# Patterson Interview



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

From the OLive Blog (again)



> Patterson on Nash
> *Kevin Pritchard's contract option was picked up.*
> 
> Patterson will be acting GM as they begin searching for a new GM.
> ...


Pritchard doesn't surprise me, but wanting to add more young players (with no mention of vets) seems inconsistant with what Nate wants. Hmmm. Also, why did Patterson pass twice on commenting if he was in the running for GM. I think that would be the worst of all worlds, but it sounds like he is being considered.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Well, they did say keep Joel, who I think counts as a vet.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

crandc said:


> Well, they did say keep Joel, who I think counts as a vet.


While I'm sure Nate would like to keep Joel, I don't think that is what he meant by his request for veteran leadership.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

> Does Patterson consider himself a candidate for the job?
> 
> We'll make a list of candiates and see how the process plays out.


I do NOT like the sound of that.

Stepping Razor


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Does O-Live always post transcripts? Is this a new thing? Are we going to have 'dueling transcripts' now? :biggrin: 

Hmm. They confirmed Pritchard is a candidate but wouldn't comment on Patterson. I would just be consumed with gloom if Patterson were to become our GM.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah lets ax kevin too so patterson can be the 3 headed amigo!


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

thankfully Pritchard is still there...he is the one handling the draft this year...and I feel better having him make the call rather than Steve Pattersen...that is....if Pattersen lets him make the call...


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

thats if vulcan lets paul approve to let pattterson approve of kevin's pick


why do i feel we are the new clippers ....truely sad!


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Reep said:


> From the OLive Blog (again)
> Pritchard doesn't surprise me, but wanting to add more young players (with no mention of vets) seems inconsistant with what Nate wants.


Sounds to me like the decision-makers want to give Nate _young_ players who fit his requirements so he can develop and mold them into "his" team. There is validity to that approach, although it likely means more time will pass before the team becomes competitive again. (And maybe the additional bonus here is that it gives them a shot at Oden?)

PBF


----------



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

Yikes, that's scarey. That's the kind of interview that will give Blazers fans nightmares. Twice, Patterson was asked if he was going to take over as the Blazers GM and twice Patterson refused to rule himself out. Guess that 11% approval rating on Olive's "You Be the GM" poll has gone to his head. Well, he was dumb enough to hire one "career-long unsuccessful GM". Perhaps Steve Patterson really is dumb enough to hire himself as the next Blazers GM. Of course, if he does so he will have painted himself into a corner with no one else to blame when things don't go well. I can't say I'd feel sorry for him, but why must the rest of us suffer in the process?

BNM


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Can someone point me to an organization that has been sucessful in creating a playoff roster generated mostly from draft picks. I ask this seriously, because while I don't believe this is the right direction for the team to take, as long as I know a couple of teams have done it I might buy into this idea of accumulating young players.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Right now we are at the bottom. We really can't get worse, I mean sure the record could get worse, but overall, we aren't going to be able to get worse standings wise. Our most promising players are 1-3 years out of HS, and looking at another 1-2 years before they actually start to settle in. 

At this point truely what is better? Adding a Vet that maybe gets you into mid Lottery Range (even a Garnett type guy couldn't do more than that) by trading what few commodities we posess. Or is it better to maybe reach a bit and take the guy that has the physical tools to be perenial All Star material once he gets a couple years experience?

I'd much rather add a "could be" than a "has been" or "never quites was"

And in an additional consideration, we don't want to screw around with what we do have as of now. That means not taking players that aren't monumentally better and expecting others to play out of position in order to accomodate a player. Don't play Bonzi at the 3 so DA can play the 2.

We are overloaded at the 3 like a clogged toilet. IMO that is the weakest position for us now. We have 2 PFs, and 2 Centers plus can add at least one more [6 foul guy] with #30 and #31....Josh Boone Anyone? Trade up for Amrstrong?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Can someone point me to an organization that has been sucessful in creating a playoff roster generated mostly from draft picks. I ask this seriously, because while I don't believe this is the right direction for the team to take, as long as I know a couple of teams have done it I might buy into this idea of accumulating young players.


Chicago Bulls

Early 90's GSW
Run TMC all Warriors picks.

Early to mid 90's sonics
Payton, Kemp, McMillan

Jordans Bulls
Jordan was Drafted, Pippen was added on Draft day via trade.

How about Sotckton and Malone?

