# Trail Blazers Waive Woods!



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*TRAIL BLAZERS waive WOODS!*

<http://www.nba.com/blazers/news/Qyntel_Woods_Update-128556-41.html>


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Patterson totally slammed Qyntel here..



> Blazers.com: Have you spoken to Qyntel and if so, what was his reaction?
> 
> Steve: No, we have invested enough time talking to Qyntel, enough is enough. We have spoken with his lawyer and his agent Raymond Brothers, though as a part of the process.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

*If this is true...*

I beleive he will go and become a very good player & person in the NBA. I am disappointed we have given up on him.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

This is the best line ever spoken by management.

Blazers.com: Have you spoken to Qyntel and if so, what was his reaction? 

Steve: No, we have invested enough time talking to Qyntel, enough is enough.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Bye bye Qyntel.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> Patterson totally slammed Qyntel here..





Damn you beat me to it Hap.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

GOOD JOB PATTERSON!


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

I had hoped the Nets would had done that trade last year for him... where we parted with Armstrong.

Like Griffen, with time and in the right place he could be more than a productive player.

-Petey


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I think Woods could become a solid player, albeit a "knucklehead" player..or he'll become JR Rider, and let his knuckleheadedness get the better of him.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Petey</b>!
> I had hoped the Nets would had done that trade last year for him... where we parted with Armstrong.
> 
> Like Griffen, with time and in the right place he could be more than a productive player.
> ...


Except that Eddie Griffin had showed a lot of talent before his problems. Qyntel Woods hasn't really played a good game yet in the NBA. 

I bet somebody signs him to a 10 day contract soon though.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I've spent time with him, and he's actually a really nice guy. Much nicer and more personable than most of the other players on the team. I hope he gets his act together and becomes a solid player in the league.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I don't care if he goes to another team and becomes all-world. I say kudos to Patternash. this guy burned too many blunts and bridges while he was here. 

The sad thing is that some on this board won't see it that way. For you beware, my wrath will befall upon you. Or worse, I'll get my wife to start nagging at you for being stupid. Yes that's it....Brilliant.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Except that Eddie Griffin had showed a lot of talent before his problems. Qyntel Woods hasn't really played a good game yet in the NBA.
> ...


by the end of the week, at the latest.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I hope he gets his life together.

I wasn't around, so I have no idea if management treated him fairly or not. Regardless, if he gets another chance, I really hope he takes it.

Whether or not he blows up on some other team I don't care that much about - I just want to see him get his act together.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Blazers, in accordance with their pledge, had no choice but to part ways with QW.

He will have at least one more opportunity with some NBA team. Talent almost always wins out - ala Rider. 

I hope he leaves all the dogs of the world alone and gets back on a positive track.

Good luck - but good riddence.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

Wish him the Best and hope he can get everything straight.

But I also thank Nash for the best move he has made on this team!


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Woods will never blossom into a solid person, or a solid player.

Very good move by Blazers Brass.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

*Let's not forget*

that Zach had some role in this as well yet was not charged (they were Q's dogs but Zach was known to watch, if not participate, the fights). While the Blazers were justified in this waiver, I do disagree with it.

The 26th part of the 25 point pledge is that there's a different set of rules for different players.

Nonetheless, good luck Quintel. I hope you make the Blazers rue the day they waived you.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Let's not forget*



> Originally posted by <b>BLAZER PROPHET</b>!
> The 26th part of the 25 point pledge is that there's a different set of rules for different players.


This is SO TRUE. Excellent point!


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I hope Qyntel gets his head straight and lives up to some of that potential we all heard about before/after he was drafted. Because, right now, he is simply one loathsome individual.

And although I know some here disagree, props to the Blazers for the way they handled this situation. They addressed it aggressively - which they needed to do as this was a true test of their commitment to reestablishing the good name of the franchise - but they always made sure their actions were defensible.

Glad this whole thing is over (appeals and arbitration pending). I like being able to talk about Blazers basketball.

