# Mike Rice reports rumor: Portland & GS



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

One of the latest rumors to hits the media was from the Washington Post, and he thinks Jason Quick will report it tomorrow.

Portland trades Sheed to GS
GS trades NVE and Eric Dampier to us

a 1 for 2...

thoughts?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> One of the latest rumors to hits the media was from the Washington Post, and he thinks Jason Quick will report it tomorrow.
> 
> Portland trades Sheed to GS
> ...


I actually like this trade. 

Helps rebounding, and a good PG..

size..muscle...and clutch.

maybe if we can con them into a draft pick too..nah..thats too much.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> One of the latest rumors to hits the media was from the Washington Post, and he thinks Jason Quick will report it tomorrow.
> 
> Portland trades Sheed to GS
> ...


Considering the way Dampier killed us on the O-boards.... 

Hmmmmmmmm..............


----------



## Son of Bintim (Jan 21, 2004)

I like it we get a point guard and a center........... we played Golden State a few days ago and I think dampier had 20 rebonds......


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

GS salaries 

NVE has this year + 2 years remaining. Player option next year. If he does not take it, it can be an expiring contract as well.

Dampier is a very good rebounder. Looks like same contract length. Looks like a player option this summer as well. hard to read in the grey


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

On second thought, if Rice reported it, it ain't hap'nin. :upset:


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Isn't Nick's contract up the same time as Damon's? He might be just what this team needs and I would like the addition of Dampier to the front line.

Is GOlden State under the cap or would there have to be more filler to make this work?


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> GS salaries
> 
> NVE has this year + 2 years remaining. Player option next year. If he does not take it, it can be an expiring contract as well.
> ...


Interesting! But isn't NVE a bad seed or did he turn his life around in Dallas?


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Van Exel brings a lot of toughness and clutch play. Dampier is the prototypical center that teams are looking for. I'd love it if Nick's sure about coming here, I don't know much about his baggage, but I'm sure it can't be worse than Sheed's. We wouldn't lose as much D as we would if we were to acquire SAR or Jamison and NVE is a force on O. I'd be down with this trade.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

> RealGM:
> 
> *TRADE DECLINED*
> 
> Due to Golden State and Portland being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. Golden State and Portland had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did not happen here (only Golden State met the condition). This trade does not satisfy the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.


I decline personally because they both have 2 years left on their contracts, and we already have a backup point guard. Don't we?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

not bad. not great. I'd like someone with more upside than either Damp or NVE, but it's decent value. seems to fit with cap space plans.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I think this deal Makes a lot of Sense, Portland has been in need of a playmaker in the guard position which NVE is, and I think Nick is a very good defender. Dampier is insane this season but overall his numbers are soplid per minute, but not outstanding.

Both players are over 30, and signed through 2006. I wonder if a pick would be included to Portland to make it happen?


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

wow

PG NVE/Damon
SG DA/Woods
SF Patterson/Miles/Woods
PF Zach/?
C Dampier/ DD


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> I think this deal Makes a lot of Sense, Portland has been in need of a playmaker in the guard position which NVE is, and I think Nick is a very good defender. Dampier is insane this season but overall his numbers are soplid per minute, but not outstanding.
> 
> Both players are over 30, and signed through 2006. I wonder if a pick would be included to Portland to make it happen?


Now your talking. IF Portland could get a 1st rounder from Golden State then it really is a no brainer. Now if both contracts have player options, doesn't that mean that they could both walk in 2005?


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> 
> 
> Now your talking. IF Portland could get a 1st rounder from Golden State then it really is a no brainer.


Maybe they'll switch picks. :laugh:

Oh, wait..........


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

I dont like the deal. We don't get young enough, and we don't get enough talent back. We aren't winning anytime soon, so why trade for players over 30? Im a big fan of Van Excel and Dampier is good too, but they are older than what I think the Blazers should go after. Why cant we get Rashard Lewis? Or Tyson Chandler? Eddy Curry? I believe we could get them too.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

The Warriors will be about 2 mil under the cap this summer if Dampier and NVE stay on. ALso tag on a 1st round pick, fairly high and they are at the cap level. 

If they trade those players plus the pick to Portland then the will be about 20 mil under the cap when Sheed expires. This would enable them to go after a couple of big name players.

But I think they would also need to be looking at resigning Jason Richardson, or letting him go as well.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

First off this trade cannot happen as listed. Por would ahve to add Stepania, Outlaw or Qyntel. Secondly, IF they do a 2 for 2 trade then it still leaves POR with 11 players, so GS would have to throw back either Cheaney or Cardinal. 

Most importantly this is NOT a good trade for POR unless their 1st rounder is included, otherwise POR should pass. Why are people so sure that Van Exel and Dampier would pass up their player options? Are either of them even remotely assured of getting better deals on the open market? I dont think so. Add to that Dampier's total lackluster play for his career, until his "sudden" revival this year, I am not buying that the change is permanent. Van Exel is a nice player who is getting old, has well chronicled attitude issues, specifically to playing time and playing on bad teams, and are we a good team with this trade? I think not. Overall I say no way unless their is something major that I am missing.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

throw me in with the lot that are agains the deal. This deal doesn't help us at all. Like I've said before, I think we should focus on the future and this trade doesn't help our future at all. Now if they were to throw in Mike Dunleavy...


----------



## shazha (Nov 20, 2002)

so far all the posts have been from a portland perspective, and rightly so its a portland board (der sha).

But how bout taking the warriors viewpoint, will they be happy letting speedy claxton take over starting point? Im not sure about this one. Although speedy has been playing well, he wouldnt exacty be their future at that position.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

actually, I think Speedy's play as of late has shown GS that he IS the point of the future. Why else would they be looking to move Nick? Look at Claxton's stats since Van Exel went down. They're very impressive.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yangsta</b>!
> wow
> 
> PG NVE/Damon
> ...


You forgot a few Yangsta


PG NVE, Stoudamire, Woods
SG DA, Person
SF Miles, Patterson, (Woods)
PF Randolph, Davis, Outlaw
C Dampier, (Davis), Stepania


This lets us move Davis back to PF behind Randolph, thus reducing his minutes. I have been wanting to do this due to his health, getting up there in age, and sometimes his attitude

NVE as PG with Miles, Randolph (sometimes on the court with), and Randolph would be nice. Very fast paced lineup


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Salary numbers for trading

Portland:
Sheed $18 mil OUT 

GS:
NVE $10.9 + Dampier $7.8 = $18.7 mil OUT

I am not sure why RealGM does not approve this. :whoknows:
It works numbers wise even if Sheed has a $16.9 mil contract instead of the reported $18 mil

But I think ABM is right.. if Rice says it, it can not be true!