Shaq's Orlando Magic?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Schilly said:


> Chicago Bulls


 Well they did get the 7th seed in the east this year after years of missing the playoffs. OK, I'll keep chanting patience . . .


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Well they did get the 7th seed in the east this year after years of missing the playoffs. OK, I'll keep chanting patience . . .


I added more



> Early 90's GSW
> Run TMC all Warriors picks.
> 
> Early to mid 90's sonics
> ...


Heres another....The Spurs of the last 10 years sure piesces have been added, but the key players were added via Draft.
Ronbinson, Duncan, Parker, Ginobli


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Can someone point me to an organization that has been sucessful in creating a playoff roster generated mostly from draft picks. I ask this seriously, because while I don't believe this is the right direction for the team to take, as long as I know a couple of teams have done it I might buy into this idea of accumulating young players.


off the top of my head:

Charlotte Hornets Expansion team

Orlando Magic Expansion team

San Antonio Spurs (Robinson, Elliot, Duncan - all their lotto picks)


----------



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

Schilly said:


> Heres another....The Spurs of the last 10 years sure piesces have been added, but the key players were added via Draft.
> Ronbinson, Duncan, Parker, Ginobli


Yep, that was the first one that popped into my mind. The Spurs were incredibly lucky to get BOTH David Robinson AND Tim Duncan through the draft. Most teams never get the chance to draft one can't miss franchise player, let alone two on the same roster.

Another contemporary to the Shaq/Penny team in Orlando, who made it all the way to the NBA finals, was the Charlotte Hornets with Morning and LJ.

Prior to that was the Houston Rockets, another team that made it all the way to the finals, with Hakeem and a pre-injury Ralph Sampson.

You could even argue that the 1990 - 92 Blazers were primarily built through the draft with Clyde, Terry, Jerome, Uncle Cliffy, etc. Sure they added Buck and Duck through trades, but the core of those teams was built through the draft.

When it comes right down to it, most superstars are acquired through the draft (Jordan, Bird, Magic, Lebron, Duncan, etc.). It is fairly rare to get a true superstar through a trade - and usually then when they are past their prime. The problem is not every draft has a true franchise-making superstar available. You have to be bad and lucky at the same time to capitalize.

BNM


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Super stars are added through the draft because in general once a team has them the don't let them go in their prime , the exceptions being Shaq jumping from Orlando to LA and Grant hill jumping from Detroit to Orlando.


----------



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

Schilly said:


> Super stars are added through the draft because in general once a team has them the don't let them go in their prime , the exceptions being Shaq jumping from Orlando to LA and Grant hill jumping from Detroit to Orlando.


And Kareem being traded to the Lakers.

BNM


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> And Kareem being traded to the Lakers.
> 
> BNM


That's true and goes back quite a bit 31 years.


----------



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

Schilly said:


> That's true and goes back quite a bit 31 years.


Going back a bit further, there was Wilt to the Lakers and Oscar to the Bucks. They were both still very good players and won championships with their new teams, but definitely past their primes - more like Shaq to Miami than Shaq to the Lakers. Could be a good omen for Miami.

BNM


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Schilly said:


> Chicago Bulls
> 
> Early 90's GSW
> Run TMC all Warriors picks.
> ...


Thanks for the examples. I read through the rest of the thread and it was mentioned that those draft picks were sure bets kind of draft picks unlike this year's draft. 

But none of that really gets to me. I'm all for gettting a good draft pick each year. What is eating me up is this idea of accumulauting a roster of draft picks. If I count right, we could have eight players on the roster drafted in the last three years . . . and there are posts about trying to get more picks. Personally, I think that is the wrong way to go . . . but you mentioned Chicago, and that has a young roster with I believe mostly Chicago draft picks . . . and they have somewhat of a bright future.

That helps me buy into this youth movement a little, but I still am very skeptical of an all out youth movement.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Now that we are where we are, I am absolutely committed to an all out youth movement. The draft is the only way we are ever going to luck into two or three franchise saving players. We simply don't have the assets (anymore) to trade for a star, without giving up the entire future of the team.

We have to draft BPA, develop the young players, then make some good trades to balance the roster, after we can do so without overly depleting the team in the process. We aren't there yet. What we will have to be careful of is, once the players are entering their prime, trading half the team for a superstar, and ending up worse off than we started. 

