# Rahim wants to meet with Mr. Allen: Demands trade (merged)



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

*Rahim wants to meet with Mr. Allen: Demands trade*

Now, I have lost respect for one of my fave players :nonono:

According to the Oregonian this morning 



> _"I hope it doesn't come to (a holdout), but if it does, it does," Abdur-Rahim said. "I don't want that to happen; it's not me and I don't think it's indicative of who I am. But at the same time, when I left Portland after the season, I was put under the impression of one thing (being traded), and now it has changed." _






> _"Paul needs to understand that Shareef is not coming back there," Goodwin said. "It's getting to the point where it's ridiculous. I guess they don't see it as a problem, and I guess at some point they think that Shareef is going to say, 'Forget it, I'll play (small forward) for them.' But that is not the case. Portland, for whatever reason, is holding Shareef hostage and it's unfortunate." _


Goodwin and Shareef need to understand he is under contract next season.

As we have said in countless threads. He is in a contract year, and needs to prove to the league he is worthy of big money next year, and that he is not a problem. He needs to outplay Zach and earn his minutes. Be competitive!




> _"My problem with that is if you started Darius at small forward all of last year -- and Darius is supposed to be a big part of the Blazers' future -- and now I'm going to start there?" Abdur-Rahim said. "That's creating a crazy situation. What is Darius supposed to think about that? And for the team? That's not good. I don't want to be in a situation where it's uncomfortable.
> 
> "And last season, I didn't even split time at the four, and now all of a sudden you want to start me at the three and have me back up at the four? I just want to know what is really going on. Are they trying to keep me to save luxury tax dollars the next season, or what? I just want to sit down and get some straight talk."_


Yes :yes: $14.625 mil renounced does quite well


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

What if you guys dealt SAR for this? 

PF Shareef Abdur-Rahim (16.3 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 2.0 apg in 31.6 minutes)
Portland receives: C Raef LaFrentz	(7.8 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 1.4 apg in 19.3 minutes)
C Michael Stewart	(0.5 ppg, 1.2 rpg, 0.0 apg in 5.9 minutes)
SF Walter McCarty	(7.9 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 1.6 apg in 24.7 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -0.1 ppg, +1.5 rpg, and +1.0 apg.

Boston trades: C Raef LaFrentz	(7.8 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 1.4 apg in 19.3 minutes)
C Michael Stewart	(0.5 ppg, 1.2 rpg, 0.0 apg in 5.9 minutes)
SF Walter McCarty	(7.9 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 1.6 apg in 24.7 minutes)
Boston receives: PF Shareef Abdur-Rahim	(16.3 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 2.0 apg in 85 games)
Change in team outlook: +0.1 ppg, -1.5 rpg, and -1.0 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

It would leave Portland looking something like this.

C - Theo Ratliff/Raef Lafrentz/Michael Stewart
PF - Zach Randolph/Raef Lafrentz
SF - Ruben Patterson/Walter McCarty/Travis Outlaw
SG - Trenton Hassell/Richie Frahm/Qyntel Woods
PG - Damon/NVE/Telfair 

Much more balanced without SAR and Miles, plus the pieces the Blazers would have added are not cancerous types of guys.


----------



## Quigly (Jan 2, 2003)

I had been giving Rahim the benifit of the doubt. thinking that it was his agent making stuff up to keep his name in the paper. But this is very unprofessional and childish behavior. He has a high paying job and that is it. He needs to go to work and enjoy the incredible money and lifestyle and do the best he can until he becomes a free agent. those are the rules. that is the contract. Stop *****ing and crying and moaning. Shut up and get in the weight room and work on your foot speed.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

I agree. This is rediculous. He obviously doesn't know what it is like to be a General Manager of a team. The way he thinks, he'd probably assemble the 2nd coming of the Vancouver Grizzlies.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I don't understand this strategy-wise. Reef was a classy player with good stats on terrible teams. We have already acknowledged how much damage he is doing to his trade value (decreasing by the day), but does he realize that he is probably killing his chances in free agency next year? He will likely never make as much as he is making this year again. And he is going to sit it out, so he doesn't even get this years salary? 

Being a good backup for one year he would likely lose some salary leverege next year. But, being a bad actor who is inflexible will lose him a lot more. There is a big part of me that hopes the Blazer just hold on to him and make him sit out with no salary, so Reef can realize what a bad decision he is making.

Clearly, Reef and his agent don't understand the realities of today's NBA. Players get overpaid, and at the end of their contracts, the value of their expiring contract is worth more than they are. If that makes the players mad, then fine, don't sign the contract. Play for less money.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Come on Shareef, your getting paid 14 million dollars to play Basketball. Stop *****ing and moaning about not playing. It happens, thats what it is like on a team that can actually WIN. 

Playmaker I don't know how you can even say this guy is better than Randolph, and actually think he is a good person/player.

The guy is a LOSER. All he wants to do is be on a losing team so he can get his stats and make himselft look good.

GO ahaed Reef. Watch for those Knees injurys.:devil:


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Abdur-Rahim said he left a postseason meeting with general manager John Nash and coach Maurice Cheeks with the impression that he would be traded. Now, however, he said Nash and Cheeks are telling him that he will be the team's *starting* small forward, while backing up Zach Randolph at power forward.
> 
> Abdur-Rahim said this new strategy puzzles him because he doesn't play small forward and everyone on the team knows that Darius Miles is best suited for that position.
> 
> "My problem with that is if you started Darius at small forward all of last year -- and Darius is supposed to be a big part of the Blazers' future -- and now I'm going to start there?" Abdur-Rahim said. "That's creating a crazy situation. What is Darius supposed to think about that? And for the team? That's not good. I don't want to be in a situation where it's uncomfortable.


Gota admit, this IS a crazy proposition. Are the Blazers now under the impression that Miles won't be with the team next season??