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

I don't like this trade without a GS draft pick included either, van exel and dampier aren't going to make the blazers much better in the long run, so why bother. maybe they could propel us to the playoffs this season if that's what people want, but first-and-out isn't that attractive me. they are good players, but not good enough to really matter.

If sheed is to be traded, I say build for the future.


----------



## nikebasketball (Jan 28, 2004)

I hope that this trade does'nt happen.

The Blazers should keep Sheed.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Horrible trade for the blazers. 

NVE and Dampier MIGHT help us sneak into the 8th playoff seed, but what will they bring for this teams future. We would be trying to move them at this time next year to get younger. 

I would rather keep Sheed,who is the 3rd best C in the league right now.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

I wouldn't be surprised if this stuff was flat out made up.

How come Quick never told us we were interested in Miles?


----------



## blazerfan4life (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Backboard Cam</b>!
> 
> 
> we already have a backup point guard. Don't we?


WHO!?!?!?!? WOODS! hahahahahahaha NOT..we need a real point guard


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

I've always been a fan of Erick Dampier's potencial. He's now a couple years removed from serious leg/knee problems, and has obviously focused on getting in top shape. In the past two offseasons he has hired former Warrior center Clifford Ray to work on big man skills with him and IMO anyway it shows. He's true center sized and he's moving and playing really well this year. 

It used to be that Warrior fans were complaining about how big his contract was. Its escalated the last few years up to where he's making nearly 8 mil. Though there are two more years left, he's got a player's out option both this and the following offseasons... or ... I expect he'll test the market this summer. Of course the team with his Bird rights can make him as substancial an offer (within CBA boundries) as they feel he's worth. 

IMO, Nick could be on the brink of being done, or he could be a fantastic role player, it would all depend on his health. He's had a lot of knee problems and they are flaring up again. No way is he opting out of his contract this offseason (he's due 10 mil more if he doesn't). But a season and a half of him playing 25ish minutes per to sort of protect him like Dallas did bringing him off the bench could be good. He's just too broken down IMO to depended on to be there in the playoffs if he's going to take the pounding 35 minutes a night in the regular season. 

Nick might make them more competitive in the next year and a half, and his contract ends on time. But if Portland does this trade it IMO is to get a pretty decent true center next to Zach longterm.

For Golden State? Foyal, Wallace, and Troy Murphy would be a versatile, solid, frontcourt rotation at the 4/5 for the future. The guy essencially running the W's for the last season and a half is their President Robert Rowell. Prior to him, I'd always questioned their big moves and overall plan. I think he might do this move to address both their talent and their cap situation. Sheed could play well alongside either of Foyal and Murphy defensively, and would probably be *the* primary post player on their team. With Damp gone, there would be a vacancy on the block with some pretty good shooters on the perimeter.

Interesting stuff...

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

My opinion? It's a horsecrap trade for Portland.

NVE is 32. Dampier is 29.

Neither is good enough to make us better than we were last year, and unless we got lucky we wouldn't be getting any salary relief any time soon.

We'd be better off letting Rasheed walk than take on these two guys.

Ed O.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

It's not a jaw dropper of a trade, but I like its potential. Van Exel, even with injury and attitude concerns, is still a huge upgrade at our biggest area of need. Dampier would be the true prize in the deal, though, assuming this season isn't a flash in the old folk's home pan.

I've been a Dampier fan ever since his college days, so I might be a bit biased. However, I've always fancied him a poor man's Mourning. Rock hard physical presence that can intimidate with the best of them, just less refined at the offensive end.

Imagine the offensive rebounding potential of a front line with Zach, Dampier, and Darius.  Those guys could go for 30-40 rebounds a night! Woods in the backcourt would make it an insanely good rebounding squad.

I think it would be a pretty solid defensive frontline, too. Dale no longer seems to provide the physical presence to make up for Zach's weaknesses. I think Damp would be a pretty good fill in there.

Dan


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Well, if the Blazers made this trade, it would mean that they are NOT going all-out for cap room in 2005. That in and of itself would make me happy.

Dampier is playing great this year. In years past, he would start the season strong, then lose steam in January. Quick starter, slow finisher. But he looks much more consistent this year.

I wonder, though, if the front office would take a chance on Van Exel. With his recent injuries and somewhat spotty reputation in terms of confrontations with coaches/players, he's got to be a potential deal breaker for the now-PR-conscious Blazers.


From Golden State's perspective, this puts them either under the cap if they re-sign Rasheed or WAY under the cap if they let him walk. Which would they look to do? Would they want to enter the Kobe sweepstakes - especially when strongest positions after this trade would be SG and SF (ie, where Kobe would play) or do they have their eyes on a couple of FA's like Okur and Martin?


----------



## D-Up (Jan 26, 2004)

I really like Dampier. He's having a great season. He's always been an underrated player to me. Van Exel would be a big upgrade over Stoudamire. Adding both Dampier and Van Exel would be a big help. It would solidify two positions that we are weak at, center and point guard. But I wouldn't trade Rasheed for them unless Golden States add an unprotected 1st pick. Maybe trade them Memphis' pick and they give us their pick.


----------



## D-Up (Jan 26, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> I think this deal Makes a lot of Sense, Portland has been in need of a playmaker in the guard position which NVE is, and I think Nick is a very good defender.


I honestly have never heard anyone call Van Exel a good defender, let alone a very good defender. From my own analysis of his defense, he's not even average. He's a better defender than Stoudamire, but that is not saying a lot.



> Both players are over 30, and signed through 2006. I wonder if a pick would be included to Portland to make it happen?


Hmm I didn't know both of them are signed through 2006. I had thought that Van Exel's contract end at 2005. If that's true, Golden States is going to have to send an unprotected 1st pick to Portland to make it fair.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> My opinion? It's a horsecrap trade for Portland.
> 
> We'd be better off letting Rasheed walk than take on these two guys.


