathetic to his silliness...


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



barfo said:


> What is it you want? I can get it for you. I only ask for your soul...
> 
> barfo



I already gave you my soul for that 3 bank pool shot for a half rack of beer when I was a sophomore in college...well the shot went in anyway...not sure about the soul part yet.. :clown:


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

and the sonics fans have been warned


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



SheedSoNasty said:


> Funny you should mention that. Looked who struck again... this time on the Sonics' board:
> 
> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=274336



well if crap doesn't stick on one wall, fling it at another


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Well, by definition, once you're the worst you can only get better.


Nah. You can stay worst.



Ed O.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Nah. You can stay worst.
> 
> 
> 
> Ed O.


Alright, worse, already! Sheesh!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



sa1177 said:


> lol..guess he is searching elsewhere for someone sympathetic to his silliness...


Meehan must have been listening to VB:



> We should end that silliness right now. How can you conduct a search for a key manager when you don't know who will be signing the paychecks? Or whether your new general manager will be house hunting in Clackamas County or Vancouver, B.C.?


link


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Steve Patterson is an scumbag...

Paul Allen, Scott Thomason, Mark Wattles, Terry Porter (or whoever the owner is)...needs to figure that out and can his creepy ***.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Anyone hear...*



mgb said:


> Meehan must have been listening to VB


Too late for Vancouver, it looks like the team is moving to Klamath Falls. 

barfo


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

*Re: Anyone hear...*

what?!?!?! I was told they were going to Boring! 

Now OUR Boring Trail Blazers!


----------