PBF


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Let's not forget*



> Originally posted by <b>BLAZER PROPHET</b>!
> that Zach had some role in this as well yet was not charged (they were Q's dogs but Zach was known to watch, if not participate, the fights). While the Blazers were justified in this waiver, I do disagree with it.


how is it known that he watched? I thought all that was just conjecture among fans.



> The 26th part of the 25 point pledge is that there's a different set of rules for different players.
> 
> Nonetheless, good luck Quintel. I hope you make the Blazers rue the day they waived you.


there's no doubt that they have different rules for different players.

But I don't see why some people have this attitude regardig the team, and it's waiving of Qyntel. He isn't that good, nor is he worth the energy to heap that onto the franchise.

if he happens to comeback and have a successful career (doubtful, compared to what he was "supposed" to be), good for him. But the Blazers still should've waived him.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Umm...was Zach charged and did he plea Guilty to an offense in this matter?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> Woods will never blossom into a solid person, or a solid player.


Thats a ridiculous thing to say. People change all the time. I know people who have made much worse mistakes in life than Woods, and turned their life around and are now solid citizens who volunteer thier time helping others get their act together.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BEER&BASKETBALL</b>!
> I've spent time with him, and he's actually a really nice guy.


...so long as you're not a dog.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "No, we have invested enough time talking to Qyntel, enough is enough.


Quote of the year!! 

Sometimes a single sentence speaks volumes. I can just see Patterson and Nash patiently lecturing Qyntel about the dangers of driving while high, driving without a license, fighting pit bulls, making his house payment on time, etc. They probably had this guy on the carpet numerous times, and were fed up with his stupidity.

My hat's off to the Blazers for cutting this jerk loose--and telling it like it is. 



> "Qyntel was fully aware of the expectations and player conduct standards set forth by this franchise. Based upon the number of incidents and issues he has been involved in since we drafted him, we do not feel he has fulfilled his contractual obligations and do not plan to pay him for the period of suspension or for the remainder of his contract."


Whoo-hoo! The Blazers are refusing to honor Qyntel's contract--an almost unheard of thing in the NBA these days. I think I'm going to start a Patterson fan club right now.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Let's not forget*



> Originally posted by <b>BLAZER PROPHET</b>!
> that Zach had some role in this as well yet was not charged (they were Q's dogs but Zach was known to watch, if not participate, the fights). While the Blazers were justified in this waiver, I do disagree with it.
> 
> The 26th part of the 25 point pledge is that there's a different set of rules for different players.
> ...


Link? 

www.speculation.com


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Petey</b>!
> Like Griffen, with time and in the right place he could be more than a productive player.


Griffin's cinderella run is over, he is a scrub. His poor shooting skills and lack of flair on the court have become very apparent, someone with EG's kind of off-court problems will always have trouble putting it together for a decent amount of time in the NBA.

I don't think Woods will ever be a somebody in the NBA, he's one of those Rodney White cases where the talent is there, but he'll never be able to put it together.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Good-Bye! If there is one positive to take from this, it is that he didn't whine and try to implicate a teammate.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> If there is one positive to take from this, it is that he didn't whine and try to implicate a teammate.


Well, not yet anyway.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> If there is one positive to take from this, it is that he didn't whine and try to implicate a teammate.


Well, not yet anyway.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

This is good for Qyntel, bad for the Blazers. He gets an opportunity to sign with another team (Denver can use a 2, and they're not alone), and he's got to be confident that he'll get almost all his contract from the Blazers.

Additionally, when he signs his new deal, his 5 game NBA suspension will probably end up costing him less money.

Good luck to Woods. I get the distinct feeling that he'll be in the NBA longer than Steve Patterson and John Nash will be with the Blazers.

Ed O.


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

:mob:


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

All I can think of is that SLAM article before he got drafted, with them saying he could be the rookie of the year, how talented he is, how smooth, and McGrady-esque he was... all to watch him throw it away.

I do think he will get another chance someday and be a solid player. I think what he really needed was to be more of a focal point for him to get his head straight. Sometimes when you are on the backburners and dont feel important you tend to not care about what is going on as much.

Good job to Blazers management, this was the right move.

