# Quick chat recap



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

In case any of you care

His comments in a nut shell

1/2 the brass wanted Morrison, the other 1/2 wanted Aldridge. Pritchard says in 3 years Aldridge will be light years better than any Blazer player.

Juan was almost traded to Detroit for Delfino and Evans. The Blazers said no at the last minute

Nate doesn't like using Juan because of his defensive liability

Raef will bring more to this team than Magloire will because of his shooting

Nate thinks Webster will be a star in a few years

The team is still 3-4 years away from competing for a championship

Thinks Joel will be one of the captains

Every NBA arena raves how good Roy is already

If Noah had been in this draft the Blazers would have had him rated #1

The Blazers want Miles to have microfracture surgery, but Miles wants a scope. He's getting a second opinion, but either way expect him out at least a month

They view Graham as more of a SG than a SF, and if he sticks it probably means Juan will be traded. Said he's like a Qintel woods with a brain, and more pollish

Aldridge is getting really close to coming back.

Sergio will end up in Anaheim 

Zach looks awesome, and has rededicated himself to the low post.



Some stuff we all new, some we didn't. Either way it's Blazer info from someone that has a little more access than we do.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Is Webster okay?


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> In case any of you care
> 
> His comments in a nut shell
> 
> ...


Seems that's a 75% or better way to get him off the team for good. Most don't come back.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Seems that's a 75% or better way to get him off the team for good. Most don't come back.


especially one who's as lazy as Darius.

re: the Reverand Graham looking ilke Woods..I noticed that too. The # and form and everything. Kinda freaky. But hopefully he has his brain screwed on tighter than Qyntel did. Shame, guy had oodles of talent, just no brain.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Samuel said:


> Is Webster okay?




All he knew was that Webster was getting or had just gotten an MRI, but didn't know anything beyond that. He was going to ask Nate at practice.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Juan was almost traded to Detroit for Delfino and Evans. The Blazers said no at the last minute


 :jawdrop: Why on earth would the Blazers reject that trade?


----------



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

mediocre man said:


> The team is still 3-4 years away from competing for a championship


Umm, how about we at least make the play-offs before we start "competing for a championship".

Of course, if we win the Oden lottery it could speed things up nicely, but 3 - 4 years is still too optimistic. Rarely do young teams taste success the first time the reach the post season. Even with Michael Jordan, it took the Bulls several years to figure out how to get past Detroit. With 29 other teams ahead of us, I think we're looking at 3 - 4 years just to make the play-offs, another year or two to make it past the first round and another year or two to make it to the finals and actually "compete for a championship". So, call it 5 - 8 years depending on how our young core develops and who we get in the 2007 draft. By then most of our young guys will be in their primes.

BNM


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Last night, when Graham was on the court, he usually guarded the 1 or 2, and Roy the 3. Graham was intense. He was solid and confident on defense, and he seemed to know exactly where to be on offense to get his mid-range shot off. I'm not sure I liken him to Qyntel. More like Kersey with a higher IQ and better handle, but slightly less hops? (I didn't get to see him on a break or oop). 

Regarding Zach, I think he only took a couple outside shots last night--everything else was in the post. I'm not sure I like that completely, because he has a nice outside shot. I would like to see 2:1 ratio of inside : outside. But, he certainly draws more fouls inside. He essentially sent the entire Clippers backup PF and center corps to the bench in foul trouble.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Boob-No-More said:


> Umm, how about we at least make the play-offs before we start "competing for a championship".
> 
> Of course, if we win the Oden lottery it could speed things up nicely, but 3 - 4 years is still too optimistic. Rarely do young teams taste success the first time the reach the post season. Even with Michael Jordan, it took the Bulls several years to figure out how to get past Detroit. With 29 other teams ahead of us, I think we're looking at 3 - 4 years just to make the play-offs, another year or two to make it past the first round and another year or two to make it to the finals and actually "compete for a championship". So, call it 5 - 8 years depending on how our young core develops and who we get in the 2007 draft. By then most of our young guys will be in their primes.






if you hit the right mix of players things can gel a lot quicker than that. it did for us once before. remember??? :cheers:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> In case any of you care


Hell, yeah. I care. Thanks for posting.



> His comments in a nut shell


And my comments on his comments.



> 1/2 the brass wanted Morrison, the other 1/2 wanted Aldridge. Pritchard says in 3 years Aldridge will be light years better than any Blazer player.