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Agent Aaron Goodwin said Abdur-Rahim might go straight to the top of the Blazers' hierarchy -- owner Paul Allen -- because Goodwin's sources are telling him that the Blazers are saying Allen was the one who vetoed a recent trade proposal to New Jersey.


good luck, SAR. I seem to remember Scottie Pippen saying he'd only met Paul Allen two or three times in his entire stay here.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

I actually think Nash needs to get a handle on this situation. He needs to get the agent, SAR and Allen into the same room and sort this out. He should tell Goodwin we asked for Lucious Harris, and Collins and a pick to go through with the deal in NJ and they said Collins wasn't available which was a deal killer. He can tell Goodwin the NJ deal even with a pick was bad for SAR's value and we need a better deal before we can trade SAR. Either a top 25-30 player, young talent with star potential or expiring deals with players we like. He can also he Goodwin that demanding a trade will lower our offers and we may be forced to keep him all year. SAR needs to come out with a public face and he is staying this year, and we will try and move him ASAP. That may mean he comes to training camp here.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Freak</b>!
> Come on Shareef, your getting paid 14 million dollars to play Basketball. Stop *****ing and moaning about not playing. It happens, thats what it is like on a team that can actually WIN.
> 
> Playmaker I don't know how you can even say this guy is better than Randolph, and actually think he is a good person/player.
> ...



exactly reef is nowhere near close to being better than Zach


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

this is so childish from a guy who said he will dowhatever to help the team win


----------



## Swoosh (May 2, 2003)

$14M to play a game...whine, whine, whine    

I'm so sick of these multi-millionaire crybabies whining about their situations/playing time. I'd love to see them get a real job and see how it feels to struggle to pay the bills on a monthly basis like the majority of the "real" world.

SAR's not helping his situation by going public with his trade demand, thus driving down his trade value. With his value at an all time low, the Blazers will most likely hold onto him unless a great deal is offered, which may not happen until the trade deadline. With an expiring contract, he really has no leverage, since the Blazers would most likely just cut ties with him at the end of this season if he isn't traded.

Goodwin and SAR need to keep their demands private if they want a deal to get done. The more they talk, the more likely he ends up holding out and being fined accordingly by the team. It certainly isn't helping his reputation of being a team guy.


----------



## lie2me2 (Jul 27, 2004)

I say trade him to the Clippers or some other cellar dwelling team and let him be a good player on a lousy team for the rest of his career.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

The funniest thing? This quote from Goodwin:



> "Paul needs to understand that Shareef is not coming back there"


So the Blazers are supposed to be AFRAID if SAR doesn't show up for camp? They should fine his buttocks off and suspend him if at all possible. Save Paul Allen some money, and not really hurt the team.

Question for cap gurus: if SAR holds out the whole year, does his contract expire? Or does it get extended for another year? In other words is the year a year of participating in NBA basketball, or is it a calendar year?

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I agree, this is ridiculous. Nash should just do what he is doing, refuse to part with SAR until he gets a fair offer, and what in the he!! does Goodwin know about fair value? He doesn't care about helping POR out at all.

It's really too bad it has come to this & I am sure POR is trying their best to trade SAR, but this isn't a fire sale, and if that means we have to put him on the IR all year then so be it.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Goodwin has to understand, we gave up the best player on the team to get SAR (and Theo). Just because he isn't contributing here, doesn't mean we shouldn't expect to get good value back for him.

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

maybe if SAR was a Duncan, or KG the Blazers might be afraid. Or if they didn't have a starting PF who would put up comporable offensive #'s.

but in all reality, as much as I do respect SAR's game and understand his rationale but not the method he went about putting it out there, SAR just ain't worth it.

Let him sit out the year, and not trade him. Just one less roster spot to take minutes away from Patterson, Viktor, Miles and Zach.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

Just to throw this out there. Why does he have to be wrong for wanting a trade? Could it be possible he really feels that, Miles shouldn’t be short changed from starting, or that Portland shouldn’t have a 15 million dollar player sitting on its bench? I think they are all plausable questions that none of you have bothered to touch on, but just to bash him


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BEEZ</b>!
> Just to throw this out there. Why does he have to be wrong for wanting a trade? Could it be possible he really feels that, Miles shouldn’t be short changed from starting, or that Portland shouldn’t have a 15 million dollar player sitting on its bench? I think they are all plausable questions that none of you have bothered to touch on, but just to bash him


Those concerns are not, and should not be, for SAR or his agent to address. Those are management issues.

SAR is not wrong for wanting a trade. I think most Blazers fans see where he's coming from. BUT, the way his camp is going about it is flat-out wrong. Wrong for SAR (making him appear petty and difficult to do business with), and wrong for the Blazers (pressuring them into making a move that's not in their best interest).

PBF


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ProudBFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Those concerns are not, and should not be, for SAR or his agent to address. Those are management issues.
> ...


Why not? Its just the same as if at whatever you do, you dont want to be short changed or undervalued so why should he.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BEEZ</b>!
> 
> Why not? Its just the same as if at whatever you do, you dont want to be short changed or undervalued so why should he.


As long as the Blazers are paying SAR his money, they should be entitled to use him (or not) in whatever way they see fit as long as it doesn't violate the terms of his contract. It's no different here where I work or, I'm guessing, where you work either. Even if SAR is looking out for Miles' best interests as well (and that's debatable, but admirable if true) is it really his place to do so?

This sounds like the whole Brian Grant situation all over again. Anyone remember that nightmare?

PBF


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ProudBFan</b>!
> 
> 
> As long as the Blazers are paying SAR his money, they should be entitled to use him (or not) in whatever way they see fit as long as it doesn't violate the terms of his contract. It's no different here where I work or, I'm guessing, where you work either. Even if SAR is looking out for Miles' best interests as well (and that's debatable, but admirable if true) is it really his place to do so?
> ...


Ok lets, flip and I remember the Brian Grant debacle, thats when I STOPPED being a Blazers' fan. As a fan do you HONESTLY want a 15 million dollar player on your bench taking away minutes for an up and coming young SF whos going to make almost 10 million less and hes definiely not going to be there next year SF/PF


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

He says he wants to be traded.

Doesn't he realize that making such statements is going to hurt his trade value in this day and age?

With a lower trade value, the Blazers are going to get less for him then they perhaps could have gotten.