I had to go before I stated all the things I wanted to. While I do think that Golden State would be getting the better half of this deal talent wise, I could see enough of a benefit chemistry wise to possibly entice Portland... maybe a future first should be included from GS. 

Though I've used this line before, it's tried and true... Portland trading Wallace to the right team is like trading Sheed *plus* a max FA to be named later. If the Warriors were to make this trade, they'd have under 25 mil committed to 7 players next season, and be in the position to sign both Sheed and another player of his 10 mil per caliber. 

On the downside of the possibilities, this is interdivision, and that rarely happens because of the eggondaface factor for GMs ...but it makes more sense IMO then most of the slop thats been thrown around lately. I doubt it happens. Bah humbug.

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

In my opinion, this would be a "win now" type of move. No way Van Exel will be around for the next good Portland team...he'd be a chip to try and make the team good *now*.

So, the question is, does subtracting Wallace and adding Dampier and Van Exel make Portland acceptably good enough to put off rebuilding? In other words, does it make them a title contender?

To me, the answer is definitely not. Wallace is *better* than Dampier, and would be at center, as well, in my opinion. Van Exel can be excellent, but a lineup of:

PG: Nick Van Exel
SG: Derek Anderson
SF: Ruben Patterson
PF: Zach Randolph
C: Erick Dampier

might be "playoffs" good, but unlikely to escape the first round and a team unlikely to get better.

Wallace, in my opinion, should either be traded for a similar talent (Shareef Abdur-Rahim might be close enough) or he should be dealt for "rebuilding toys" like a combination of draft picks, young prospects and expiring contracts or he should just be allowed to walk, freeing up financial flexibility.

What he *shouldn't* be dealt for is a marginal upgrade to the current team that is likely to drop off soon, yet eat a lot of cash.

So, I'd rather not do this deal. If Van Exel were a decade younger, or maybe even five years younger, it would be a much better deal.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Outstanding post, Minstrel. You're exactly right. This would be a "get well now" trade rather than a "get well soon" trade. Or, to put it another way, this is a band-aid to stop the bleeding, instead of reconstructive surgery, which is what we really need. 

Though I admit that this trade is tempting, I would have to vote "no" as well. For Wallace, we should demand young and up-and-coming players and/or draft picks.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Is there any way that this trade could be reworked so that the Blazers still get Dampier? I think he's the true center that this team needs. Maybe if we could hold off on NVE and get some picks or Dunleavy or maybe a 3rd team involved. I would love to see Damp on this team, granted we should get more for Sheed.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Here's a pretty glowing article on Erick following last nights W's win over the Wolves... 21 pts, 19 boards, 5 blocks... not too bad.

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~10835~1922030,00.html

STOMP


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> 21 pts, 19 boards, 5 blocks... not too bad.


That might just be the understatement of the year.

If Damp puts up many more games like that, Zach will have a serious contendor for the Most Improved award.

The more I think about it, the more I think a wholesale rebuilding effort (get young, get draft picks, get FA's in '05) is the wrong way to go. This team has, and can again, be rebuilt on the fly. I believe the long-standing winning mentality is a large part of what makes that possible. Giving up the "now" for prospects of more "later" is a serious blow to that mentality, and there's no guarantee the future payoff will come.

Add pieces _now_ that help the team, all the while keeping an eye on the future. This trade would make the team significantly better now and next year, which is all the future I really care about at this point. After that, Damon and Dale are gone, Damp and Van Exel have options, and who knows what the future will bring at that point.

Dan


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Right on, dkap. Look at how these youth movements have paid off for other teams. If we did something like trade Sheed for a bunch of prospects and draft picks, we'll be bad for +5 years before we start thinking about the playoffs. There has to be some veteran leadership, a bunch of 23 year old can't put a winning record together.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I am not opposed to scrapping the "rebuild with youth" direction we seem to be leaning, but why trade Rasheed for a pair of guys who are just as old (or older) and not good enough to make the team much better?

Dampier's playing out of his mind, but the odds of a suddenly productive 29 year old being able to continue to produce at a high level seems slim. Erick's always been a decent-to-good player, but Golden State's looking to move him (if they are) because he's at his absolute high point in terms of value.

If we're going to retool, rather than rebuild, we should keep Rasheed and look to move Damon and Dale for longer contracts that have better players attached.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

If Golden state is looking to make a move for Kobe, then they need to clear a roster spot for him. Which means either Jason Richardson or Mike Dunleavy would need to be moved. IMO Dunleavy would be the priimary target as at this point Richardson is too valuable to the Warriors and his game would mesh with Kobe's better.

I think GS would very simply be in Clear cap mode, whioch adding A player like Dunleavy would help as well.

I think if a 1st rnd pick were included from GS, then it would make more sense, as I think they are in the ENtice Portland to bite mode, rather than Portland being in the Entice GS mode.

BTW dKap what I meant was "I think" as in "Im not sure but I think, NVE is a decent defender" Honestly I couldn't remember.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

any way we can spin a deal with GS and Atlanta

we get Dampier and Terry

Atlanta gets Davis and ?

GS maybe gets SAR or Ratliff

just throwing out names... What woudl it take to get rid of Terry from Atlanta and Dampier from GS?

we keep Sheed and Zach somehow...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Dampier's playing out of his mind, but the odds of a suddenly productive 29 year old being able to continue to produce at a high level seems slim. Erick's always been a decent-to-good player, but Golden State's looking to move him (if they are) because he's at his absolute high point in terms of value.


I'm not convinced that the Blazers should go in this direction, mostly just mulling over the possibilities... but I think that GS would have other reasons for moving Damp for Sheed in this hypothetical then just because Erick's at a high point in value. Their backup 5 Foyal has been injured for much of this season, but IMO anyways, he's a solid player too. Their problem with having those two is that both are center sized but don't compliment each other very well. He'll be a FA too at the end of this season, so they are at the crossroads with both. I would be surprised if both are retained by the W's past this season. 

Their other motivation as I noted before would be cutting ties to Nick's contract for the purposes of clearing usable FA space for this next offseason.

But whether or not Dampier's play over the last year+ would be able to continue? Slipping my GM hat on, I'd want my doctors to give his knees a good checking out, as that would be my biggest concern. IMO his body and game have been built up by legit work, so I'd presume that there wouldn't be much of an issue there... too bad that Sabas didn't give Portland more of a heads up as to his retirement from the NBA so that the Blazers could have possibly swapped his expiring dollars for Damp (which was a rumored possibility that didn't happen because of the short window of opprotunity). A big man rotation of Damp, Sheed, and Zach would have been nice...

