# Whitsitt Fired?



## Swerv (Jan 2, 2003)

anyone know if this is true? I read the following article on another site...

WHITSITT PROTECTING HIS TURF
A league source tells us that the protracted delay in the selection of a new G.M. in Seattle traces to one factor -- the desire of team president Bob Whitsitt to ensure that he'll retain some relevance in owner Paul Allen's sports kingdom.
According to the source, Whitsitt soon will be getting the boot as the President/G.M. of Allen's NBA franchise, the Portland Trail Blazers. Whitsitt is catching the brunt of the blame as the Blazers disintegrate, and as former Blazers employees Rick Adelman and Geoff Petrie continue to shape the Sacramento Kings into an elite team.
Allen and Whitsitt, but not many others, are aware of Whitsitt's impending exile from Portland. The source tells us that Whitsitt is hoping to focus his efforts on the Seahawks after the shoe falls in Portland, and he knows that a high-profile G.M. in Seattle will make it harder for Whitsitt to have any juice.
So Whitsitt is supporting candidates like Ted Thompson and Bill Kuharich, and shying away from guys like Randy Mueller and Tom Modrak.
The problem is that Allen wants Mueller, according to the source, and Whitsitt is trying his best to persuade his boss to go with someone else.
Squarely in Whitsitt's corner on this one is coach Mike Holmgren, who likewise benefits from a weak and/or familiar G.M. who won't try to trump Holmgren -- or to edge him out so the G.M. can hire his own coach.


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

If this happens, so long ya big galoot!  










Bye! :wave:


----------



## talman (Dec 31, 2002)

I seriously doubt it. Where did this come from??


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

I forget to mention that this isn't going to happen... A bunch of hogwash if you ask me.


----------



## Swerv (Jan 2, 2003)

I found it on profootballtalk.com
i dont know anyhting about the site


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Swerv</b> Whitsitt is catching the brunt of the blame as the Blazers disintegrate


Yeah, it's too bad that the Blazers are out of the playoff picture. This long losing streak is killing the Blazers' chances of making it to the post-season....

IMO, this is where the article loses its credibility. If the article had said that Allen is tired of paying $100 million for the team's salary and wants to go with a GM who is less liberal in spending money, that's one thing. But to accuse the Blazers of "disintegrating" is downright insulting.

This team is BETTER than it was last year. In my book, I call that IMPROVEMENT. Guess this guy has a different word for it....


----------



## blazerfan4life (Dec 31, 2002)

I really hope not...i like TRADER BOB



HERE's to you BOB:cheers:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Outside of the Lakers, I don't think any team in the league has had more success in the past four seasons, this one included.

Sounds like the GM needs some firin'.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I doubt if its true. Your team is 13 games over 500 and your GM gets fired? Nope.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Outside of the Lakers, I don't think any team in the league has had more success in the past four seasons, this one included.
> 
> Sounds like the GM needs some firin'.


I wouldn't say that. The blazers have 10 playoff wins the past 4 seasons. I can name at least 10 teams that have that and more.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> 
> I wouldn't say that. The blazers have 10 playoff wins the past 4 seasons. I can name at least 10 teams that have that and more.


Your math is off. The Blazers have made two WCF's in the last 4 years, winning 17 playoff games. I doubt that 10 teams have done either of those things.

Ed O.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

He said past 4 seasons including this one. 

This season- 1 season (no playoff games yet)
Previous season- 2 seasons (0 playoff wins)
2001- 3 seasons (0 playoff wins)
2000- 4 seasons (10 playoff wins)

For a GM that has Paul Allens checkbook to work with he should produce more, IMO.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I can't see Whitsitt leaving the Trailblazers anytime soon. I think that he is going to have to pick one job, Seattle Seahawks or Portland Trailblazers. Personally, I just don't see how he can do both jobs and do them correctly.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say that. The blazers have 10 playoff wins the past 4 seasons. I can name at least 10 teams that have that and more.


10 wins would be the last 3 seasons. 

Also, The only team (not named Lakers) who has been to the WCF more than 1 time in the last 4 years is the Spurs and Blazers.