This is what makes me upset more then anything. It's as if he's trying to "stick it" to the team in a way. This doesn't fly with me at all.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Can't say I blame SAR. He's on a team that only has a small chance of competing for a playoff spot this season, and he either going to be coming off the bench or starting out of position. I'd do whatever I could to finally get onto a winning team and help that team win, because as it is there isn't much SAR can do to help the Blazers, it'd be very hard to make the playoffs with their current roster. He's probably hoping he can force a move to New Jersey or somewhere else where he can start and hopefully win.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BEEZ</b>!
> 
> Ok lets, flip and I remember the Brian Grant debacle, thats when I STOPPED being a Blazers' fan. As a fan do you HONESTLY want a 15 million dollar player on your bench taking away minutes for an up and coming young SF whos going to make almost 10 million less and hes definiely not going to be there next year SF/PF


No, I don't want that at all. I'd much rather see the Blazers trade SAR - for his sake as well as theirs - and get more of what they need in return. Problem is, that scenario hasn't materialized yet. So, for the moment, the best the Blazers can do WRT SAR is to try to give him time at the 3, 4, and 5 spots to keep his numbers up while they try to find him a new home.

As far as negotiations with Miles go, I have yet to see a direct quote from Miles or his agent saying that Miles is ticked at the Blazers. The only thing I've read on the subject has been from Jason Quick, and his reliability is dubious, at best. And even if Miles is ticked at the Blazers, can he really blame them for not meeting his opening demand? No one else has offered him anything yet.

I personally wouldn't be surprised if Miles isn't too happy right now. He's not getting what he asked for, so why should he be? I'm just saying that I haven't seen a first-hand quote that indicates that he's ticked. So, AFAIC, negotiations with Miles are proceeding along much more 'normal' lines.

PBF


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

You do realize by demanding a trade and hurting his value, that helps SAR don't you? Not only does it put pressure on the Blazers to do something, but they will get less for him than they should, meaning that on his new team SAR will still have better players that otherwise would've been traded in the deal for him. He hurts the Blazers and helps his next team by demanding a trade. Look at it from his point of view, what have the Blazers done for him? They've benched him for the first time in his career and yet again he's missed the playoffs. He's been with them for half a season, he doesn't feel obliged to be loyal to them so he's helping himself out by lowering his value so that his next team has a better chance of winning. It makes perfect sense from his point of view, and once again I can't say I blame him.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

*Abdur-Rahim Demands Trade*



> Upset over a failed trade that would have sent the Blazers power forward over to New Jersey, Shareef Abdur-Rahim plans to go straight to the very top with his complaints. All the way to owner and Microsoft co-founder, Paul Allen, demanding a trade if he has to.
> 
> *"I hope it doesn't come to (a holdout), but if it does, it does," Abdur-Rahim said. "I don't want that to happen; it's not me and I don't think it's indicative of who I am. But at the same time, when I left Portland after the season, I was put under the impression of one thing (being traded), and now it has changed."*




This is the NBA Shareef, not Burger King, buck up little camper! 

:boohoo:

Shareef Abdul-Rahim speaks out!


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Aren't we all overlooking the really big story here? Shareef's trade demands are old news. What's new, and shocking, is the fact that Blazer management told Shareef he would be the starting small forward this year!

I can only assume that (if true) this means Portland will either let Miles walk away, or trade him. But does that make sense?? Miles is an up-and-coming star whose natural position is small forward. Shareef is a guy who has always played power forward. Why would Portland give up on Miles and try to slide Shareef into a position he doesn't even want to play?

I'm very confused by all of this. 

It seems to be setting the stage for bad chemistry, bad feelings, and a bad performance this year by the Blazers.


----------



## DucknBlazer (May 7, 2003)

> You do realize by demanding a trade and hurting his value, that helps SAR don't you? Not only does it put pressure on the Blazers to do something, but they will get less for him than they should, meaning that on his new team SAR will still have better players that otherwise would've been traded in the deal for him. He hurts the Blazers and helps his next team by demanding a trade. Look at it from his point of view, what have the Blazers done for him? They've benched him for the first time in his career and yet again he's missed the playoffs. He's been with them for half a season, he doesn't feel obliged to be loyal to them so he's helping himself out by lowering his value so that his next team has a better chance of winning. It makes perfect sense from his point of view, and once again I can't say I blame him.



But you have to realize the Blazers dont have to trade him. They are better off letting his contract come off the books next year then make a move for average players with bad/long contracts. The more SAR hurts his trade value the less likely it becomes that he gets traded.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DucknBlazer</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> But you have to realize the Blazers dont have to trade him. They are better off letting his contract come off the books next year then make a move for average players with bad/long contracts. The more SAR hurts his trade value the less likely it becomes that he gets traded.


They don't have to trade him, but they'd be stupid not to.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> You do realize by demanding a trade and hurting his value, that helps SAR don't you? Not only does it put pressure on the Blazers to do something, but they will get less for him than they should, meaning that on his new team SAR will still have better players that otherwise would've been traded in the deal for him. He hurts the Blazers and helps his next team by demanding a trade. Look at it from his point of view, what have the Blazers done for him? They've benched him for the first time in his career and yet again he's missed the playoffs. He's been with them for half a season, he doesn't feel obliged to be loyal to them so he's helping himself out by lowering his value so that his next team has a better chance of winning. It makes perfect sense from his point of view, and once again I can't say I blame him.


You made a couple interesting points about how SAR demanding a trade is good for him, but you left out a couple key points. 

If SAR went into this offseason acting like he loved Portland and was excited to play here, he's already increased his image from what it is now. Some teams will consider not going after SAR is they're not confident they won't have do deal with the same problem next year if they want to resign him.

Also, if SAR realized that Nash isn't one to pull the trigger if he wasn't getting "fair value" in return, then he would be smart to keep his mouth shut. SAR is just making it so Portland won't get as much in return and is decreasing his chance of getting traded. You mentioned that by doing this he'll just get traded to a team who has to give up less talent, which puts him on a more talented team. However, if his goal is to get out of Portland, then he's hurting himself. If his goal is to get on a championship contenter, then maybe you have a small point.

