# Batum will wear number......



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

88

http://trailblazerscentercourt.blogspot.com/2008/06/next-great-88.html


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

guh, I hope not. wearing #'s above 55, imho, is lame.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

Dan said:


> guh, I hope not. wearing #'s above 55, imho, is lame.


ok. why?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

88... 96... 27...6

I could care less. The only # I care about is the # in the win column.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

His nickname should be Rocket 88!


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Why did I think there was a rule about what numbers you could wear? maybe there used to be?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Dan said:


> guh, I hope not. wearing #'s above 55, imho, is lame.


Rodman used 91, and that rocked.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

Some folks are just afraid of big numbers.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

DrewFix said:


> ok. why?



MM is right -- there used to be a rule that you had to wear numbers that a ref. could make between his (or her) two hands, so that 14 would work but not 16, etc. They dropped it awhile back (at least back as far as Rodman's playing days, presuming Minstrel's correct) and I'm not quite sure why. player pressure? ran out of numbers? anyone?


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> MM is right -- there used to be a rule that you had to wear numbers that a ref. could make between his (or her) two hands, so that 14 would work but not 16, etc. They dropped it awhile back (at least back as far as Rodman's playing days, presuming Minstrel's correct) and I'm not quite sure why. player pressure? ran out of numbers? anyone?


i remember that. i was wondering why dan thought numbers above 55 where lame. is the above the reason? the two handed number?


----------



## Baracuda (Jan 10, 2007)

Batum was born in 88.


----------



## Nate4Prez (Jun 3, 2007)

Crimson the Cat said:


> Damn you Minstrel. You found me out. I am Hermann Wilhelm Göring. Once we lost the war, and before I lost my life, my scientists preserved my brain. I now reside inside a jello filled aquarium (cherry flavored if you must know). I've since became a huge Blazer fan. Schroedelm, my assistant, hooked me up to a computer and through my brain pulses I'm able to communicate with my Blazer Brethren via the fantasical World Wide Web.


And this is your 88 0 post


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

DrewFix said:


> i remember that. i was wondering why dan thought numbers above 55 where lame. is the above the reason? the two handed number?


Well, if that was Dan's objection, then he should have said that numbers of the form 10*N+M, where at least one of {N,M} is between 6 and 9, inclusive, are lame.

barfo


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

DrewFix said:


> ok. why?


because it's a cry for attnetion, imho. iirc, Mikan had 99 as a #, and it was kind of an unwritten rule about having #'s that high (plus, there's the issue with the refs having to do extra hand gestures for uniform #'s above 55).


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

barfo said:


> Well, if that was Dan's objection, then he should have said that numbers of the form 10*N+M, where at least one of {N,M} is between 6 and 9, inclusive, are lame.
> 
> barfo


clearly!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> Well, if that was Dan's objection, then he should have said that numbers of the form 10*N+M, where at least one of {N,M} is between 6 and 9, inclusive, are lame.
> 
> barfo


Saying "above 55" kind of implies that.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Dan said:


> Saying "above 55" kind of implies that.


Not at all, because it ignores bad numbers such as 27, 49, etc. 

barfo


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

Dan said:


> because it's a cry for attnetion, imho. iirc, Mikan had 99 as a #, and it was kind of an unwritten rule about having #'s that high (plus, there's the issue with the refs having to do extra hand gestures for uniform #'s above 55).


oh boy.
why not just remove the names from the back of the jerseys and require all players to have the same haircut.
lol
i suppose in a certain light i can see your point. all though, if teams keep retiring numbers players will be forced to move on to triple digits. 
(in the yearrrrrr twooothousaaaaand)
what then?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> Not at all, because it ignores bad numbers such as 27, 49, etc.
> 
> barfo


the whole concept is to not have the 1st # be more the # of digits on one hand. The 2nd # can be 0-9.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

DrewFix said:


> oh boy.
> why not just remove the names from the back of the jerseys and require all players to have the same haircut.


Yep, that's even remotely the same line of thinking. Almost spot on to what my point was. We all need to conform to be the same.