STOMP


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> but why trade Rasheed for a pair of guys who are just as old (or older) and not good enough to make the team much better?


In general, I would agree with that notion. However, I think there are a number of factors that need to be looked at closer here:

1) As much as I like Sheed, I think he would be better off with a change of scenery. Relationships eventually get strained to the point where they simply cannot be salvaged, no matter how bad we want them to be.

2) Dampier and Van Exel fill by far our two biggest needs -- point guard and center. That has to count for more than just the talent on paper. We're a tremendously unbalanced team, having gone most of the season with 3 PF's and 2 PG's in the starting lineup. Bringing in areas of specific need will go a long ways toward righting the ship.

3) I'm not convinced Dampier and Van Exel are a trade down in talent. They might not be the most high profile of names, but they're both very competent players.



> Dampier's playing out of his mind, but the odds of a suddenly productive 29 year old being able to continue to produce at a high level seems slim.


Well, that's where I disagree in terms of point of view. You think Dampier is playing out of his mind and cannot keep it up. I think he's playing at the level he's been capable all along. As STOMP mentioned, he's put in the extra work the past few offseasons and is finally healthy. The guy is a physical specimen. If he stays healthy, I see no reason he can't play at this level for another 5+ years.

Dan


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

On interesting thing about Dampiers numbers. Over the years he has averaged arround 6rebounds a game, but in only about 22mpg. This season he is getting I believe 32 minutes a game and averaging 11 rpg.

The only other year he averaged the 32 mpg he also pulled in 8.7rpg.

I think a lot of his success this season can be attributed to PT.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I think a lot of his success this season can be attributed to PT.


Which in turn can be attributed to health.

Dan


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> Which in turn can be attributed to health.
> 
> Dan


Actually last season he started all 82 games, and only played 24mpg. In 2001/2002 he played in 73 games starting 46. He averaged 23.8mpg.

The 2 seasons prior he did have knee issues, and there is a possibility that his limited play is due to trying to protect him from injury.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Van is a pure killer when the game is on the line. I've seen him kill us with three after three after three in the 4th quarter. Unlike Sheed he doesn't disappear when the games on the line. He steps up. 

Away from that he's much taller than Damon and a you're not just going to shoot over him. 

Guys this is the PG we've needed. Sure he's a little older but on the right team he's explosive. Dallas he's a stud, knew he didn't want to be in GS, who does? In Portland along with Zach, DA, Miles and Dampier you've got an inside outside game from hell. 


Think about it Zach in the paint and DA and Van attacking the rim and shooting the three from outside. Doubleing Zach will get you killed with Van hanging around the key. 

At the end of this year Sheed is going to leave. The college draft really doesn't have that much in it unless you like Duhon and maybe Reddick will come out. We wont get Tmac and we really need a PG in the worst way. Van could really help us for the next few years. 

The only problem I see with this is that Damon will get pissed and Q will get less minutes. 

Not sure I like Q getting less minutes, he needs to build confidence for the seasons to come.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

Personally I like the balance, athleticism and chemistry of the present lineup.

Stoudamire
Anderson
Miles
Randolph
Wallace

...It is balanced with inside outside play and a versatile post tandem. Four guys capable of bring the ball up the floor and most importantly this lineup is entertaining (the most entertaining lineup in quite a while).

I personally would rather the Blazers not tinker with that at the moment.

------

To think that the Blazers are now contemplating trading their ace bargaining chip for a player (Dampier) they could have had in the summer for far less.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Van is a pure killer when the game is on the line. I've seen him kill us with three after three after three in the 4th quarter. Unlike Sheed he doesn't disappear when the games on the line. He steps up.


I think Sheed has won quite a few games for us.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

How many times have you heard any sports announcer or writer say that Van is missing in the second half? Now ask the same question about Sheed?

Anyway off the Sheed issue Blazerfan024, Damon gives up as many points as he scores with his lack of size and defensive presence. Damon has to work twice as hard offensively as most PG's cause he's got no defense to fall back on.

Q may not be the best PG right now while learning but do ya see how hard it is for the other PG's to see over him on defense? Q's size alone makes the other PG's work hard just to get a look at where they need to be. If Q can pick this PG job up in the next few months I say forget the Van trade but sooner or later someones going to realize that Damon costs the Blazers as many baskets as he makes.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

I am torn on a trade idea like this.

I really want a superstar on the team.

I want Nash to explore obtaining T-Mac. But, if he finds the possibility very unlikely (which it probably is), this trade has some pluses.

Short of T-Mac, the hunt for a superstar requires high draft picks and gambling on the lottery. It will takes years even if we "win" the lottery in the right year. Maybe shooting for a solid playoff team now is a better alternative.

As players I prefer Nick and Dampier to SAR and Ratliff. I think they fit better on the Blazers. But the principals of those two deals are very close and the details of either possible deal could tip it either way.

The way this trade would make sense is if it signaled a committment from Allen to spend enough money to keep the team competitive and maintain a team salary in excess of $60mil. Since this may be the last year of the luxury tax, that may be an option.

If that is in place, that opens the door for the Blazers to let Wes Person walk so as to reap the benefit of his $7mil coming of the lux tax bill, saving the team $14mil this year.

But, it allows the GM to work on trades of Damon and Dale for more talented players on longer deals. Both have contracts expiring at the end of next season, and would be very valuable in deals next year.

This year:
PG: Nick, Damon
SG: DA, Person, Woods
SF: Miles, Patterson, Woods
PF: Zach, Dale
C: Dampier, Stephania

is a more balanced roster. This summer, plug a hole with the MLE if any quality FA's drop through the cracks. Try to trade Damon and or Dale as ending contracts for a star player on a long deal. Like? Raef LaFrentz, Jamal Crawford (if extended) Michael Finley, Antwan Jamison, Rip Hamilton, Eddie Jones, Brian Grant, Tim Thomas, Wally World, Kenyon Martin (if extended), Allan Houston, Shawn Marion, Mike Bibby, Rasho Nesterovic, Jalen Rose, and possibly others as their value declines due to injury or poor play.

those are just the fairly staight up deals. Multi-player trades with and overpaid role player and a bargain priced player coming back would work too.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> How many times have you heard any sports announcer or writer say that Van is missing in the second half? Now ask the same question about Sheed?