Right now SAR has some control in this situation, but if he keeps playing these games with Nash, it might end up biting him in the butt. Since Nash is somewhat new to Portland, he may bite the bullet with SAR, suspend and fine him for sitting out, just to prove to the rest of the league low-ball offers won't cut it when his players are unhappy. So not only would SAR lose this years 14 million dollar salary, but he'll have lost even more value in the free-agent market by the way he handle the situation. 

When you look at it that way, SAR isn't doing himself much good now, and could certainly be hurting himself big time in the future.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Beat you agin Howie... this time by 3 hours :rofl:

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109056&pagenumber=1


----------



## DucknBlazer (May 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> They don't have to trade him, but they'd be stupid not to.



Was it smart of Portland to trade Brian Grant for Shawn Kemp? 

Sometimes trading a player just because he wants to be traded isnt the best move for the franchise.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

This is both a desperate, and phony, tactic on the part of SAR and Goodwin. They have no cards to play, and so they threten to "hold out." 

Give me a break.

So what if he doesn't report to camp? Big friggin deal. He will be suspended and fined. That will last a few days until he walks back in, value diminished, tail between his legs, in his CONTRACT YEAR. 

It's not gonna happen, and even if it does, it doesn't force anyone's hand. I remember when Webber was traded to the then-sadsack Kings - he threatened to hold out too unless he was traded. Petrie said 'no way', and C Webb's "holdout" lasted 1 day. 

There is too much money on the line for SAR to not play in the NBA. 

I say, call his bluff.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Stevenson</b>!
> This is both a desperate, and phony, tactic on the part of SAR and Goodwin. They have no cards to play, and so they threten to "hold out."
> 
> Give me a break.
> ...


Absolutely. There is one reason - and one reason only - why SAR and Goodwin are taking this issue to the press. Because the Blazers hold all the cards.

If SAR sits out of training camp, he gets fined. If he chooses not to show up after that, the Blazers can terminate his contract (see Section 16 of the Uniform Player Contract for specifics).

Of course SAR and Goodwin are taking it to the press - they don't have any other option. It's not a smart move, IMO, but other than sitting and waiting, it's the only move they've got. They're trying to "embarass" the front office into making a deal. But I don't think it will - or should - work.

We should also realize that we are 3 MONTHS away from the start of the season. That leaves a lot of time for changes to take place. Nash is smart to play a waiting game, because time is on his side at this point. If the end of September rolls around and things are still unresolved, that's one thing. To be sitting at the end of July with unresolved issues is a completely different situation.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> It seems to be setting the stage for bad chemistry, bad feelings, and a bad performance this year by the Blazers.


I wouldn't worry too much about a bad performance yet. You'd be surprised at how focused NBA players can be on the game once Fall camp and the season roll around. SAR may end up MIA, but the rest of the team won't miss him. They'll be too focused on working hard and trying to win to give much thought to an MIA SAR.

The only way I can see the Blazers performing badly this upcoming season is if they fail to land Hassell (they need his perimeter defense something fierce), fail to re-sign Miles (or some other capable starting SF), OR fail to fill the gaping hole they have behind Theo at Center (a HUGE concern right now).

PBF


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

I haven't talked to him for awhile, but my last impression on the whole thing dealt with pride. 

Not the type of pride you associate with idiots like Kobe ... who WANT it all. Not selfish pride.

Everyone is so quick to cast stones and call him a bad guy. You forget that he was promised that he would be released. Why did he want it?

It comes full circle to what I keep talking about. The team made it VERY uncomfortable for Shareef. Namely Zach Randolph and Coach Cheeks. 

From what I understand - Reef went into Portland with players already up in arms. They didn't want the trade to begin with - and then you've got a player that can jockey for a starting position. It didn't help that Cheeks played Reef against Zach (the old shape up or else I'll start someone else routine). So a huge animosity grew up there - and Reef doesn't want to be a part of it. 

This has very little to do with the "SF" position. (He doesn't want to take it from Miles, that's for sure) It has to do with the way he was treated and what he wants and envisions for himself AS A PERSON. 

I stand behind him and look forward to seeing what's really going on right now. 

REMEMBER: You only get part of a story when the media spins it out.

Play.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> REMEMBER: You only get part of a story when the media spins it out.


Kinda like all this time you've been rigorously supporting SAR, only now to reveal you actually know the guy. (First I've seen of it, at least.) Makes you a wee bit biased, no?

Dan


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Freak</b>!
> Come on Shareef, your getting paid 14 million dollars to play Basketball. Stop *****ing and moaning about not playing. It happens, thats what it is like on a team that can actually WIN.


Don't confuse yourself - the Blazers will be lucky to break even this year. 

They aren't playoff bound. 

They are closer to the Hawks then the Spurs ... that's for sure.



> Playmaker I don't know how you can even say this guy is better than Randolph, and actually think he is a good person/player.


He's better then Randolph, in my opinion, because they are the same talent offensively. Reef is less selfish on the court. He's more team oriented. He plays defense.

Zach has skill -- but he's missing a lot too.

As for being a good person ... sitting the bench last year was proof positive of his character. The fact that management is reneging on their deal is one of the driving factors. Part of Reef's character is his passivity - he didn't like the character clashes in Portland.



> The guy is a LOSER. All he wants to do is be on a losing team so he can get his stats and make himselft look good.


No he doesn't. That's a stretch. He's been offered the starting role - he's declining it. 

Besides - Portland is pretty freaking losing. They aren't exactly the premiere team right now.

You want to point fingers at someone in that manner - look at Antoine Walker. There's a guy that is concerned about stats. 

Play.

GO ahaed Reef. Watch for those Knees injurys.:devil: [/QUOTE]


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Kinda like all this time you've been rigorously supporting SAR, only now to reveal you actually know the guy. (First I've seen of it, at least.)


It's pretty apparent isn't it? I've never hidden anything or hidden my bias.



> Makes you a wee bit biased, no?


Most definitely. But, it also makes me quite informed about things.

Play.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

The way I see it is that there are four options for the Blazers.

In order of best to worst:

1. Put together a really nice package that helps the team.

2. Integrate Shareef into the offense where he can be successful and help the team.

3. Let him sit and rot and just have his salary come off the books next season.

4. Put together a panicked trade that moves Shareef but doesn't help the Blazers.
=============

What Shareef and agent need to realize is that options 1 through 3 are in reality very close in terms of preference to what the Blazer's game plan is. Option 4 - which is what Shareef seems to be pushing for - is not acceptable. It's far better for the Blazers to go with option 3.