But good luck Qyntel.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

I hope Denver signs him. 'Melo needs another player on the team he can play pin-the-pot on.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> This is good for Qyntel, bad for the Blazers.
> 
> Ed O.


Why is this bad for the Blazers? 

The options, as I see it were to:

A) Keep him on the IR or suspended list all year

B) Waive him

C) Play him

(This assumes we've exhausted all attempts to trade the guy...)

I think the best outcome for Portland is to B) Waive him...which they did. If we'd have kept him and allowed him to play, more fans would have been turned off by what's perceived as same old garbage from the 'Jailblazers.' 

I understand that YOU personally don't care what things happen off the court. I don't get why you seemingly don't understand that that DOES matter to some people, including a large percentage of season ticket holders who would gladly show their displeasure by not renewing their season tickets. That would be bad for the Blazers...even worse than waiving a marginal player even if they do have to eat his $1 million salary.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> I think the best outcome for Portland is to B) Waive him...which they did. If we'd have kept him and allowed him to play, more fans would have been turned off by what's perceived as same old garbage from the 'Jailblazers.'
> 
> I understand that YOU personally don't care what things happen off the court. I don't get why you seemingly don't understand that that DOES matter to some people, including a large percentage of season ticket holders who would gladly show their displeasure by not renewing their season tickets. That would be bad for the Blazers...even worse than waiving a marginal player even if they do have to eat his $1 million salary.


Given a choice, fans will pay to see a winner full of perceived bad guys rather than a loser full of perceived good guys. 

Woods is a good enough talent and player to help this team win. He's a good enough prospect that he might have been the starting 2 guard for the Blazers for the next decade.

The Blazers had, what, 16 players before they'd waived Woods? And Patterson didn't have the time or committment to discuss things with Woods or his representation to try to figure out how they could make it work out?

Of course he did. He just threw Qyntel under the bus because he knew the team wasn't going to be good on the floor, and he wanted to at least to take some sort of high ground.

Patterson might be doing his job as Paul Allen has dictated him to do it, and that's their decision. Just because it's their decision, though, doesn't mean it'll be good for the Blazers on the court, and what's bad for them on the court is ultimately going to be bad for them off the court, too.

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> Given a choice, fans will pay to see a winner full of perceived bad guys rather than a loser full of perceived good guys.


Shouldn't their be a "IMO" in that statement somewhere, Ed? You've stated this position over and over again, and I think it truly reflects what you believe, but I don't think it's an accurate assessment of the collective opinion of the general Blazer fanbase. Corporate sponsors and the typical middle-aged fans who buy season tickets do care and want to back a team that has a positive image. They're the ones that Blazers management cares about.



> Woods is a good enough talent and player to help this team win. He's a good enough prospect that he might have been the starting 2 guard for the Blazers for the next decade.


Sorry, I'm not buying it. Woods has been given multiple chances both on and off the court to prove himself and he's blown it every time. While he has the atheletic skills to have given Paul Allen his infamous "Woods moment" on draft day, they guy has never shown that he has what it takes mentally to play at an NBA level.



> The Blazers had, what, 16 players before they'd waived Woods? And Patterson didn't have the time or committment to discuss things with Woods or his representation to try to figure out how they could make it work out?


And how exactly do you know what conversations the Blazers have had with Woods and his agent throughout this debacle? The plain facts are that Woods admitted to doing abusing animals in a way that's generally seen as morally repugnant. Somehow, I really don't think there was a whole lot of need for further conversation.



> Patterson might be doing his job as Paul Allen has dictated him to do it, and that's their decision. Just because it's their decision, though, doesn't mean it'll be good for the Blazers on the court, and what's bad for them on the court is ultimately going to be bad for them off the court, too.


Since it's their business and they're the ones who have to market it to the Portland fan base, I guess their decisions are the ones that matter. If you truly believe that Qyntel Woods iwas ever going to be a major factor in the success of the Blazers then, IMO, you just haven't been paying attention.