When was the last time NVE was the best player on his team?

Has he ever been? I guess when he was on that dog of a Denver team he was by default (you know, the one where he organized a boycott of practice), or maybe early in his days with the Lakers.

NVE has hit some big shots, but whenever he's been a position to HAVE to do something for his team (because he was the best player, like Rasheed has had the burden of in Portland for like five years) he's been on such mediocre-to-lousy teams it doesn't matter whether he succeeded or failed.

When he was on a good team (Dallas) he occasionally came up big, but if he didn't then Nash, Nowitzki or Finley were there to bail the team out.

Ed O.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I really hope we don't give up on Person. He's been the kind of shooter that the blazers have been looking for for so long. Since he's been here, his shooting percentage has been up and he looks like a solid contrubutor off the bench. I hope we keep him.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> One of the latest rumors to hits the media was from the Washington Post, and he thinks Jason Quick will report it tomorrow.
> 
> Portland trades Sheed to GS
> ...


Well, the Blazers are going to do something between now and when the sun sets next Wednesday, that much is certain. And from their track-record of signing "journeymen" players this off-season/pre-season, I'd say that "it" won't be a FA signing, except for maybe a 10-day contract. I also have no doubt that the Blazers and the Warriors are indeed talking, based on Quick saying that he got his info from someone in the Cavaliers' front office (outside normal channels).

Talent-wise and contract-wise, I'd say the Blazers should pull the trigger on this deal. BUT, as is, it's going to create conflict at both PG and Center positions. Neither Damon nor NVE will take coming off the bench well at all. And I don't know about Dampier, but DD is already grumbling about having to come off the bench when Sheed starts there. He'd go ballistic if asked to give the spot up to Dampier.

So something IS gonna happen, but I hope this deal - as stated - isn't it. At the very least, this deal would have to be expanded to include a way to move Damon or to send NVE somewhere else (three-way) in exchange for someone more amiable to coming off the bench. And that doesn't even begin to address the possible conflict between DD and Dampier over the starting Center spot.

Now, if you combine this with Quick's rumor about Toronto being interested in DD... I bet they'd also be interested in Damon, too...

PBF


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Actually last season he started all 82 games, and only played 24mpg. In 2001/2002 he played in 73 games starting 46. He averaged 23.8mpg.


Well, that may or may not tell the whole story. Someone who watches more GS games would know better than I. There's no reason that playing all the games is a better indicator of health than is low minutes. Sabonis played a lot of games with limited minutes to maintain health, as is Zydrunas these days.

There's often a difference between injury and health concerns.

Dan


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Yeah Ed, saw Fin and Nash bail him out when he killed us last year in the deciding game of the playoffs. How many threes did you see him make right over Damon? 

Van has come up huge so many times it's not even funny. 

Talking about his Denver days is lame, who did he have on his team? No one! Even then he beat us in Denver how many times?




You can say you're terrified of losing Sheed Ed and we all know that's true for you, but to say that Van comes up with a big shot now and then doesn't cut it.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> 
> Yeah Ed, saw Fin and Nash bail him out when he killed us last year in the deciding game of the playoffs. How many threes did you see him make right over Damon?


If you're basing your opinion of NVE on one game against the Blazers, or even on his career against the Blazers, then I can see why your opinion of NVE is so twisted.



> You can say you're terrified of losing Sheed Ed and we all know that's true for you, but to say that Van comes up with a big shot now and then doesn't cut it.


This coming from a man who says to ignore the Nuggets because they had lousy players... McDyess, LaFrentz, Posey are all pretty darn decent players, and if NVE was as good (or, rather as clutch) as you say he is/was, I'd expect him to have led his team to a better series of seasons than he did.

This has nothing to do with me not wanting to move Rasheed at any cost, because I'm perfectly happy to trade him if we get a good deal. I think that a 32 year old, chronically injured malcontent like NVE and a surging 29 year old with a long injury history is nothing approaching fair value, and I'd rather keep him than take them back.

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

It won't be Sheed to GS for NVE+Dampier. The salaries don't match up. More players and/or teams will have to be involved.

PBF


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed, who do ya think we are going to get for Sheed? He's not the highest scorer on our team, he is a sub 20 point player a game guy who goes weeks not scoring more than 9 points a game. He's been labled with huge attitude problems and he's pushing 30. 


On top of that his agent thinks he should get 10 to 12 mill a year! Are you flipping kidding me? 


I'd love to hear who you think is an equal trade for Sheed?


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ProudBFan</b>!
> It won't be Sheed to GS for NVE+Dampier. The salaries don't match up. More players and/or teams will have to be involved.
> 
> PBF


The salaries do match up.

Rasheed = $17.0 million
NVE =$10.9 million
Dampier = $7.8 million

Portland sends out $17 million, meaning they can take back as much as $19.6 million using the Assigned Player Exception (the 115% + $100,000 rule). They take back $18.7 million.

Golden State sends out $18.7 million, meaning they can take back as much as $21.6 million using the Assigned Player Exception. They take back $17 million.

I'm still not convinced that this is the best possible trade for Rasheed, but it's a lot better than others that have been rumored.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Ed, who do ya think we are going to get for Sheed? He's not the highest scorer on our team, he is a sub 20 point player a game guy who goes weeks not scoring more than 9 points a game. He's been labled with huge attitude problems and he's pushing 30.


Please name a time where he's gone "weeks" without scoring more than 9 points in a game. Except for the off-season, I think you'd be hard to do so.



> On top of that his agent thinks he should get 10 to 12 mill a year! Are you flipping kidding me?


The reports are that Rasheed (and/or his agent) want a deal in the $10m to $12m range. That's not an unreasonable initial position to take at al, even if he can't ultimately get that much.



> I'd love to hear who you think is an equal trade for Sheed?


Something better than NVE and Dampier, that's for sure. If you really have no idea of the level of value I think Rasheed should receive then I'm sorry because I don't have time to restate my position (which I've articulated often since the summer).

Ed O.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> On second thought, if Rice reported it, it ain't hap'nin. :upset:


I see this comment about every rumor no matter who what the source is. I remember Mike Rice talking about the possibility of us trading for Damon and Pippen, and both happened.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed, I know he went several games this year not scoring more than 9 points a game. It was in the regular season. 