It's easy to forget that by anyone's standards, had the team been able to play the entire season with the team that finished the season, Portland was definitely a playoff team - all without any positive contribution from Shareef.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> exactly reef is nowhere near close to being better than Zach


You are definitely right .... he's not anywhere close to being better then Zach ....

*he's FAR better than Zach.*

Anyhow, your comment is pointless to the extreme. Not only is it completely debateable about who the better player is (both now and in the future) ... but if you are counting character ... then Reef wins in a landslide.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>trifecta</b>!
> It's easy to forget that by anyone's standards, had the team been able to play the entire season with the team that finished the season, Portland was definitely a playoff team - all without any positive contribution from Shareef.


That's entirely untrue. 

Portland was a borderline playoff team, at best. Take away Shareef's effective minutes and replace them with scrub#1 and over time it costs the team. 

But, even if we assume that they get good production from scrub#1 ... they weren't playoff caliber. With the shakeups that have happened this past year --- they are one step further behind.

Play.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> That's entirely untrue.
> ...


I'm pretty sure it's entirely true if you simply look at the winning percentage after the Sheed trade. (Honestly I haven't looked it up but I'm pretty sure.) 

If you want to believe Shareef helped last season then that's fine. I choose not to.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> it also makes me quite informed about things.


----------



## Hype #9 (Feb 14, 2004)

By Nash saying he was going to start Shareef at the 3, it doesn't mean that Miles will be out the door. To quote Nash:


> "What we would envision is Shareef playing in a three-forward rotation, with Zach, Darius and Shareef getting the lion's share of minutes. I would see him playing significantly more than he played for us last year. He is a terrific player, and if he is on our roster, he should be on the floor."


I don't think Nash/Cheeks are seriously considering starting Shareef at the 3. They're just waiting for a better deal. By telling Shareef and his agent that they're willing to start him at the 3, it shows that they're content on keeping him if they don't start seeing better deals. Its just a chess game.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Don't Make Excuses For SAR...*

...He's under contract. End of story. He needs to honor his contract, and shut his big mouth.

Count me as one that would like to see him sit on IR for the season.

What a putz!

Go Blazers


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>trifecta</b>!
> I'm pretty sure it's entirely true if you simply look at the winning percentage after the Sheed trade. (Honestly I haven't looked it up but I'm pretty sure.)
> 
> If you want to believe Shareef helped last season then that's fine. I choose not to.


Whether he helped or not isn't the issue. 

The team won a few more games after the trade. But, you'd have to check the competition and their current standings.

It doesn't really matter because they have done precious little to better themselves this year. If they start Reef at SF ... I think it will end up being a monumental mistake (unless Randolph matures a lot).

Play.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> They don't have to trade him, but they'd be stupid not to.


That is garbage. Yeah, let's trade him for players we don't need and contracts we don't want, just b\c...well....we have to. 

BS!

He signed a contract & he is bound by it. He can whine, complain and pout all he wants, but the bottom line is POR has NO obligation to trade him. Oh he can make it an unpleasant situation, he can hold out, he & his idiot of an agent can shout to anyone who will listen, but it won't change a damm thing. POR will trade him when it is in their BEST INTEREST, not HIS, to do so and not a moment before. So instead of whining to the press, maybe his agent should get off his a$$ and start trying to help facilitate a deal if he wants his client on a new team so bad.

Does Goodwin even know what POR wants for SAR? His yelling isn't helping the situation, it is HURTING it. What is laughable, is that some people call this being a good agent. I call it being a fool, and doing your client a great disservice. These are the types of things that should be handled through back channels and not through the press, a good agent knows that.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> It's pretty apparent isn't it? I've never hidden anything or hidden my bias.


True, you've never hidden your bias, but it's an entirely different matter to say you haven't hidden the reasons for your bias. The latter would be a huge stretch of the truth.



> But, it also makes me quite informed about things.


Much like the fine line between explanation and excuse. You may have inside info, but you're way too close (emotionally) to see things objectively.

Dan


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

Hello:

Anti-SAR Fan Club, anyone?

Regards:

Freshtown


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Playmaker, glad to know you are friends with SAR. It is good to get the player's viewpoint. However, you said that SAR had been promised his "release". Could you please explain this in more detail. Release normally means terminating the contract so that neither side has any obligation to the other. 

Do you really mean that when SAR arrived last year that management told him, just be a good boy for 3 months and then we will pay you next year's salary and you will be free to do whatever you want?


----------



## Focus (Feb 13, 2004)

I would like to hear the Nash side of story, I follow Reef since he got draft but I never heard him talk this way. I want to know did Nash have spoke w/ Reef at all, I strongly believe if Nash is comumicating w/ Reef, he won't talk this way.

And the big pic is between Miles/Reef/Zach, if the line up is SF=Reef, PF=Zach and Miles=backup. 
Miles(assume he sign for 1yr) will get piss for bring a backup as he is looking for big pay day after the season and this will hurt his value.
Reef will feel bad as he take over Miles's job.
Zach will get piss as he have to share the post w/ Reef.

Maybe Nash is looking to pack Zach for a stud SG so we don't have to pay him max next yr? This will get us a stud SG that we need and free up $ to sign Miles and resign Reef for a deal around 10 millions?

Telfair vs Telfair
Stud SG vs DA
Miles vs Miles
Reef vs Zach
Theo vs Theo

Which one is better?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> 
> That is garbage. Yeah, let's trade him for players we don't need and contracts we don't want, just b\c...well....we have to.
> ...


Hey, let's keep a guy who doesn't want to play for us! That's definitely the way to go!


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey, let's keep a guy who doesn't want to play for us! That's definitely the way to go!


Or another way to say it: Lets keep a guy so his salary comes off the books next season and if he wants any chance to get a lucrative contract next season, he'll play whether he wants to or not.


----------



## keebs3 (Feb 19, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>trifecta</b>!
> 
> 
> Or another way to say it: Lets keep a guy so his salary comes off the books next season and if he wants any chance to get a lucrative contract next season, he'll play whether he wants to or not.