I'm all for giving Nate a team full of eager, good attitude kids who will bust it every night, and letting him mold them into a team. As long as they draft (and trade for) BPA (Best Potential Available); and mold the team for long-term success over short-term gain.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Super stars are added through the draft because in general once a team has them the don't let them go in their prime , the exceptions being Shaq jumping from Orlando to LA and Grant hill jumping from Detroit to Orlando.


Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, TMac, Vince Carter, and Elton Brand are a few recent exceptions to that rule.

Bill Walton (to the Clippers) is an exception from the Blazers' past. 

I'm sure we could come up with a pretty extensive list of All-Star players who have jumped teams or been traded if we put our minds to it.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

e_blazer1 said:


> Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, TMac, Vince Carter, and Elton Brand are a few recent exceptions to that rule.
> 
> Bill Walton (to the Clippers) is an exception from the Blazers' past.
> 
> I'm sure we could come up with a pretty extensive list of All-Star players who have jumped teams or been traded if we put our minds to it.


Ya, but that was a injured Walton. He certainly wasn't the same Walton any more as when we won the championship though he did help Boston to a title.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Reep said:


> From the OLive Blog (again)
> 
> 
> 
> Pritchard doesn't surprise me, but wanting to add more young players (with no mention of vets) seems inconsistant with what Nate wants. Hmmm. Also, why did Patterson pass twice on commenting if he was in the running for GM. I think that would be the worst of all worlds, but it sounds like he is being considered.


That really jump out at me too when I read that. Not that I'm against it, I hope they go that way, but it just doesn't follow what I've read about what the Blazers wanted to do.


----------



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

e_blazer1 said:


> Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, TMac, Vince Carter, and Elton Brand are a few recent exceptions to that rule.
> 
> Bill Walton (to the Clippers) is an exception from the Blazers' past.
> 
> I'm sure we could come up with a pretty extensive list of All-Star players who have jumped teams or been traded if we put our minds to it.


Perhaps we need to distinguish between superstars and all-stars. I was referring to the only-comes-along-once-every-few-years kind of franchise changing players like Kobe, Lebron, Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, etc., not your garden variety all-star. If you notice, everyone on my list but Lebron (give him time and a supporting cast) has won multiple NBA championships. Other than Walton, who was traded post injury when he was a shadow of his former self, nobody on your list has won a title. Most of them have never been within spitting distance of the finals. Don't get me wrong, they are all great players and some of them may end up in the Hall of Fame, but they won't make any 50 greatest players of all-time lists or be considered among the very elite to ever play the game.

BNM


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

e_blazer1 said:


> Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, TMac, Vince Carter, and Elton Brand are a few recent exceptions to that rule.
> 
> Bill Walton (to the Clippers) is an exception from the Blazers' past.
> 
> I'm sure we could come up with a pretty extensive list of All-Star players who have jumped teams or been traded if we put our minds to it.


Another poster pointed out the difference between All Stars and superstars. I would also add that many of these were "special circumstance" trades. Nash and Brand were not stars when they were dealt. Kidd was dealt by Phoenix due to legal troubles; the Phoenix owner is known to take a firm line on that, even if he gets lesser value. TMac and Carter were seen as injury-prone. 
In all those cases the teams that got them got lucky. But you could cite any number of cases where the recipient did not get lucky - Portland with Dale Davis, Lakers with Malone and Payton, Philly with Webber, etc. 
The early 90s Blazer team was built from within, and once the core was established and had its identity they added Buck Williams, later Danny Ainge, as pieces to complement the core that was there.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

I think it would be interesting to go back through those teams, however, and see how many of those teams were composed almost entirely of draft picks in such a short span of time.

The only reason the Spurs got Duncan is because Robinson was out one year.

The only reason the Rockets got Sampson (or was it Hakeem?) is because they purposely tanked the last part of the year to guarantee a high pick. IIRC, that was one reason the lottery was put into place.

I agree that most of the time you have to draft a superstar because otherwise you'd have to trade 1/2 your talent to get him (see Kiki V.), but I don't necessarily agree that you need to stock your entire roster with immediate draft picks and "see which ones pan out".