"Light years better"? Wow. I hope he's right. I'm very happy that we went with Aldridge, rather than Morrison. I wonder if we would have taken (or made a move for) Roy if we would have taken Morrison... those two guys don't seem like a very good fit on the same roster.



> Juan was almost traded to Detroit for Delfino and Evans. The Blazers said no at the last minute


I commented on this in the other thread, but this would have been a good move for Portland.



> Nate doesn't like using Juan because of his defensive liability


Good news. I don't care if it's because of his defensive inability or because of his lack of shooting or his ball-hoggedness... as long as Nate doesn't like using Juan, I'm just a bit happier.



> Raef will bring more to this team than Magloire will because of his shooting


Raef might bring more on a per-minute basis, but he's built of glass. Magloire will probably end up playing more minutes this year if neither is traded.



> Nate thinks Webster will be a star in a few years


Again: I hope so. I still don't see him having any more upside than Glen Rice... Rice was a star, but a limited one. I'd be ecstatic, actually, if Webster is as good as Rice. So much can go wrong, though...



> The team is still 3-4 years away from competing for a championship


Hah.



> Thinks Joel will be one of the captains


He was the sole captain for the team in the game in Seattle, I noticed. I think it's safe to say he'll be a captain.



> Every NBA arena raves how good Roy is already


Excellent. He's good.



> If Noah had been in this draft the Blazers would have had him rated #1


Ugh. If Portland uses a top 4 pick on Noah in the upcoming draft, I think I'm going to be very, very disappointed.



> The Blazers want Miles to have microfracture surgery, but Miles wants a scope. He's getting a second opinion, but either way expect him out at least a month


Hope he gets healthy soon.



> They view Graham as more of a SG than a SF, and if he sticks it probably means Juan will be traded. Said he's like a Qintel woods with a brain, and more pollish


The thought of Juan being traded makes me smile. 

Re: Woods. I'll believe it when I see it. Woods is only about a year and a half older than Graham, and Woods showed a lot of potential his first couple of years... Woods is also a couple of inches taller.



> Aldridge is getting really close to coming back.


That's exciting. Hope he's totally healthy when he comes back.



> Sergio will end up in Anaheim


I still don't understand why Portland brought him over this year... if he ends up in the NBDL, it will look even stranger.



> Zach looks awesome, and has rededicated himself to the low post.


Go Zach!

Ed O.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

> Sergio will end up in Anaheim


Nevermind...I guess you meant the 'D' league?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

That's interesting about Sergio. He sounds like a ball of talent, so hopefully it won't take him long to adjust.

But that's my question. Where does the NBDL fall in the spectrum of basketball? Is it closer to the NBA style of play, or sloppy street ball? Does the team plan on him being down there all year, or for a month or two while he works with one of our guys...

Probably a good move though. He'd sit on the bench otherwise.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> Umm, how about we at least make the play-offs before we start "competing for a championship".
> 
> Of course, if we win the Oden lottery it could speed things up nicely, but 3 - 4 years is still too optimistic. Rarely do young teams taste success the first time the reach the post season. Even with Michael Jordan, it took the Bulls several years to figure out how to get past Detroit. With 29 other teams ahead of us, I think we're looking at 3 - 4 years just to make the play-offs, another year or two to make it past the first round and another year or two to make it to the finals and actually "compete for a championship". So, call it 5 - 8 years depending on how our young core develops and who we get in the 2007 draft. By then most of our young guys will be in their primes.
> 
> BNM


I'm calling playoffs next season (2007-2008), if we don't have any major injuries to key players (Zach, Joel, Jack, Roy, Webster). The core for a decent team is there, by then they should be grown up enough to make a nice run. We're also presumably adding a great piece next offseason in the draft and maybe a MLE FA.

For example, This team is pretty plausible, and could contend for the playoffs in 2008:

Guards: Roy, Jack, Blake (vet min/fraction MLE), D Mason (MLE), Sergio

Forwards: Zach, Webster, Aldridge, Outlaw, Miles

C: Joel, Kurt Thomas (traded for Magloire), Raef

+ Oden/Durant/Noah/Young/Wright/etc...

A lot of things have to go right to ever contend for a championship, but the 8th seed of the playoffs is IMO attainable in the near future.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

-It will be nice to see Brandon Roy develop
-It will be nice to see Jarret Jack develop
-It will be nice to see the Blazer players recommit to the community, and the community altering its opinion of this team
-It will be nice to see Zach develop into a man capable of staying out of trouble and leading


----------



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

crowTrobot said:


> if you hit the right mix of players things can gel a lot quicker than that. it did for us once before. remember??? :cheers:


No, I don't. I'm not sure if you're referring to the early 1990s teams (technically, the last Blazers teams to "compete for a championship") or the 2000 team that was one dreadful 4th quarter away of making it to the NBA finals.