Thats a good point... and I Shareef knows this. He is talking the talk now, but once the seasons starts he'll shut up a bit...

In the summer its fine, but once the season starts you have an obligation to play. Come October, SAR will either be on another team or he'll be playing on the Blazers. I don't see him actually sitting out, or not reporting to tranning camp. 

JMK


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>keebs3</b>!
> Come October, SAR will either be on another team or he'll be playing on the Blazers.


Way to go out on a limb. :yes:


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

With Paul Allen in money saving mode, he may be happy that Shareef will sit out without pay this year. That's 14 mil + luxery taxes back in Allen's pocket.

Reef, why don't you go try working for a 1.50 over minimum wage and whine your *** off to your manager because you don't like your job. You idiot.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

If we terminate his contract, would he be able to sign with another team? Or would he have to wait until next year?

I still think Portland can get something good out of SAR. Rashard Lewis...or the trade I suggested with NY that gives us a good bacup center and PF with expiring contracts. I know there is something Portland can work out...NJ is not the only team that wants SAR.


----------



## keebs3 (Feb 19, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> 
> Way to go out on a limb. :yes:


Thats just how I work, I live life on the edge. :devil:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey, let's keep a guy who doesn't want to play for us! That's definitely the way to go!


Heck no! Let's trade him for players that can't help the team and whose salaries will not come off the books next summer. Let's shoot ourselves in the foot and make another Grant/Kemp type deal. That'll teach Reef a good lesson! :whatever:


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

playmaker is aaron goodwin , dude reef is not better than Zach , you are the only one in the world who thinks that


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> 
> 
> Heck no! Let's trade him for players that can't help the team and whose salaries will not come off the books next summer. Let's shoot ourselves in the foot and make another Grant/Kemp type deal. That'll teach Reef a good lesson! :whatever:


Keep thinking all these salaries coming off the books are going to help you so much, but you do realize if you plan on resigning Miles this offseason and Zach next, you'll be looking at about $7 Million in cap room with no centers on your roster. You'll have no cap room to do anything but get a center, and probably a backup center too while you're at it if you don't draft one. Portland is so far over the cap, Damon's $16 Million, Theo's $11 Million, NVE's $12 Million and SAR's $14.6 Million all coming off the books still doesn't give them much room. 

Derek Anderson: 2005-2006 Salary- $9,093,000
Ruben Patterson: 2005-2006 Salary- $6,353,200
Darius Miles: Estimated 2005-2006 Salary- $5,700,000
Zach Randolph: Estimated 2005-2006 Salary- $12,500,000
Sebastian Telfair: 2005-2006 Salary- $1,676,280
Viktor Khryapa: 2005-2006 Salary- $1,095,960
Travis Outlaw: 2005-2006 Salary-$901,800
2005 NBA Draft Pick(1st Rounder)- Estimated $1,300,000
_____________________________________________
Estimated Total Salary for 2005-2006 Blazers(Also Assuming they let go of Qyntel Woods, declining the team option, if not add another $2 Million): $38,620,240

Estimated Salary Cap in 2005-2006: $45.8 Million

$45.8 Million - $38.62 Million($40.5 Million if they keep Woods)= $7.18 Million cap room

That leaves Portland with $7.18 Million dollars to find a center as well as fill various other holes. They could probably resign Theo and possibly a cheap backup center and cheap point guard to either start or play behind Telfair depending on how far along he is. The point I'm making is that all these expiring contracts isn't going to just help the team when they come off the books by magically transforming into loads of cap space and good players. Portland would have about $7 Million to fill several holes, and even if that worked out ideally they'd still be losing Damon, NVE and SAR, hardly scrubs.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> playmaker is aaron goodwin , dude reef is not better than Zach , you are the only one in the world who thinks that


I don't think he's the only one. I'm not so sure SAR is better, but certainly not as lopsided as some of you make it seem. Just because Zach put up 20-10 last season doesn't mean anything, SAR's been doing that almost his entire career. Neither are defensive juggernauts, so there's no huge swing there. Really, the only big advantage Randolph has is his age, which is why he's the starter and the guy they're building around, not SAR.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> playmaker is aaron goodwin


That's original.



> dude reef is not better than Zach


That's an opinion. 

And yes, I think he is far better than Randolph is. I also think he is currently better then Randolph will be. Personally, I'm not too impressed with Randolph or his game.

He clogs the middle. I don't mean that he likes to play the lane ... I mean he clogs it to the detriment of the team. Sure he grabs a couple o-boards ... but at the expense of never leaving. Heck - the games I watched the refs forgot the lane violations.

He is entirely too selfish. He doesn't recognize the double and is slow to react. He can't pass worht squat - when he even chooses to (which is a rare event).

He doesn't play a smidgeon of defense. I could defend better then Randolph. Heck - there are young preschoolers that give more effort than this guy on the defensive end.

You complain about Reef wanting stats ... and then go on a high-horse about Randolph. Let me tell you one thing about Randolph --- the game is ONLY about Randolph when it comes to Randolph.



> you are the only one in the world who thinks that


I am glad you've been nominated to world spokesperson and have been chosen to represent and speak for all mankind in all matters.

I know I'm extremely Reef biased - but I see his faults and admit to them. I have something of intellect to say on the subject. All you ever do is chime in with "I love Zach" ... "Zach should have my baby" ... "I'll have Zach's baby"... 

Don't just say some broad statement like "Zach is better than Reef, you are the only person that thinks he isn't" ... prove it. I don't see it. I haven't seen Randolph do anything that Reef hasn't done better.

Play.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> if you plan on resigning Miles this offseason and Zach next, you'll be looking at about $7 Million in cap room with no centers on your roster.


It's very up in the air at this point if Miles will be back or if it's even worth trying to bring him back. We only have half our roster available to play the same position.  

Dan


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> I don't think he's the only one. I'm not so sure SAR is better, but certainly not as lopsided as some of you make it seem. Just because Zach put up 20-10 last season doesn't mean anything, SAR's been doing that almost his entire career. Neither are defensive juggernauts, so there's no huge swing there. Really, the only big advantage Randolph has is his age, which is why he's the starter and the guy they're building around, not SAR.