Sheed is not going to get massive value anymore, he's not a go to guy so why pay go to guy money for him? He's admitted he doesn't want to be the man, so why do you think we should get "the man" in return for him? 

This is Sheeds contract year, if he wasn't on your team would you pay a second or third option player with an attitude like his 10 or 12 mill to come here? How about 8 mill for that matter? Sheed should be playing out of his mind this year to guarantee the kind of money he wants, is he? No! Can he? You bet he can!!!!!! In between can he and does he is the real deciding factor with Sheed and that's desire which he does not have every game. 

Three years ago Sheed was in the same breath with CWebb, Duncan and KG now he's on a Keith Van Horn, SAR level. His stock has plummeted. There is no way around that!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Ed, who do ya think we are going to get for Sheed? He's not the highest scorer on our team, he is a sub 20 point player a game guy who goes weeks not scoring more than 9 points a game. He's been labled with huge attitude problems and he's pushing 30.


considering he's scored under 10 points *a total of 4 times* this season, (5 if you cound pre-season) this is a silly, and somewhat foolish comment to make.

I can't find last years game-by-game stats, (and I think he had a couple games where he was back to back sub-par games) but saying he "goes weeks not scoring more than 9 points a game" is a silly stance to take.

here are the 4 regular season games.

http://www.nba.com/games/20031105/MEMPOR/boxscore.html?nav=page
http://www.nba.com/games/20031125/WASPOR/boxscore.html?nav=page
http://www.nba.com/games/20031223/DALPOR/boxscore.html?nav=page
http://www.nba.com/games/20040108/PORMIN/boxscore.html?nav=page

Nove 5, Nov 25, Dec 23rd and Jan 8th.

Not exactly all the time, eh?

Maybe he doesn't score as high as we'd like, (altho he's been pretty consistent this year) he's not dropping 9 point games left and right.



> On top of that his agent thinks he should get 10 to 12 mill a year! Are you flipping kidding me?


that might just be him playing hard-ball more than what he thinks he wants to get.

he ain't getting it, even from the Blazers, thats for sure.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Ed, I know he went several games this year not scoring more than 9 points a game. It was in the regular season.


Even ASSUMING it was true, how does that equal going "weeks" without scoring more than 9? What kinda crazy planet is that logic from?

For the record, Rasheed has had *four* regular season games this year where he's scored 9 or fewer. He's had no successive games where he's done so. As far as I can tell, the 12 day stretch earlier this month was the longest stretch he didn't score more than 9 points, and he only played in 1 game in that time.



> Three years ago Sheed was in the same breath with CWebb, Duncan and KG now he's on a Keith Van Horn, SAR level. His stock has plummeted. There is no way around that!


SAR and KVH have about as much in common as Stephon Marbury and Damon Stoudamire, first of all.

Second of all, I don't think that anyone every seriously thought that Wallace was at the same value level as Webber, Duncan or KG. I doubt he's ever been close to Duncan or Webber, and the only time he was worth more than KG was on draft day.

In any event, the mere fact that he's not worth Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett doesn't mean he's only worth NVE and Dampier.

Ed O.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

That's why I thought that Van was a fair trade for him! Dampier in my eyes is just a bonus if it pans out.


In the WCF's when we lost to the Lakers in the seventh game was Sheed not on the same level as KG and CWebb? Come on man he was the franchise player and many thought the most undefendable PF in the league! How can you say he wasn't on their level? He most surely was!


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Hmm, we'd be getting a decent center who can score a little and play good defense. It would open up more playing time for Miles and Patterson at SF, Woods could be the backup SG instead of PG, and hopefully Van Exel would become the starting PG.

It would be a quick fix to get some solid veteran guys while we are in our rebuilding period. That's the way I see it.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

NICK VAN EXEL
TEAM G GS MPG FGM-A FG% 3PM-A 3P% FTM-A FT% OFF DEF TOT APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG 

GSW 30 27 34.1 155-394 .393 38-119 .319 55-79 .696 .40 2.20 2.70 5.9 .53 .03 2.17 1.30 13. 

DAMON STOUDAMIRE
TEAM G GS MPG FGM-A FG% 3PM-A 3P% FTM-A FT% OFF DEF TOT APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG 

POR 43 43 37.4 202-497 .406 70-196 .357 66-73 .904 .60 2.70 3.30 5.7 1.16 .14 2.09 2.10 12.6


Well this is this seasons stats I really dont see a huge difference except better shooting from Damon and Van Exel had better D. Gives me no reason we should ship sheed for to 2 Older Guys.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Ed is 100% correct here. 

Sheed for Van Exel and Dampier is NOT a good trade for POR at all. Hey, I would like Sheed to go too, but not for this package. Where is the benefit to POR here? Van Exel is 32, Dampier is 29. Dampier is having a great year, but the has been a relative dissapointment up until now, & Van Exel is a decent player who happens to have some bad knees and is 32! This trade does NOTHING for the future of POR, and it doesn't help our cap space in 05, as both of these guys would be IDIOTS to not excercise their player option. Niether one of them is going to get big $$ on the open market, not at their age or ability at this point. Zach is 22, Qyntel is what 21? Miles 22, Outlaw 18? THESE are PART of the future of POR, we have TWO 1st rounders, again young players to add to the current youthful mix, by the time these guys are ready to make another title run Van Exel and Dampier will be LONG gone. Sheed is worth more than this.... 

Now, if GS threw in their 1st rounder and\or Pietrus and\or Dunleavy (unlikely IMO) then it would be a little more paltable. But as is? No flipping way!

Our team would most likely be WORSE with the addition of these two guys, certainly not any better, now or in the future, so what is the point? Just itching to get Sheed out of town, so you'll accept any half-assed deal? Is that where we are now? No thanks, I dislike Sheed, and I want him to go, but I'd rather RISK letting him walk than trade him for a less than stellar return package.

Oh and I would LOVE to see the fireworks b\t Damon and Nick when one of them has to sit or come offf the bench. :uhoh: Damon pouts BIG TIME when he isnt playing and NIck just shuts it down. And I am sure that Dale will just LOVE being a bench player and will surely give us 100% effort coming off the bench. Yeah....right.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Our team would most likely be WORSE with the addition of these two guys, certainly not any better


That's a MAJOR point of disagreement right there.