The 1990 team had five starters between 25 and 29 years of age (average age = 26.8 years). The same group made the 1992 finals (now with starters between 27 and 31, average age 28.8 years).

The 2000 team was a MUCH more veteran squad (Pippen, Steve Smith, Sabonis, Detlef Schremph, Greg Anthony all in their 30s with prior play-off experience) with five starters between the ages of 25 and 35 (average age = 30).

This year's opening night starting line-up will likely consist of players ranging from 19 - 27 years of age (average age = 23.3). Whoever they get in the 2007 draft will likely lower that average age even further. Their core of young talent won't be entering their prime for 5 - 8 years. They might "gel" before that, but until they make the play-offs repeatedly, they'll lack the experience to go all the way to the NBA finals and compete for a championship. Hopefully, they'll keep the group together and they'll all reach their potential at about the same time. Only two teams make it to the NBA finals each year. When you're the worst team in the league relying on a bunch of youngsters, competing for a champsionship is a long term goal, not something you realistically expect to happen in 3 - 4 years.

BNM


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> No, I don't. I'm not sure if you're referring to the early 1990s teams (technically, the last Blazers teams to "compete for a championship") or the 2000 team that was one dreadful 4th quarter away of making it to the NBA finals.
> 
> The 1990 team had five starters between 25 and 29 years of age (average age = 26.8 years). The same group made the 1992 finals (now with starters between 27 and 31, average age 28.8 years).
> 
> ...


Although it was before my time, I think he was actually talking about the '77 championship team, which if I'm not mistaken won the title in the franchise's first ever playoffs appearance.

I don't the current team is likely to be helped out by an ABA dispersal draft, though...

Stepping Razor


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Stepping Razor said:


> Although it was before my time, I think he was actually talking about the '77 championship team, which if I'm not mistaken won the title in the franchise's first ever playoffs appearance.
> 
> I don't the current team is likely to be helped out by an ABA dispersal draft, though...
> 
> Stepping Razor


Also, the main players on that team were all under the age of 25.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Also, the main players on that team were all under the age of 25.


Add a Walton-like presence in Greg Oden, and I think that the team COULD compete for a title in 3-4 years. As much as I hope that Oden is a Blazer, AND that he's not hype, the odds of him being as good as advertised AND the Blazers getting him aren't very high, so the 3-4 year contender thing made me laugh.

Ed O.


----------



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

Stepping Razor said:


> Although it was before my time, I think he was actually talking about the '77 championship team, which if I'm not mistaken won the title in the franchise's first ever playoffs appearance.
> 
> I don't the current team is likely to be helped out by an ABA dispersal draft, though...
> 
> Stepping Razor


Yes, that was a young team, but back then all those guys went to college for four years and entered the league ready to contribute immediately. They didn't have anyone on that team that jumped from high school directly to the NBA. That was an era when most top rookies came into the league ready to play (like Brandon Roy this year). After four years at UCLA, Bill Walton was much more NBA ready than anybody on the Blazers current roster (and 1977 was his third year). Jack and Roy are the only Blazers projected starters with significant college experience. Martell has zero years of college ball, Joel and Zach, one year each. It will definitely take these guys longer to reach their peak than that 1977 team.

BNM


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Again: I hope so. I still don't see him having any more upside than Glen Rice... Rice was a star, but a limited one.


How was Rice a limited star? Sure, he couldn't do beathtaking dunks, and he was occasionally injured. But, in the last 15 years of NBA ball, he was probably one of the top 5 (IMO, top 3) pure shooters in the league. And if you look at his averages through his career, I think you'll see why I believe that he was a great asset to have on any team he was on (NY teams exlcuded ):