I agree wholeheartedly.

Except, comparing Zach and Reef defensively is a stretch. Reef isn't the next Ron Artest ... but he sure looks like it next to Randolph.

Play.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly.
> ...


While I wouldn't give SAR the huge advantage defensively, I will say that he is slightly better. I do agree with you on one thing though, that you have made your case for why you think he's better than Randolph much better than I've seen anyone make the case for Zach over SAR.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> It's very up in the air at this point if Miles will be back or if it's even worth trying to bring him back. We only have half our roster available to play the same position.
> 
> Dan


Certainly none of them are starter quality at this point. If SAR proves he can play SF effectively than he is, but I'm not so sure that is true. Patterson certainly can't cut it as a starter, his hustle and heart are fine off the bench but aren't good enough to qualify him as a starter, and neither of the rookies are ready to start or even play all that much. Portland really could use re-signing Miles.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> While I wouldn't give SAR the huge advantage defensively, I will say that he is slightly better


I'd give Reef a hefty edge because he plays better team defense then Randolph. 

One on one, I'd give the edge to Reef ... but not by as much as the team defense.

Reef rotates a lot better and knows how to funnel his man. He also doesn't give too many weak fouls. He isn't great on the perimeter, but he's better than Zach. Remember this guy all but shut down McGrady. (even if McGrady was off ... it's no easy task)



> I do agree with you on one thing though, that you have made your case for why you think he's better than Randolph much better than I've seen anyone make the case for Zach over SAR.


Thanks.

I don't mean to seem like I'm saying Zach isn't a good player. I think he is quite good. But, I think he is good to the DETRIMENT of the team. I think if he focused more on defense, unclogged the lane ... he'd be FAR more effective as a basketball player. 

Unfortunately, people get caught up in the glitz of numbers and forget that the game is based around a team and a coach and a strategy. 

Play.


----------



## rattler-n-rollin (Jun 21, 2004)

*reef is a follower not a leader*

HIS AGENT PULLS THE STRINGS REEF JUST MIMICKS THE AaRON GOODWIN VITROL :sigh: SHAREEF NEEDS TO SHUT HIS AGENT UP AND PLAY BALL OR BE A RETARD AND PISS OFF MR Allen

If ya wet on your masters leg he`ll beat you and send ya the pound{AKA:ATLANTA OR CLIPPERS.}then he`ll get 20/10only again on A looser. 

SHAREEF IS A HAS BEEN  :devil: :sigh:


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Bwatcher</b>!
> However, you said that SAR had been promised his "release". Could you please explain this in more detail. Release normally means terminating the contract so that neither side has any obligation to the other.


Basically, my understanding is that he was told by management, at the end of the year, they would spare nothing to move him. They appreciated his effort and how he handled himself while being asked to take a diminished role. 

His reward would be that they spared nothing to get him somewhere that he can:
(A) win
(B) play

They didn't do that, nor have they made the effort. In fact, quite the opposite. 



> Do you really mean that when SAR arrived last year that management told him, just be a good boy for 3 months and then we will pay you next year's salary and you will be free to do whatever you want?


No. Not even close. When he came, they wanted him to "be a good boy". In fact, there was talk that he was supposed to become the starter. But player relations were taking a beating from the get-go. Reef self-aborted the attept. 

He understood what his role had to be ... and his role was certainly NOT to ruin team chemistry. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: reef is a follower not a leader*



> Originally posted by <b>rattler-n-rollin</b>!
> HIS AGENT PULLS THE STRINGS REEF JUST MIMICKS THE AaRON GOODWIN VITROL :sigh: SHAREEF NEEDS TO SHUT HIS AGENT UP AND PLAY BALL OR BE A RETARD AND PISS OFF MR Allen


Actually, it is Allen that is in love with Reef.

Allen REALLY wants Reef.



> If ya wet on your masters leg he`ll beat you and send ya the pound{AKA:ATLANTA OR CLIPPERS.}then he`ll get 20/10only again on A looser.


You don't quite get it ... Reef never wanted to LEAVE Atlanta. 

Besides ... Portland isn't exactly a WINNER right now. Portland will be lucky to be much better than the Clip this year.



> SHAREEF IS A HAS BEEN  :devil: :sigh:


Yes ... has been. Interesting. He's younger then Garnett ... yet, he's a has been.

Play.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> ....His reward would be that they spared nothing to get him somewhere that he can:
> (A) win
> ...


I think you're being a tad bit premature in your analysis, Play. There's still a lot of summer left.

If he's still in a Blazer uni when the season begins, then, perhaps, you have a legitimate complaint.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> I think you're being a tad bit premature in your analysis, Play. There's still a lot of summer left.


I agree. 

Obviously, Goodwin didn't. 

I think the worry was that management started talking about keeping him and wanting to use his salary relief. Not to mention that he never really wanted to be in Portland (nothing against the city)

I think that is what motivated the public outcry. I don't know the inside scoop ... but I can say that this is not Reef's behavior. There is something else going on.



> If he's still in a Blazer uni when the season begins, then, perhaps, you have a legitimate complaint.


I'm not complaining. I don't really know what I want to happen. 

I think the best place for Reef would have been the Nets. Outside of that, I don't know where I'd want him to go. I'm sick of peopel calling him a loser because he always happens to be on scrub teams.

Knowing his luck ... he'll be a Bobcat before the year is out.

Play.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> Knowing his luck ... he'll be a Bobcat before the year is out.
> 
> Play.


:laugh: 

I certainly hope that doesn't happen. I hear that Johnson is a lower low-baller than Sterling.  

It would be Vancouver all over again.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Thank you for replying Playmaker. Its also good to know that you think Goodwin may have been acting a bit on his own (Goodwin seems to have more than one player involved in trying to force trades this summer). 

I don't remember exactly when, but it seems to me that soon after the draft, Goodwin made the statement about Reef would not come to camp. I really was startled at that time, because it seemed like the trading period had barely begun. I just wish that Reef had been more patient, but its his salary and his agent. 