A big problem right now is that everyone wants to give every player 5-7 years to pan out. See: Outlaw. That just means that every year you're stuck finding a place for a brand new draft pick at the expense of someone who could help you win because they may, someday, pan out.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> Another poster pointed out the difference between All Stars and superstars. I would also add that many of these were "special circumstance" trades. Nash and Brand were not stars when they were dealt. Kidd was dealt by Phoenix due to legal troubles; the Phoenix owner is known to take a firm line on that, even if he gets lesser value. TMac and Carter were seen as injury-prone.
> In all those cases the teams that got them got lucky. But you could cite any number of cases where the recipient did not get lucky - Portland with Dale Davis, Lakers with Malone and Payton, Philly with Webber, etc.
> The early 90s Blazer team was built from within, and once the core was established and had its identity they added Buck Williams, later Danny Ainge, as pieces to complement the core that was there.



that avatar is

fab 
you
lous!


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Can someone point me to an organization that has been sucessful in creating a playoff roster generated mostly from draft picks. I ask this seriously, because while I don't believe this is the right direction for the team to take, as long as I know a couple of teams have done it I might buy into this idea of accumulating young players.



How about most every team

The Lakers of the 80's Magic, Worthy, Scott
The Celtics of the 80's Bird, McHale via draft trade with GS
The Bulls of the 90's Jordan, Pippen via draft trade with Seattle
The Spurs of the 00's Duncan, Ginobili, Parker
The Blazers of the 70's and 80's Walton, Drexler, Porter, Kersey, Lucas although ABA draft


Look at the teams this year in the playoffs

Phoenix lol technically Nash was drafted by the Suns, Stoudemire, Marion
Dallas Nowitzki, Howard, Harris
Heat Wade, Butler
Detroit is the only team really to do it through trades, but even they have Hamilton and Prince


The draft is by far the best way to build a team. You have to get lucky to make it work sooner than later, but it does work. Then add a piece to get you over the hump like Oneil, Wallace, Buck Williams
etc.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> How about most every team
> 
> The Lakers of the 80's Magic, Worthy, Scott
> The Celtics of the 80's Bird, McHale via draft trade with GS
> ...



detroit is a rare case in that A: they don't have a clear cut superstar and B: the only starter they drafted was Tayshaun. Portland in 99 and 2000 was kind of the same as Detroit is now. A bunch of really good players, and no 'superstar', of which very little was drafted BY the team.

Most teams are built through the draft, and then you trade for a cog or two (which is what we're doing..we're just doing it from a different avenue than portland fans are used to).

While the lakers DID trade for Scott, they drafted magic, worthy and cooper...and AC Geren. They did trade for Kareem, but it wasn't until they stock-piled talent that they started winning titles again.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> that avatar is
> 
> fab
> you
> lous!


Part of my "Draft Rudy" campaign, Smile.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> detroit is a rare case in that A: they don't have a clear cut superstar and B: the only starter they drafted was Tayshaun. Portland in 99 and 2000 was kind of the same as Detroit is now. A bunch of really good players, and no 'superstar', of which very little was drafted BY the team.
> 
> Most teams are built through the draft, and then you trade for a cog or two (which is what we're doing..we're just doing it from a different avenue than portland fans are used to).
> 
> While the lakers DID trade for Scott, they drafted magic, worthy and cooper...and AC Geren. They did trade for Kareem, but it wasn't until they stock-piled talent that they started winning titles again.




Shoot I just realized I put Scott instead of Cooper.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Shoot I just realized I put Scott instead of Cooper.


It doesn't really take away from your point tho, as he was a rookie when he was traded and never played for the Clippers. He counts as much as building through the draft as Jack does for us (and many other players for many other teams do).

btw, it's kind of creepy..I went to basketballreference.com, to make sure that scott only played for the Lakers...so you type in "scott" in the name search and inmy brain I went "i bet alvin scott will be first"..

but I have no idea who alvin scott was or that there WAS an alvin scott.

so then I decided to click on it...and before the page opens I go "hm...phoenix"..

and thats who he played for.

weird.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I read a nice detailed transcript from the Vancouver Columbian and I didn't get the impression that Patteresen was angling for the GM job as much as some other media sources and fans have implied......

http://www.columbian.com/sports/blazerbanter/


----------



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

Kmurph said:


> I read a nice detailed transcript from the Vancouver Columbian and I didn't get the impression that Patteresen was angling for the GM job as much as some other media sources and fans have implied......
> 
> http://www.columbian.com/sports/blazerbanter/


Thanks, that article puts my mind somewhat at ease. My biggest fear is that Patterson will appoint himself the new GM and I think that would be a disaster. I'm not so much concerned with the draft as I have confidence in Pritchard as an evaluator of young talent, I'm more concerned about trades and signing free agents. This is an area where Pritchard lacks experience. I'd be concerned about an inexperienced GM missing out on opportunities (including draft day trades) and free agent signings because he does't have intimate knowledge of the ins-and-outs of the cap/CBA and just doesn't have experience closing a deal.