> lol
> i suppose in a certain light i can see your point. all though, if teams keep retiring numbers players will be forced to move on to triple digits.
> (in the yearrrrrr twooothousaaaaand)
> what then?


quit retiring #'s then. Have it like Phoenix does, where they have a ring of honor instead.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

Dan said:


> Yep, that's even remotely the same line of thinking. Almost spot on to what my point was. We all need to conform to be the same.


maybe i was too flippant with my reply. i didn't think for a moment (what with the history of your posts on this board) that your oppinion was that extreme. i do find it amusing. so if any thing my reply was more in jest than calling you some sort of conformist square *******. 
anyway. 





Dan said:


> retiring #'s then. Have it like Phoenix does, where they have a ring of honor instead.


seems like the best idea.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

DrewFix said:


> maybe i was too flippant with my reply. i didn't think for a moment (what with the history of your posts on this board) that your oppinion was that extreme. i do find it amusing. so if any thing my reply was more in jest than calling you some sort of conformist square *******.
> anyway.
> 
> seems like the best idea.


no harm, no foul.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Dan said:


> the whole concept is to not have the 1st # be more the # of digits on one hand. The 2nd # can be 0-9.


Why? Does the refs other hand have 9 fingers? I don't get it.

barfo


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Nate4Prez said:


> And this is your 88 0 post


Ok. That's f'd up.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

With that number he better not drop a pass.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Rodman used 91, and that rocked.


Exactly.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

He'll be the first Blazer to wear a number higher than #55.

Other numbers never worn by Blazers:

18
37
39
46
47
49
51


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

23 is an important number to the Bavarian Illuminati. Now we know why Jordan got all those calls...


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Relax Dan, it's only until Webster's traded and Batum can get #8 back.


----------



## ChadWick (Jun 26, 2006)

It's pretty bad, I did it in about 5 minutes, its just to get an idea of what he will look like...


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

I'm sure this has been covered somewhere before, but how do you pronounce Batum's name? Bay-tum? Ba-toom? I just want to make sure I get it right. Guarantee you Mike Rice will find a way to maul it somehow!


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Nee-COL-a Bah-TOOOOOOOoooooooom!


----------



## HurraKane212 (Aug 2, 2007)

BlazerCaravan said:


> Nee-COL-a Bah-TOOOOOOOoooooooom!


I think we should edit a Ricola commercial as the soundbite every time he scores.

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE COHLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

koponen to batum!


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

88 is a lucky number in the Chinese culture, I believe.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Holy pooh bear!

The #'s for the Blazers getting the 1st pick in the draft in 07? 

5,9,14 and 13..

What is 5*13 + 14 +9!?!?!?

5X13= 65
65+14=79
79+9=88!


----------



## JAFO (Jul 2, 2006)

Darkwebs said:


> 88 is a lucky number in the Chinese culture, I believe.


Additionally, in moving from W. Europe and the "Bohemian Corporal" to E. Asia, the eighth letter of the alphabet "H" is pronounced etchi in Japanese and means sex. So double etchi can't be all that bad. Besides, aren't Frenchmen suppose to be famous for Love and Basketball ... or is that love of basketball?


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Dan were you on LOST?


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

I split out all the off topic postings about weed into a thread on the OT subform.

If you want to keep talking about that, go to that thread.

Thanks


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I think Dan's Opinion is a cry for attention in it's own right.

BTW the weird number rule is a college thing, no numbers using 6,7,8 or 9 in them. So 1,2,3,4,5,10, 11,12,13,14,15,20,21,22 etc... up to 55.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

it's from FIBA rules.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm still wanting to know why 49 is ok but 94 is not.

barfo


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

4-15
20-25
30-35
40-45
50-55

that's it. not 49 or 94.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

el_Diablo said:


> 4-15
> 20-25
> 30-35
> 40-45
> ...


Did you check that w/ Dan? He disagrees.

Also, what's with 4-15? Are 1, 2, 3 no good? 6-9 are ok? What about 0? 00?

barfo


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

I don't know why 0-3 are not allowed.. perhaps because the refs need to use 1, 2 and 3 for other purposes ? and nobody wants to be zero.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Breaking News:
Zach to change his number to 69 :lol::lol::lol:

(just kidding)


----------