I don't mean to flame you personally, Ed, but I'm really very tired of apologists for boneheaded moves by professional atheletes. I'm not arguing for a saints only policy, but is it really too much to ask that NBA players at least adhere to our laws enough to stay out of the justice system?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>e_blazer1</b>!
> 
> Shouldn't their be a "IMO" in that statement somewhere, Ed? You've stated this position over and over again, and I think it truly reflects what you believe, but I don't think it's an accurate assessment of the collective opinion of the general Blazer fanbase. Corporate sponsors and the typical middle-aged fans who buy season tickets do care and want to back a team that has a positive image. They're the ones that Blazers management cares about.


I've never seen nor read about a study that says anything contrary to this: fans attend more often for winners than for losers.

While every city might think they're special and care more about personality than results, I don't believe that Portland is the exception.



> Sorry, I'm not buying it. Woods has been given multiple chances both on and off the court to prove himself and he's blown it every time.


He has? Please point out a stretch where he was allowed to play consistent minutes other than in summer league.

Cheeks has made multiple mistakes as coach, and failing to play Woods ahead of Person last year (and, indeed, trying Woods at PG, for some reason) is one of the worst IMO.



> And how exactly do you know what conversations the Blazers have had with Woods and his agent throughout this debacle?


Of course I don't know EXACTLY what was said, but assuming Patterson is telling the truth when he said, "... we have invested enough time talking to Qyntel, enough is enough. We have spoken with his lawyer and his agent Raymond Brothers, though as a part of the process. " that seems to me to indicate that he not only did not talk to Woods in person but wasn't interested in working it out.



> The plain facts are that Woods admitted to doing abusing animals in a way that's generally seen as morally repugnant.


Those are *far* from "plain facts". That sentence is almost entirely your personal opinion and distorts the actual facts.



> Somehow, I really don't think there was a whole lot of need for further conversation.


We disagree, then. 



> Since it's their business and they're the ones who have to market it to the Portland fan base, I guess their decisions are the ones that matter.


No doubt. But just because they're in a position to make decisions doesn't mean they're right.



> If you truly believe that Qyntel Woods iwas ever going to be a major factor in the success of the Blazers then, IMO, you just haven't been paying attention.


Again, we disagree.



> I don't mean to flame you personally, Ed, but I'm really very tired of apologists for boneheaded moves by professional atheletes. I'm not arguing for a saints only policy, but is it really too much to ask that NBA players at least adhere to our laws enough to stay out of the justice system?


I don't feel personally flamed, but thanks for the comment. I understand that people are angry when young people who just happen to be remarkably different in background and education levels and who make way more money than most of us on this board make mistakes. It's easy to dehumanize them and be glad that they have been deprived of earning a living (even if their house is foreclosed, or even if the Blazers ultimately have to pay the player for illegitimately witholding pay).

I think that NBA players that break the law should be punished, but secondary to that I want the team that I root for to win. I am sick of seeing my team going down the drain because of the complaints of people who get invested emotionally differently than I do.

But that's life, and I accept it. Just like the people who thought that the team could keep winning as before with "nice" guys and people who think that the Blazers will simply be able to not pay Woods will have to accept they're off-base.

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I've never seen nor read about a study that says anything contrary to this: fans attend more often for winners than for losers.
> ...


Well, I'll say this for you, Ed; your avatar is well chosen. You are one very chatty fellow. 

Of course there can be no disagreement with the basic truth that people love to root for a winner. Where we seem to disagree is that, where you say you would gladly root for a winning team comprised of a group of pot-heads, I believe that there are limits to what the mainstream fans and corporations who pay for the season tickets will accept. If you don't believe that, check out what's happened to Kobe Bryant's endorsement deals since the Colorado episode. I don't think it's anything to do with Portland being special. I think people in general love to root for winners, but they really love winners who are good guys. This city had a special love for the championship team and the Drexler era teams and it had a lot to do with the character of those teams.



> He has? Please point out a stretch where he was allowed to play consistent minutes other than in summer league.
> 
> Cheeks has made multiple mistakes as coach, and failing to play Woods ahead of Person last year (and, indeed, trying Woods at PG, for some reason) is one of the worst IMO.