99: Spurs vs Blazers 
2000: Lakers vs Blazers
2001: Lakers vs Spurs
2002: Lakers vs Kings

this year it should be Portland vs Kings or Spurs vs Kings..to make the pattern somewhat accurate.

 

As Ed said, they've had 17 wins, which compared to any other team in the last 4 years, is 3rd to the Lakers (who have what...40+?)

Spurs have 26 (+1 or 2 for the 2000 playoffs that I can't stats on).
Blazers 17 (7 in 99, 10 in 2000)
Kings 17 (2 in 99, 2 in 2000, 3 in 2001, and 10 in 2002 I think)


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> He said past 4 seasons including this one.
> 
> This season- 1 season (no playoff games yet)
> ...


your math is STILL off. the past 4 seasons PLUS this one (which is what 4 "including this one" meant) gives everyone the same # of playoff wins as not including this season does.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap Shaughnessy</b>!
> 
> 
> your math is STILL off. the past 4 seasons PLUS this one (which is what 4 "including this one" meant) gives everyone the same # of playoff wins as not including this season does.


Ok, I was wrong then. But just for the purpose of this conversation (not to make an arguement for firing Whitsitt) here are the numbers for the past 4 seasons.

1. Lakers- 48 playoff wins (3 finals appearances, 3 CF appearances)
2. Spurs- 27 playoff wins (1 finals appearance, 2 CF appearances)
3. Pacers- 25 playoff wins (1 finals appearance, 2 CF appearances)
4. Knicks- 23 playoff wins (1 finals appearance, 2 CF appearances)
5. 76ers- 20 playoff wins (1 finals appearance, 1 CF appearance)
6. Blazers- 17 playoff wins (0 finals appearances, 2 CF appearances)
7. Kings- 17 playoff wins (1 CF appearance)


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

good work jemel.

I think we were going on western conference teams, more than league wide.

Well, at least I was.

You sure about the Kings only having 16?

Didn't they take the Jazz to 5 in 99, (winning 2) the Lakers to 5 in 2000 (winning 2) and won the first round in 2001 (3) and then won the first round (3) the 2nd (4) and 3 in the WCF in 2002? (10)?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> 
> 1. Lakers- 48 playoff wins (3 finals appearances, 3 CF appearances)
> 2. Spurs- 27 playoff wins (1 finals appearance, 2 CF appearances)
> ...


Considering Portland ran up against the eventual NBA champion in each of the past 4 years, those wins look pretty good to me.

Ed O.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap Shaughnessy</b>!
> good work jemel.
> 
> I think we were going on western conference teams, more than league wide.
> ...


You're right, I was thinking they lost in round 1 again in 2001.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok, I was wrong then. But just for the purpose of this conversation (not to make an arguement for firing Whitsitt) here are the numbers for the past 4 seasons.
> ...


I was going by Finals and Conference Finals appearances, though playoff wins could certainly be used too. The Spurs have had more success (though, considering the context of this discussion, I would attribute much of that to the luck of getting the #1 pick [Tim Duncan], rather than GM brilliance) but I wouldn't say any other team in the league has.

The Pacers, Knicks and 76ers have accomplished what they have in the far less competitive East. The Blazers in the East would have done a lot more damage. The fact that the Blazers ran up against the eventual champions in the first round two consecutive years (and, for instance, the Spurs never did and the Kings did just once), only reinforces to me the success the Blazers have had.

I think Whitsitt's results (results are measured as things stemming from GM decisions) are second only to Jerry West's, of Lakers' vintage (and I don't give credit for any of the three titles to Kupchak, personally). The Spurs' GM did not intentionally have Robinson get injured, did not win the lottery with some sort of skill, thereby dropping Duncan on an already-good team (rather than the bad team #1 picks usually go to). Therefore, I don't think the Spurs' GM has been as impressive as Whitsitt.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Anyway.....*

I saw in the paper today a short blurb about Whitsitt contacting Steve Largent about possibly becoming the GM for the Seahawks. I don't know if that sheds any light on this discussion, but there it is. I assume we'll hear more about this in the days to come.


----------