Year Ag Tm Lg G MP FG FGA 3P 3PA FT FTA ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TO PF PTS
+---------------+----+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---+---+---+---+----+
1990 22 MIA NBA 77 30.0 6.1 13.9 0.2 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.3 3.3 4.6 1.8 0.9 0.4 1.5 2.6 13.6
1991 23 MIA NBA 77 34.4 7.1 15.5 0.9 2.4 2.2 2.7 1.1 3.8 4.9 2.5 1.3 0.3 2.2 2.8 17.4
1992 24 MIA NBA 79 38.1 8.5 18.1 2.0 5.0 3.4 4.0 1.1 3.9 5.0 2.3 1.1 0.4 1.8 2.2 22.3
1993 25 MIA NBA 82 37.6 7.1 16.1 1.8 4.7 3.0 3.6 1.1 4.0 5.2 2.2 1.1 0.3 1.9 2.5 19.0
1994 26 MIA NBA 81 37.0 8.2 17.5 1.6 4.3 3.1 3.5 0.9 4.4 5.4 2.3 1.4 0.4 1.6 2.3 21.1
1995 27 MIA NBA 82 36.8 8.1 17.1 2.3 5.5 3.8 4.5 1.2 3.4 4.6 2.3 1.4 0.2 1.9 2.5 22.3
1996 28 CHH NBA 79 39.8 7.7 16.4 2.2 5.1 4.0 4.8 1.1 3.7 4.8 2.9 1.2 0.2 2.1 2.7 21.6
1997 29 CHH NBA 79 42.6 9.1 19.2 2.6 5.6 5.9 6.8 0.8 3.2 4.0 2.0 0.9 0.3 2.2 2.4 26.8
1998 30 CHH NBA 82 40.2 7.7 16.9 1.6 3.7 5.2 6.1 1.1 3.2 4.3 2.2 0.9 0.3 2.2 2.4 22.3
1999 31 LAL NBA 27 36.5 6.3 14.7 2.0 5.0 2.9 3.3 0.3 3.3 3.7 2.6 0.6 0.2 1.7 2.5 17.5
2000 32 LAL NBA 80 31.6 5.3 12.3 1.1 2.9 4.3 5.0 0.7 3.4 4.1 2.2 0.6 0.2 1.4 2.2 15.9
2001 33 NYK NBA 75 29.5 4.4 10.0 1.1 2.8 2.1 2.4 0.8 3.3 4.1 1.2 0.5 0.2 1.3 2.4 12.0
2002 34 HOU NBA 20 30.3 3.3 8.4 0.9 3.2 1.2 1.5 0.3 2.1 2.4 1.6 0.6 0.2 1.2 1.7 8.6
2003 35 HOU NBA 62 24.7 3.2 7.4 1.6 4.1 1.0 1.3 0.5 2.0 2.5 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.9 1.6 9.0
2004 36 LAC NBA 18 14.6 1.2 4.2 0.3 1.6 0.9 0.9 0.5 1.8 2.3 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.7 1.2 3.7
+---------------+----+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---+---+---+---+----+
15 Seasons 1000 35.0 6.8 14.9 1.6 3.9 3.2 3.8 0.9 3.4 4.4 2.1 1.0 0.3 1.7 2.4 18.3
+---------------+----+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---+---+---+---+----+

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/ricegl01.html
 

If I'm reading into your comment too much, please let me know. I might be. Either way, I'd be curious as to what your thoughts are on him. Sorry if I'm taking the thread a bit off-topic.


----------



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

dudleysghost said:


> Also, the main players on that team were all under the age of 25.


Many of them (Luke, Walton, Lionel Hollins, Bobby Gross, Johnny Davis), but not all of them (Larry Steele, Dave Twardzik, Herm Gilliam).


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> the odds of him being as good as advertised aren't very high


With the hype thing, I think there have probably been 3 players in the last 15 years that have gotten as much publicity coming out out of high school: LeBron James, Kevin Garnett, and Shaquille O'Neal. Could they be wrong? Sure. But there's better odds on him being great than pretty much any other prospect. The only thing that could sideline him at this point is his brain.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I still don't understand why Portland brought him over this year... if he ends up in the NBDL, it will look even stranger.


At the time of the draft it seemed everyone assumed Sergio and the Brit would not be coming over. Seemed to me something from Barrett said that was the plan. And we here all liked that idea. No need to hurry for a variety of reasons.

Later during an interview in Europe Sergio said he was coming to the NBA this season. I recall reading something that said Sergio insisted, and the Blazers can't really do anything about that because of the way the draft and rookie contracts are set up. If he insists, they got to pay the boy. Is that right?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> With the hype thing, I think there have probably been 3 players in the last 15 years that have gotten as much publicity coming out out of high school: LeBron James, Kevin Garnett, and Shaquille O'Neal. Could they be wrong? Sure. But there's better odds on him being great than pretty much any other prospect. The only thing that could sideline him at this point is his brain.