Dan


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

From Fridays SF Chronicle via SFGate.com 



> _St. Jean and Warriors President Robert Rowell are believed to have met with Blazers GM John Nash on Saturday, but the nature of their discussion is not known.
> 
> Dutt said "there is no question'' that the Blazers have talked trade with the Warriors, which is standard procedure around the league at this point in the season.
> 
> _


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Here's something of an update from ESPN Insider (this morning): a source told Insider that the two clubs have been talking and that the NVE + Dampier offer for Rasheed is the best GS has made.

The source, though, said that nothing will happen until closer to the deadline because, "The offers keep getting sweeter for Rasheed..."

With Wallace's solid play lately, it can't do anything but strengthen Portland's position in any trade talks.

Chad Ford, by the way, thinks the deal makes some sense for Portland. 

He also says that the Blazers are eager to deal Davis, but the problem has been getting a big man in return .Dampier would, in his estimation, relieve that somehow, although whether we trade Wallace for a big guy and Davis for a small guy or vice versa, we'd still be down a big guy, and with Rasheed's long-standing ability to play heavy minutes (compared to Dampier) it seems to me that the Blazers should ALREADY have Davis out there for the highest bidder, and if we get a good enough piece keeping Rasheed might make more sense.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Yes, I think maybe ESPN Insider and Chad Ford read the same article in the SF Chronicle via SFGate.com that I posted above, and reiterated it for their own glory.


----------



## D-Up (Jan 26, 2004)

*Thanks for the update Ed*



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> The source, though, said that nothing will happen until closer to the deadline because, "The offers keep getting sweeter for Rasheed..."


I hope so. Almost all of the rumor offers for Wallace so far have been terrible for Portland. Except for the rumors with Detroit, I would rather let Wallace walk than to accept any of those offers.

This rumor deal with Golden States, as it is, is not enough for Wallace. Golden States would have to add their 1st pick, or at the least, trade their 1st pick with the lower of Portland two 1st round picks.



> With Wallace's solid play lately, it can't do anything but strengthen Portland's position in any trade talks.


I'll pull for Wallace to pull down the 20 and 10 games instead of Randolph now.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I posted this on the first page:



> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> not bad. not great. I'd like someone with more upside than either Damp or NVE, but it's decent value. seems to fit with cap space plans.


Ed, Kmurph and others made me change my mind/come to my senses. 

We trade one proven winning big man who plays 40 mpg for two older guys that only marginally improve our current talent level and do nothing for us when our window opens in 2-3 years (as Woods/Outlaw/Randolph/picks mature). Neither guy is likely to give us more than 25 mpg, and both are going to cause chemistry problems. 

If this is the best deal, let's keep Sheed and try to re-sign him.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> Yes, I think maybe ESPN Insider and Chad Ford read the same article in the SF Chronicle via SFGate.com that I posted above, and reiterated it for their own glory.


I think you're right... at least partly. Insider composes its stories at least partly by reports from other papers... it attributes the stories at the bottom.

The part about the source telling Insider about the offers for Rasheed getting better might be bogus, but wanted to make sure people knew what was being reported.

Ed O.


----------



## blazerbraindamage (May 5, 2003)

> *Hap* wrote:
> 
> I actually like this trade.
> 
> ...


If Van Exel is healthy then it's almost a fair trade but I'd still feel like asking them for a pick.If NVE isn't 100% healthy then they would unquestionably owe us a pick,imo.

If this goes down then all that remains is to dump Damon !!!!


----------



## bballer27 (Aug 21, 2003)

this would be a good trade


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

I almost don't want to post this because it's incomplete, but as I was driving around last night, my ears perked up when they heard Dampier's name mentioned on the radio. The post-game host for the Clippers' game was apparently discussing some report out of the Bay Area that Dampier planned on opting out this summer, no matter who he ended up the season with. He might have mentioned more details about the report, but I missed them. All I heard was "he's planning on opting out."

He has a player option for $8.1 million in 2004-05. If this report is true, then he apparently believes that someone (Denver? Utah?) would offer him more than that.

I've tried searching the net for a report like this, and have come up with nothing. So it could all be nothing. But if it's true, then IMO it's one more reason to say no to this trade. Not that I dislike Dampier, but I am against the Blazers having to pay him $10 million to keep him around.


----------



## D-Up (Jan 26, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> Not that I dislike Dampier, but I am against the Blazers having to pay him $10 million to keep him around.


Yup. I wouldn't want to commit anywhere near 10mil for Dampier long term.

Might Dampier be thinking long term contract instead of big money short term? Like he would prefer a 6 yr. worth 48 millions over a contract of 3 yr. worth 30 millions? Either way, I don't think I would give him that much. I'm not convinced his good play will last that long.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

If he plans on opting out, then I agree the trade is not enticing enough. I think he _could_ be worth a long term deal at around $10-12M per on average, but he needs at least one more consistent year to prove he can maintain for the duration.

Dan


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> If he plans on opting out, then I agree the trade is not enticing enough. I think he _could_ be worth a long term deal at around $10-12M per on average, but he needs at least one more consistent year to prove he can maintain for the duration.


Dale Davis 99-00 -- Erick Dampier '03-04

Age (opening day): 30 -- 29

Rebounds: 9.9 -- 11.5

PPG: 10.0 -- 11.9

FG%: 50.2 -- 51.1

Minutes per Game: 28.7 -- 32.0

Blocks per Game: 1.27 -- 1.62

Dampier's numbers are a bit better than Dale's were, but I think almost everyone expects Erick's numbers to come to earth a little bit in the second half of the season.

Dale Davis has been a good player, but his contract has been a bit of an albatross the last year or two, and signing Erick to a similar deal (especially considering the change in league-wide, and Blazers-specific, spending habits) would be a huge mistake.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

most of us have balked at even Sheed making $10-12 mil next year after being signed...

having Dampier making that kind of money would make me hurl :vomit:

I do not think Dampier can be considered to be the same talent level Sheed is... thus money level

he had better take the $ he has and not opt out IMHO...


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Ed, one key difference in that comparison: At this point, Dampier is on an upward trend. Davis was at his high point then, and has steadily declined since. Whether or not Dampier will do the same is anyone's guess. Had Davis maintained that level of play, his contract would not have been all that out of line. Even last year's level of play would be reasonable.