I guess we'll just have to settle for a difference of opinion here. I never felt Q did anything with the time he did get to indicate he deserved more PT. The guy always seemed lost on both ends of the court. 



> Those are *far* from "plain facts". That sentence is almost entirely your personal opinion and distorts the actual facts.


The guy pleaded guilty to animal abuse. An interview with the Clackamas County prosecutor indicates they had more on him, but that the likely sentence would have ended up the same. They accepted the plea to save money and court time.




> No doubt. But just because they're in a position to make decisions doesn't mean they're right.


And just because you don't like what they're doing doesn't mean you're right.



> I don't feel personally flamed, but thanks for the comment. I understand that people are angry when young people who just happen to be remarkably different in background and education levels and who make way more money than most of us on this board make mistakes. It's easy to dehumanize them and be glad that they have been deprived of earning a living (even if their house is foreclosed, or even if the Blazers ultimately have to pay the player for illegitimately witholding pay).


Oh get over yourself. Jeez what a crock of hooey. This has nothing to do with being angry over "mistakes" by people from a "remarkably different background" (nice way to try to slip in the race card) or with the fact that they make huge amounts of money. Q was given multiple opportunities to clean up his act. He screwed up every time. Woods' "mistakes" are repeated violations of law...driving without a license, marijuana busts, and animal abuse. Do you not feel players are accountable in the least for their actions? IMO, Ownership has every right to expect players not to damage their product by dragging it through the mud at every turn.



> I think that NBA players that break the law should be punished, but secondary to that I want the team that I root for to win. I am sick of seeing my team going down the drain because of the complaints of people who get invested emotionally differently than I do.
> 
> But that's life, and I accept it. Just like the people who thought that the team could keep winning as before with "nice" guys and people who think that the Blazers will simply be able to not pay Woods will have to accept they're off-base.


I don't accept the premise that teams can't be winners without stooping to having multiple players on their rosters who have consistent run-ins with the law. Blazer history, plus current rosters of teams like the Spurs, Mavs, Suns, and Sonics would tend to say otherwise. This Blazer team, when healthy, is not that far away from being a winner. One trade could put them into a competetive status. IMO, Woods is not a necessary component for any future success and I won't miss him in the least. I hope he can use this as a chance to get himself straight and restart his career, but I'm glad it's going to be somewhere else.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>e_blazer1</b>!
> 
> Oh get over yourself. Jeez what a crock of hooey.


Very nice. 



> This has nothing to do with being angry over "mistakes" by people from a "remarkably different background" (nice way to try to slip in the race card) or with the fact that they make huge amounts of money.


Maybe not for you, but for some people it definitely does. We get cracks about hip hop culture, corn rows and bling in here all the time as something that some fans just can't relate to. It's less a black thing than a cultural thing IMO.

Additionally, many of us on this board are pretty well educated, going to college or being in a career that requires good communication and planning. Most NBA players have NOT been put in a position to learn many of the skills that we have, and that's another reason that some fans get more upset at players who make mistakes than it seems they reasonably should.

Finally: if you don't think that some resentment against professional players is based on the amount of money they make, I think you're crazy. 



> Q was given multiple opportunities to clean up his act. He screwed up every time. Woods' "mistakes" are repeated violations of law...driving without a license, marijuana busts, and animal abuse. Do you not feel players are accountable in the least for their actions?


He's accountable to the law, sure. Who has said he is not?

And has he escaped punishment somehow because he is a Blazer?



> IMO, Ownership has every right to expect players not to damage their product by dragging it through the mud at every turn.


They have every right that they have collectively bargained for. No more and no less.

They can waive Woods. Whether they can void his contract or not remains to be seen.



> I don't accept the premise that teams can't be winners without stooping to having multiple players on their rosters who have consistent run-ins with the law. Blazer history, plus current rosters of teams like the Spurs, Mavs, Suns, and Sonics would tend to say otherwise. This Blazer team, when healthy, is not that far away from being a winner. One trade could put them into a competetive status. IMO, Woods is not a necessary component for any future success and I won't miss him in the least. I hope he can use this as a chance to get himself straight and restart his career, but I'm glad it's going to be somewhere else.