I love Oden. LOVE HIM. But everything needs to go right for him to fulfill expectations, and I don't know that he can be as lucky and good as LeBron and Garnett and Alcindor and other great prep prospects.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Masbee said:


> Later during an interview in Europe Sergio said he was coming to the NBA this season. I recall reading something that said Sergio insisted, and the Blazers can't really do anything about that because of the way the draft and rookie contracts are set up. If he insists, they got to pay the boy. Is that right?


They either sign him to a slotted contract or lose him. I think that his insistence at coming over NOW is probably the answer to why he's a Blazer (or whatever Anaheim is), rather than playing in Europe.

Ed O.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> In case any of you care
> 
> 1/2 the brass wanted Morrison, the other 1/2 wanted Aldridge. Pritchard says in 3 years Aldridge will be light years better than any Blazer player.
> 
> ...


Interesting points. But if Alrdrige will be 'light years' ahead of Webster and Roy will will already be stars....wow. Sounds grandious.

Juan is a defensive liability, but we are really going to need some scoring off the bench. I hope this Steven Graham pans out, Qyntel Woods with a brain would have been an all-star!

And I wonder what the big deal is about Noah?? He's sounds like a Joel Pryzbilla clone...good rebounder and shot blocker but no offense. Already having Joel, it's better to get a prospect with a scoring touch like LaMarcus.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Yes, that was a young team, but back then all those guys went to college for four years and entered the league ready to contribute immediately. They didn't have anyone on that team that jumped from high school directly to the NBA. That was an era when most top rookies came into the league ready to play (like Brandon Roy this year). After four years at UCLA, Bill Walton was much more NBA ready than anybody on the Blazers current roster (and 1977 was his third year). Jack and Roy are the only Blazers projected starters with significant college experience. Martell has zero years of college ball, Joel and Zach, one year each. It will definitely take these guys longer to reach their peak than that 1977 team.
> 
> BNM


It should also be pointed out that Joel is not Bill, Zach is not Luke, whomever we have at SF it's not Bobby, Jarrett is not Lionel and not even Brandon can claim to be Pinball.

This was an entirely unique (even back then) group of players with unlimited heart and desire who were completely open to being coached and playing TEAM ball for no less than 48 minutes each and every game.

It's been 15 years since we had a Blazers team that even vaguely resembled those guys.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Boob-No-More said:


> No, I don't. I'm not sure if you're referring to the early 1990s teams (technically, the last Blazers teams to "compete for a championship") or the 2000 team that was one dreadful 4th quarter away of making it to the NBA finals.


yup i was talking about 76-77 as an example that the right group of players won't necessarily need years just to make the playoffs followed by years of playoff experience before they can even start to contend. if our current core group (+whatever additions in the next year) is ever going to be special enough to contend it will be just as likely to happen within 3-4 years as 5-8.


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

Haven't Denver, Seattle, Chicago, Miami, and Cleveland all missed the playoffs in the last five years, but was able to make some moves and causes some noise. Although we are at the very bottom, I think different circumstances can change things pretty quickly. Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Kidd, Nash, Webber, Horry, and Iverson will probably be ending or winding down their careers in less than five years. That will drastically impact their respective teams and create opportunities for others to move up. 

We will be back in the Playoffs before too long.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Quick and Canzano have been spewing that crap about us wanting Noah for awhile now. They both have no clue about anything when it comes to the draft.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> Yes, that was a young team, but back then all those guys went to college for four years and entered the league ready to contribute immediately. They didn't have anyone on that team that jumped from high school directly to the NBA. That was an era when most top rookies came into the league ready to play (like Brandon Roy this year). After four years at UCLA, Bill Walton was much more NBA ready than anybody on the Blazers current roster (and 1977 was his third year). Jack and Roy are the only Blazers projected starters with significant college experience. *Martell has zero years of college ball, Joel and Zach, one year each.* It will definitely take these guys longer to reach their peak than that 1977 team.
> 
> BNM


Not to nit-pick or anything, but, Pryzbilla played 2 years at Minnesota.


----------



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

Redbeard said:


> Haven't Denver, Seattle, Chicago, Miami, and Cleveland all missed the playoffs in the last five years, but was able to make some moves and causes some noise.


And of those five teams, only Miami has competed for a championship - and only with the addition of Shaq and other key veterans. If fact, when was the last time a truly young team made the finals, let alone won an NBA championship? Orlando in 1995? It was kind of a fluke they even made it (Michael rusty from playing baseball) and then totally imploded in the finals. The last 25 NBA titles have all been won by veteran teams with, at the most, one young starter. I haven't checked them all, but the youngest team to win an NBA championship since the '77 Blazers was probably the 1980 Lakers, led by 32 year old Kareen Abdul-Jabbar and 20 year old finals MVP Magic Johnson.