However, last night on the Moron and Big Suck show on 1080, Jason Quick (of all people) brought up a good point. The Blazers currently have another very experienced GM on the payroll that can help them through this transition period - John Gabriel, who is currently a Blazers scout. Gabriel was the GM of the Orlando Magic from 1996 - 2004. He has experience with major (and minor) free agent signings, has been through the process of tearing down and rebuilding a team, and knows how to close a big trade. Whether or not you think he did a great job in Orlando (Grant Hill's constant injuries pretty much destroyed his original rebuilding program), at least he knows the cap/CBA and how to complete a trade. I think with Gabriel's assistance, Pritchard can handle this draft, any draft day trades, any attempt to to re-signing Joel, and what to do with the MLE if Joel bolts for greener pastures.

While I'd still like to see an experienced, proven, high quality GM long term, I am much less worrid about the short term than I was at this time yesterday (hey, I panicked at the thought of Patterson as our long term GM).

BNM


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Way to go Quick. I had forgotten about Gabriel. At least he is another experienced body in the room.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> I read a nice detailed transcript from the Vancouver Columbian


That's a good find. Besides the Patterson-as-GM issue, I thought this was useful:



> On whether the new GM would have more autonomy than Nash:
> SP: I think that's a misconception. I’ve been in this business all my life, and I can’t think of a time when I had a trade call where at some point in time in the conversation the guy on the other end of the phone didn’t wind up saying something like, ‘Well, that sounds pretty good. Let me talk to my owner,' or, 'let me talk to the coach,' or, 'let me talk to my guys and I’ll get back to you.' I think consensus building is a well-recognized part of successful organizations. I think it happens all the time in the NBA. I don’t think we were run any differently than most other ballclubs in the NBA, or in the NFL that I’ve been associated with.


I believe Patterson is telling the truth in this particular instance. I don't buy the "Nash wasn't allowed to do his job" theory that Canzano and many posters here subscribe to.

barfo


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

barfo said:


> That's a good find. Besides the Patterson-as-GM issue, I thought this was useful:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He didn't really say anything. Was he given the freedom to do his job? He didn't say that. Only that it's standard to check with the rest of the team. That doesn't mean he wasn't over ruled most of the times does it? It doesn't mean he was either, but it sure doesn't say anything one way or another.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> How about most every team
> 
> The Lakers of the 80's Magic, Worthy, Scott
> The Celtics of the 80's Bird, McHale via draft trade with GS
> ...


Those are different situations than what I am talking about. I'm talking about having the main part of the roster built through three years of the draft. I'm all for adding a good young player each year, I am not for filling eight roster spots with drafts picks over three years. 

Although given Blazers drafting "abilities" maybe it takes 8 picks to get three good ones. :biggrin:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Those are different situations than what I am talking about. I'm talking about having the main part of the roster built through three years of the draft. I'm all for adding a good young player each year, I am not for filling eight roster spots with drafts picks over three years.
> 
> Although given Blazers drafting "abilities" maybe it takes 8 picks to get three good ones. :biggrin:



Well Houston had back to back number 1 picks and ended up in the finals
Chicago ended up in the playoffs with their two high picks
Portland had Drexler in 83, Kersey in 84, Porter in 85, Sabonis in 86. Decent draft runs to build a team. You can add Jordan shoulda been if you want. That's how you build your team.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

mgb said:


> He didn't really say anything. Was he given the freedom to do his job? He didn't say that. Only that it's standard to check with the rest of the team. That doesn't mean he wasn't over ruled most of the times does it? It doesn't mean he was either, but it sure doesn't say anything one way or another.


Well, if you believe what he said, he said that the Blazers aren't run any differently than other NBA teams. Which means that Nash was given the freedom to do his job that other GMs have to do their jobs. 

Nash has had other GM jobs before. Patterson has been part of other teams before. It's not likely that they got together here and decided to do things wildly differently than all their previous jobs. It's more likely that they defaulted to the model that they were used to.