I find it incredible that you think this team is close to being a winner when healthy. But that's the subject of another thread, I guess 

Ed O.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Finally: if you don't think that some resentment against professional players is based on the amount of money they make, I think you're crazy.
> 
> 
> Ed O.


There we go again. You went all the way to "crazy", do you just not see how those types of comments can be taken?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> 
> There we go again. You went all the way to "crazy", do you just not see how those types of comments can be taken?


You caught me. English is my fourth language and I don't have a good grasp on it. OR I'm a robot (as Hap has claimed for years) that's totally unable to grok human emotions.

I've got an idea: how about you talk basketball, and stop trying to call me out on peculiarities in my (and notice that you *only* do it with my) posting style.

Thanks,

Ed O.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Since it's effected me just tonight I'm going to call it. And no it isn't only you, but you're a mod.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> You caught me. English is my fourth language and I don't have a good grasp on it. OR I'm a robot (as Hap has claimed for years) that's totally unable to grok human emotions.


you ARE a robot!!


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!I'm a robot (as Hap has claimed for years) that's totally unable to grok human emotions.


You're obviously a Martian. Robot's don't try to grok things. They just run programs.

On the topic matter I think it remains to be seen how good of a move this is. Right now it seems like a great move because Qyntel never contributed on the court and he was a horrible embarassment off the court. All those years I supported Sheed and Damon and even with the antics and the pot I never thought they were an embarassment. Seems to me Qyntel is simply not bright enough to function at this level.

But, if a couple years from now he's obviously better than who ever we have starting at the 2 or 3 this will seem like a foolish move that could have been avoided with a little bit of compassion and understanding.

Ed isn't trying to say that he doesn't want character guys. He just realizes that most NBA players come from the hip-hop thug life style I despise. It's hard to pick good guys out of such a talent pool. Trying to do so is mostly a futal jesture and you're much better off trying to focus on making your team win than you are filling it with good guys. 

The Blazers focussed on winning back in the late ninties and it got them to the Western Conference finals two years in a row. Now they're trying to be good guys and I'd have to say it's failed miserably because they're building the team around Zach Randolph who is most definately not a good guy. He's not a bad guy. But he's never going to be a Tim Duncan or Grant Hill type good guy.

Right now they've made a step in the right direction if they'd like to be full of good guys. Hopefully they won't have to pay any more of Woods' salary and it will set a precident for teams to do things of this type more in the future. Maybe it will weaken the fabric of the fully guaranteed contract system and we'll have a shot at a system like the NFL where you can cut a guy that does something to ruin your team's image and not have to pay them. Dare I dream?


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> They have every right that they have collectively bargained for. No more and no less.
> 
> They can waive Woods. Whether they can void his contract or not remains to be seen.


Ed, I'm willing to agree that you may well be right that an arbitrator will ultimately say that the Blazers have to pay Woods. That moral turpitude language is awfully vague. However, I also agree with Steve Patterson's quote in the paper this morning that if you can't void a contract based on that clause in a case where a guy has caused as much damage to a team's reputation as Woods did, then when could you? What's the purpose of that language if it does nothing to protect management from irresponsible actions of players that have huge negative impacts on the team's marketing of its product? 



> I find it incredible that you think this team is close to being a winner when healthy. But that's the subject of another thread, I guess


The Blazers were a couple of games over .500 (winners) and as high as sixth in the West before the recent loss string due to injuries. This despite having their backcourt shooting well under career averages and playing more road games than nearly any other team. Now that the backcourt is scoring better, I don't think it's an unrealistic opinion to say that the team is a winner when they get their frontcourt back. If the Blazers can make a trade that bolsters their SG position, say SAR for Pierce, then, IMO, they definitely would be classified as winners.

Ed, I doubt that you and I will ever agree on much on this board, but I expect that one point where we do agree is that we want the Blazers to succeed. While you may not like the policies of Nash and Patterson, let's hope that they can make some moves that will make both of us happy.


----------