Dan


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Ed, one key difference in that comparison: At this point, Dampier is on an upward trend. Davis was at his high point then, and has steadily declined since. Whether or not Dampier will do the same is anyone's guess. Had Davis maintained that level of play, his contract would not have been all that out of line. Even last year's level of play would be reasonable.


You're right, but I'm not sure that Dampier's trending upwards or on a blip. 

About Davis: I think his age has something to do with it, and I think that it's reasonable to think that Dampier would hit a similar "wall" either at the same time or even earlier because of his injury history.

Ed O.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

OK here's a trade idea that works on realgm and gets rid of Damon also. 

Portland trades rasheed and damon

Golden State trades 
van exel
dampier
cliff robinson
evan eshmyer
popeye jones
first round draft pick


Sure, we don't want robinson, eshmyer or jones but i think we'd have to take them to get GS to go for this trade. We put the ones we don't want on injured reserve (can you do that with players you just traded for?) or buy out their contracts, We trade Dale Davis for an expiring contract. We would have a very good center for 4-5 years and with the three draft picks we would have we could draft a couple of point guards.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> "Blazers general manager John Nash scoffed Friday at reports that Portland and Golden State are discussing a deal involving center Erick Dampier and guard Nick Van Exel and Blazers forward Rasheed Wallace. "It's the flavor of the week," Nash said. "That's the full extent of it." Oregonian


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I would never expect a poker player to sit down at the table and tell me straight.. "I have 3 aces in my hand"... either

but I understand your post. Nash does not want to reveal his dealings or talks anymore. It appears he learned that lesson from eariler in the year.



NY Post 



> _Should the Warriors choose to relieve the Blazers of Stoudamire — which would mean enlarging the deal — Portland almost definitely would modify its thinking. One way or the other, it appears Dampier (Son of Nate Thurmond) will be traded before Feb. 19, his 24 double-doubles in 45 games aside, regardless of whether he makes the All-Star team. _


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

We will not make this trade. Why trade Sheed right now when the team is meshning


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Lets try a new angle between us



Portland trades: SF Qyntel Woods (4.6 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 1.0 apg in 13.6 minutes) 
C Dale Davis (5.8 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.5 apg in 28.5 minutes) 
PG Damon Stoudamire (12.4 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 5.8 apg in 37.4 minutes) 
Portland receives: PG Nick Van Exel (13.4 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 5.9 apg in 34.1 minutes) 
C Erick Dampier (11.9 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 0.7 apg in 32.0 minutes) 
SF Mike Dunleavy (12.4 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 2.8 apg in 31.7 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: +14.9 ppg, +7.7 rpg, and +1.1 apg. 

Golden State trades: PG Nick Van Exel (13.4 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 5.9 apg in 34.1 minutes) 
C Erick Dampier (11.9 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 0.7 apg in 32.0 minutes) 
SF Mike Dunleavy (12.4 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 2.8 apg in 31.7 minutes) 
Golden State receives: SF Qyntel Woods (4.6 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 1.0 apg in 39 games) 
C Dale Davis (5.8 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.5 apg in 42 games) 
PG Damon Stoudamire (12.4 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 5.8 apg in 44 games) 
Change in team outlook: -14.9 ppg, -7.7 rpg, and -1.1 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED



Its a swap contract length wise for GS... Damon and Dale 2 years to 2 years with NVE and Erick...

we can also send cash and Memphis pick this year

Damon>NVE this year anyways IMHO
Dampier>Davis
Dunleavy>Woods

Thoughts?


As an alternative.... Woods and Dunleavey can be left out and it still works


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I didn't know Dampier is the son of Nate Thurmond. Pretty cool. You'd think that would make him a Bay Area favorite. Get Brent, Jon, Drew, and Scooter in town and they'd be good to go!

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> I didn't know Dampier is the son of Nate Thurmond. Pretty cool. You'd think that would make him a Bay Area favorite.  Get Brent, Jon, Drew, and Scooter in town and they'd be good to go!
> 
> Dan


he's not the son of Nate Thurmond.



> Parents are Kenneth and Mary Dampier


I think it's a saying..like the "next coming of"..sorta thing. Or just vescay trying to be sarcastic.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Sidenote... If you're ever in SF looking for some quality BBQ... try out Big Nates on Folsom. You'll likely see one guy there who stands out a bit  It's as sure a way to meet one of the 50 greatest that I know of. 

STOMP


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Oh, I see. Can't imagine why "it appears Dampier (Son of Nate Thurmond)" threw me off...

"Second Coming of Nate Thurmond" might have actually made some sense. "Son of Nate Thurmond" is just plain stupid. Then again, we already know Vescey doesn't have a shred of journalistic inkling.

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Oh, I see. Can't imagine why "it appears Dampier (Son of Nate Thurmond)" threw me off...
> 
> "Second Coming of Nate Thurmond" might have actually made some sense. "Son of Nate Thurmond" is just plain stupid. Then again, we already know Vescey doesn't have a shred of journalistic inkling.
> ...


yep, threw me for a loop too..but than I thought of all those cheesy sci-fi movies.."son of swamp thing"...but granted, those generally WERE the son of whatever..


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

In my limited mind, if there is a GS rumor still... how about this ?

NVE for Damon straight up...

problem being, if NVE does retire, we owe him for three years not the 1 if he just opted out... 

*or better yet* add other players to it...

Damon and Davis and maybe Q for NVE and Dampier????

REASON:
NVE and Erick have 3 years potentially on the books. Yes, they can opt out this year.

Damon and Dale only have 2 years left.. expediating GS salary dump still by one year.. 
providing NVE and Erick do not opt out this year. I think the $ may keep them the full 3 years... meaning GS still saves $ by a whole year... a (2x) 3 years of contract = 6, down to (2x) 2 years = 4

if NVE and Dampier decide to then opt out from Portland.. Portland gets a year ahead on Dale and Damon's salary off the books... :whoknows:

Portland could conceivably get the Damon/Dale money off the books this year if NVE and Erick opt out in this trade scenario...
Nash could be exec of the year if he pulls this off...


Would GS do a NVE/Dampier for Damon/Dale swap???
Talent wise? $ wise I think they would


----------