I just don't see any evidence at all that Nash wasn't a 'normal' GM here. Lots of speculation, but no evidence.

barfo


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

barfo said:


> I just don't see any evidence at all that Nash wasn't a 'normal' GM here. Lots of speculation, but no evidence.
> 
> barfo


If all we did was use evidence to support our arguments/opinions, there'd be no basketballboards.net. Let the rumors fly, baby!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Well Houston had back to back number 1 picks and ended up in the finals
> Chicago ended up in the playoffs with their two high picks
> Portland had Drexler in 83, Kersey in 84, Porter in 85, Sabonis in 86. Decent draft runs to build a team. You can add Jordan shoulda been if you want. That's how you build your team.



I think we are saying the same thing. I agree back to back high picks are great. Back to back to back high picks are even better. But eight overall draft picks seems a bit obsessive . . . especially if their is talk about trading for more.

Anyways, I think I've made my point and understand there is a school of thought to load up as many draft picks as possible. While I understand that line of argument, I disagree with it.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> thankfully Pritchard is still there...he is the one handling the draft this year...and I feel better having him make the call rather than Steve Pattersen...that is....if Pattersen lets him make the call...


I think the interview answered that question pretty directly...

*Q. Will the next GM have more autonomy than Nash had?

SP It's a misnomer that Nash didn't make decisions. Consensus building is common in the NBA and the NFL. *

I'm sure people will continue to hold onto their staces of pretending they know how front offices in pro sports function (it's the rare exception when posters change their views on anything) but I think the supposive lack of input/power that Nash had critisisms are pretty hollow. I know that the pro teams here in the Bay Area all speak to having this same sort of consensus building on major decisions... well, everyone but the Raiders. 

As for concerns of his involvement with the upcoming Blazers draft... I believe SP presided over a few of the Rocket's drafts as GM when they drafted Robert Horry and Sam Cassell. I'd be very happy if Portland comes away with a player of that caliber from this weak crop. From what we've been led to believe the past couple of offseasons, the individual workouts just before the draft were a huge factor in determining the club's decisions. I'd rather that the opinions of the scouts weigh in more as one single days perfomance should factor in less then a players overall play IMO.

STOMP


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

> SP It's a *misnomer* that Nash didn't make decisions. Consensus building is common in the NBA and the NFL.


Forget about whether he's blowing smoke or not, let's ding him for using the wrong word. From the Merriam Webster on-line dictionary:

misnomer:
1 : the misnaming of a person in a legal instrument
2 a : a use of a wrong name b : a wrong name or designation

Maybe he meant "misconception"?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> Maybe he meant "misconception"?


I read that "misnomer" thing yesterday and almost posted about it, but I decided to let it go. Hap used the word in a post recently in a slightly off usage, as well, but since it's Hap he deserves more leeway than a guy who's paid at least in part to communicate for a living.

"Misconception" is a good word, but might be too passive. "Misrepresentation" would be my word choice, given Patterson's aggressive nature about the way things are handled in the media.



Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> I read that "misnomer" thing yesterday and almost posted about it, but I decided to let it go. Hap used the word in a post recently in a slightly off usage, as well, but since it's Hap he deserves more leeway than a guy who's paid at least in part to communicate for a living.
> 
> "Misconception" is a good word, but might be too passive. "Misrepresentation" would be my word choice, given Patterson's aggressive nature about the way things are handled in the media.
> 
> ...


Shh! I didn't want to mention that SMiLES (Hap) post and embarass him or anything. I was hoping he'd pick up a lesson from this one.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I read that "misnomer" thing yesterday and almost posted about it, but I decided to let it go. Hap used the word in a post recently in a slightly off usage, as well, but since it's Hap he deserves more leeway than a guy who's paid at least in part to communicate for a living.
> 
> "Misconception" is a good word, but might be too passive. "Misrepresentation" would be my word choice, given Patterson's aggressive nature about the way things are handled in the media.
> 
> ...


ah hah, but is it a off usage, since it was the wrong usage of the name of the GM at the time?

or something?


----------



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

*Misnomer:* Nash Bridges is the former Trailblazers GM.

*Misrepresentaion:* Unvalidated assertion by Oregonian sports columnist John Canzano that former GM John Nash was not allowed to do his job.

*Miss America:* Title formerly held by native Oregonian Katie Harmon (who is *way* better looking, infinitely more likeable and probably knows more about sports than non-native Oregonian sports columnist John Canzano).

BNM


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> Forget about whether he's blowing smoke or not, let's ding him for using the wrong word. From the Merriam Webster on-line dictionary:
> 
> misnomer:
> 1 : the misnaming of a person in a legal instrument
> ...