I also think, that if Reef wants to be angry with someone, he should be angry with the Hawks management. They were the ones that traded him here. Apparently Cheeks did not welcome him with open arms, but it wasn't like he had no chance to show what he could do. It seems like he may have rather quickly made the decision that Portland wasn't the place he wants to be. Anyway, I hope things work out for all.


----------



## Focus (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think he's the only one. I'm not so sure SAR is better, but certainly not as lopsided as some of you make it seem. Just because Zach put up 20-10 last season doesn't mean anything, SAR's been doing that almost his entire career. Neither are defensive juggernauts, so there's no huge swing there. Really, the only big advantage Randolph has is his age, which is why he's the starter and the guy they're building around, not SAR.


I think u now realize Reef mean nothing at all to some blazer fans.


----------



## Focus (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> Knowing his luck ... he'll be a Bobcat before the year is out.
> 
> Play.


No worry on this, I don't think Bobcat can get Reef. If they go for Reef, they will have to trade half the team away. 

And for Reef, I would like him to be on NJ, Boston, NY, Cleveland or Phily. All those team have good passer and in need for low post player, they will value Reef better.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: reef is a follower not a leader*



> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> Besides ... Portland isn't exactly a WINNER right now. Portland will be lucky to be much better than the Clip this year.


you must not know much about the history of the Clippers, do you?


----------



## KIDBLAZE (Jul 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: reef is a follower not a leader*



> Yes ... has been. Interesting. He's younger then Garnett ... yet, he's a has been.
> 
> Play.


I thought you knew SAR. Like hell he's younger than kg


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: reef is a follower not a leader*



> Originally posted by <b>KIDBLAZE</b>!
> 
> 
> I thought you knew SAR. Like hell he's younger than kg


Actually he is.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> Keep thinking all these salaries coming off the books are going to help you so much, but you do realize if you plan on resigning Miles this offseason and Zach next, you'll be looking at about $7 Million in cap room with no centers on your roster. You'll have no cap room to do anything but get a center, and probably a backup center too while you're at it if you don't draft one. Portland is so far over the cap, Damon's $16 Million, Theo's $11 Million, NVE's $12 Million and SAR's $14.6 Million all coming off the books still doesn't give them much room.
> 
> ...


Well, you're close. Time to pull out the updated numbers....

Portland's committed to the following salaries for 2005-06:

Derek Anderson: $9.093 million
Ruben Patterson: $6.353 million
Trenton Hassell: $4.500 million [assuming Minny doesn't match]
Sebastian Telfair: $1.676 million
Victor Khyrapa: $1.096 million
Travis Outlaw: $1.082 million
Sergei Monia : $0.848 million [estimate - before signing contract]
2005 1st round pick: $0.959 million [estimate - assuming #20 pick - before signing contract]

That's $25.607 million for 8 players. Add in 3 cap holds and Portland's minimum team salary is $26.821 million.

Now, I expect that the Blazers will NOT offer Zach an extension this summer. Instead, I believe they'll let him become a RFA next summer, in which case he'll count as $5.415 million until he signs a new contract. My guess is that if they want to play in the FA market, they'll keep him at this level until they sign a FA, then give him a big pay raise using his Bird rights.

Miles is a wildcard, though, isn't he? Let's just assume for our purposes, though, that his contract next summer is for $6.000 million (a nice round number...)

That takes Portland's team salary up to $37.427 million, including one cap hold. My best guess on next summer's salary cap is $45.55 million. That would leave Portland with $8.123 million in cap room if they renounced everyone else (Ratliff, Stoudamire, Van Exel, Abdur-Rahim and Stepania). Keeping Bird rights on any of those besides Vladimir would mean no cap room.

In the end, I agree fully with *hobojoe* - there's no big man FA out there worth renouncing both SAR and Ratliff AND worth not trading either of them for any value back.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, you're close. Time to pull out the updated numbers....
> ...


Excellent analysis So Cal Blazer Fan, and in the end our outlooks end up being very similar. It's impossible to get a definite answer, but I think we can pretty much agree that it won't be a huge offseason for signing big free agents for Portland. Regardless of what happens, Portland won't have much cap room and they'll have to fill some holes with that room. They may be handicapped even more if they end up getting Hassell, like you have in your analysis but I didn't include because I think Minnesota will match. It would definitely be beneficial to the Blazers to get rid of SAR and get some value back for him. The only way I could see it making sense to keep him and let him expire would be if somehow they could get Derek Anderson off the books after this season as well, somehow convincing someone to trade expiring contract(s) for him. That's very unlikely however, so I think at this point the Blazers should get whatever value they can for SAR. At this point they're not handicapped into having to take on bad contracts because SAR is still a good player and his contract runs up after the season. Portland just has to be careful and not make a stupid trade.


----------



## rx2web (Jul 27, 2004)

Reguardless of where we stand on "Cap Space" Next summer, I find it simply amazing that we are even *talking* cap space. Remember this is a team that only but a year or so ago had a salary of near 100 Million. Didn't we with luxury tax included pay something like 150 million for our team? 

The mere fact alone that within 2 years or so we will be even marginally *under* the cap is staggering. If anything I think that's a fairly good sign of the work that Nash and Patterson are doing for the team. I see us being competative in the future and financially smart. I'm not saying we won't go over the cap. Cause most teams seem to do that reguardless. But I don't think we will have wild abandon spending either.

I think what we will see is a Paul Allen who will pay the big $ when it's appropriate. Personally I like the looks of the Future of the blazer.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: reef is a follower not a leader*



> Originally posted by <b>KIDBLAZE</b>!
> I thought you knew SAR. Like hell he's younger than kg


What one has to do with the other - I'll never know. 

I know my mother, but I don't know if she's older than your mother. 

If I were wrong (which I am not), it would mean that I don't know when Garnett was born. 

Anyhow -- he's younger then Garnett. People forget that Reef was REALLY pretty young when he entered the league.

Play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: reef is a follower not a leader*



> Originally posted by <b>KIDBLAZE</b>!
> 
> 
> I thought you knew SAR. Like hell he's younger than kg


Kevin Garnett

Born: 05/19/76 


SAR

Born: 12/11/76 

so that means that SAR is just under 7 months younger than KG.


----------