Redbeard said:


> We will be back in the Playoffs before too long.


Three years, if everything goes well (including the 2007 draft), but makng the playoffs and competing for a championship are two different things. Getting swept in the first round is a lot different than making it all the way to the finals.

BNM


----------



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

zagsfan20 said:


> Not to nit-pick or anything, but, Pryzbilla played 2 years at Minnesota.


Well, not quite. He was suspended and subsequently quit the team 21 games into his sophomore year.

BNM


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Well, not quite. He was suspended and subsequently quit the team 21 games into his sophomore year.
> 
> BNM


*SUSPENDED?!?!*
There goes all that good summer PR work down the drain.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> Well, not quite. He was suspended and subsequently quit the team 21 games into his sophomore year.
> 
> BNM


But, he was still at Minnesota for two seasons. 21 games is over half of a season, I would consistitute it as two years in college. Its definitely not 1 season.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I still don't understand why Portland brought him over this year... if he ends up in the NBDL, it will look even stranger.
> 
> Ed O.


Perhaps it's because they want him to adjust to the NBA game rather than the International game? Plus he'll be playing decent (less than international but decent) talent. The Blazers can also keep close tabs on him if he's in Anaheim and maybe even send down the player personnel director every so often to work with him. He'd also be immersed in English.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Three years, if everything goes well (including the 2007 draft), but makng the playoffs and competing for a championship are two different things. Getting swept in the first round is a lot different than making it all the way to the finals.


If everything goes well:

2006-07: Make up some ground. 30-35 wins.
Summer 07: Top 7 lottery pick. Also pick up a reasonable FA like Desmond Mason who will add some experience.
2007-08: Compete for a playoff spot. 35-45 wins.
Summer 08: Add a name Free Agent to the puzzle (ala Nash, Rasheed, etc.) Very important step.
2008-09: Make the playoffs.
Summer 09: Time to add another piece(s). Hopefully a seasoned vet willing to come aboard for cheap.
2009-10: The young guys are now entering their primes. Goal is home court advantage. Time to become a contender.

If done properly, management resigned the core to extensions and got bargains for vets.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

The Blazers were a playoff team for 22 straight years. But out of those 22 years, how many were we legitimate championship contenders? 4? 5? In addition to a lot of planning and hard work, there is a serious amount of luck that goes into making a team a championship contender.

PBF


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> The Blazers were a playoff team for 22 straight years. But out of those 22 years, how many were we legitimate championship contenders? 4? 5? In addition to a lot of planning and hard work, there is a serious amount of luck that goes into making a team a championship contender.
> 
> PBF


Every team in the playoffs is a legitimate championship contender, as the TrailBlazers proved back in 1977.

They squeaked into the playoffs. Then steamrolled over the rest of the pack.

The next year the Bullets proved it. Then the Supersonics proved it.

Once you get there, everything starts over, and a lot depends on timing, injuries, and who's clicking just right, right now.

So the regular season goal should always be to make the playoffs.

To be satisfied with anything less or to deliberately settle for less, even in exchange for a hope or promise of greater success in the future, would be unsportsmanlike.


----------



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

MARIS61 said:


> *SUSPENDED?!?!*
> There goes all that good summer PR work down the drain.


For academic reasons. Evidently, Joel wasn't much for hitting the books and was too honest to pay someone else to take tests for him. Once he was suspended, he quit the team and declared for the draft.

BNM


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Every team in the playoffs is a legitimate championship contender, as the TrailBlazers proved back in 1977.
> 
> They squeaked into the playoffs. Then steamrolled over the rest of the pack.
> 
> ...


But you still have to have the talent. The Blazers are very short on top tier talent.

And, all those examples are from a different era.

1970s NBA and David Stern, Multi-Billion Dollar NBA is a whole nuther animal.

The last real "underdog" team to win was the Houston Rockets. I put that in quotes because though the team didn't have dominant regular seasons (due to injuries and coasting, ie Horry), they were healthy for the playoffs, and as it turned out the team had far more real talent then was realized at the time: Besides a SuperStar at the MVP peak of his career, they had guys like Horry & Cassell who went on to long, productive careers.

Brings us back to talent. Until you have A LOT of talent, you are NOT going to make a surprise run in the playoffs.


----------