Let's define who "he" is here. Did Patterson say "misnomer"? The Oregonian has it as "misnomer", but the Columbian has it as "misconception". 

It could be that the Columbian cleaned up his language, but more likely misnomer was introduced as part of the Oregonian's paraphrase of his answer.

barfo


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I think the debate about whether John Nash was allowed to "do his job" or had "autonomy" is a little confused. I'm sure, as Patterson stated, Nash had the autonomy to do his job. What some people question is, whether once he'd done his job -- that is, scouted players, worked with other GMs and player agents, put together tentative trades -- and taken his recommendations to his higher ups for approval, whether or not his recommendations were generally accepted or rejected. I don't think his job ever was, or even should have been, to have absolute authority on personnel moves without getting final approval from Allen (and apparantly, Patterson).

Nothing in Patterson's reply addresses that aspect (whether Nash's recommendations were generally accepted or rejected), other than to say it's typical that the final decisions would be made by Nash's bosses (Patterson and Allen), and perhaps even by committee. Which is precisely what was being asserted in the first place. 

If Nash was ineffective, it may have been because he simply didn't do his job well; or it may have been that his bosses didn't allow him to be effective (by not accepting his recommendations). I certainly don't know. And Patterson didn't answer that question.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Blazer Bert said:


> I think the debate about whether John Nash was allowed to "do his job" or had "autonomy" is a little confused. I'm sure, as Patterson stated, Nash had the autonomy to do his job. What some people question is, whether once he'd done his job -- that is, scouted players, worked with other GMs and player agents, put together tentative trades -- and taken his recommendations to his higher ups for approval, whether or not his recommendations were generally accepted or rejected. I don't think his job ever was, or even should have been, to have absolute authority on personnel moves without getting final approval from Allen (and apparantly, Patterson).
> 
> Nothing in Patterson's reply addresses that aspect (whether Nash's recommendations were generally accepted or rejected), other than to say it's typical that the final decisions would be made by Nash's bosses (Patterson and Allen), and perhaps even by committee. Which is precisely what was being asserted in the first place.
> 
> If Nash was ineffective, it may have been because he simply didn't do his job well; or it may have been that his bosses didn't allow him to be effective (by not accepting his recommendations). I certainly don't know. And Patterson didn't answer that question.


Exactly. :clap:


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Blazer Bert said:


> I think the debate about whether John Nash was allowed to "do his job" or had "autonomy" is a little confused. I'm sure, as Patterson stated, Nash had the autonomy to do his job. What some people question is, whether once he'd done his job -- that is, scouted players, worked with other GMs and player agents, put together tentative trades -- and taken his recommendations to his higher ups for approval, whether or not his recommendations were generally accepted or rejected. I don't think his job ever was, or even should have been, to have absolute authority on personnel moves without getting final approval from Allen (and apparantly, Patterson).
> 
> Nothing in Patterson's reply addresses that aspect (whether Nash's recommendations were generally accepted or rejected), other than to say it's typical that the final decisions would be made by Nash's bosses (Patterson and Allen), and perhaps even by committee. Which is precisely what was being asserted in the first place.
> 
> If Nash was ineffective, it may have been because he simply didn't do his job well; or it may have been that his bosses didn't allow him to be effective (by not accepting his recommendations). I certainly don't know. And Patterson didn't answer that question.


I certainly don't know either. However, it doesn't seem right to me to assume that Nash works independently, comes up with ideas, submits them for approval or disapproval, and then goes and works on new ideas, all the while never asking for, receiving, or assimilating any feedback on what he's doing. Unless he's just bad at his job, he should be able to ascertain which types of proposals management is interested in hearing, and present only proposals that are at least approximately in line with corporate goals. If management continually rejects his proposals, either management is capricious (possible, of course) or Nash is not very good (also possible). But, there is no evidence that management did actually reject his proposals more often than other GMs have proposals rejected.

barfo


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I think when this came up originally is people were blaming Nash for not doing certain deals, who knows if they were on the table, and some people felt it might not have been him turning them down. Of course no one knows. But we do know he had a lot more restraints put on him than BW did. So it's easy for people to take it another step if it's true or not.

Rumors are easy to start and who knows if they are true. Is there any concrete evidence that Allen loves Miles and that's the reason they gave him the big deal? 

All I was saying before was that Patterson didn't really settle it one way or another. Sure, unless your a owner that is also the GM you have to check with those above you, but how much of a free hand you are given is still in question from club to club.


----------

