# Patterson sent back to Portland



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Per the Blazers Blog....Link


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Per the Blazers Blog....Link


I'd guess Khryapa will be activated?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> “Ruben Patterson has been placed on the inactive list and sent home to Portland for the rest of this road trip for his behavior both on and off the court.
> 
> We will not tolerate this type of behavior from any player. We will continue to demand a higher level of professionalism and personal responsibility from all of our players or we will continue to take appropriate action.”


Wow Hello Viktor!


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

Very nice move by management. I expected them in put him on the IA list, but sending him home is one step better. I hope they activated Kryapa instead of Smith, which would be a better match for Ruben's minutes. 

I have a feeling we will have a good road trip now!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

It's official. Ruben Patterson has jumped the shark.


----------



## Phatguysrule (Jul 5, 2005)

This is a great move by Nate and Management. Make an example out of Ruben. 

:clap:


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I couldn't be happier. :clap: 

Go Viktor!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

It was just a matter of time. This team has no chance of succeeding this year, and passionate veterans like Ruben are bound to become upset. Fortunately in this respect, Portland has few veterans so there aren't that many people to send back home.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Redbeard said:


> Very nice move by management. I expected them in put him on the IA list, but sending him home is one step better. I hope they activated Kryapa instead of Smith, which would be a better match for Ruben's minutes.
> 
> I have a feeling we will have a good road trip now!


Not just the minutes aspect, but the fact that he can help fill in the PF position.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Portland clearly needed to draw a line in the sand to tell the players that it's a new era. Lucky for us they were able to make an example of a guy who really is pretty replaceable on our squad. If we do nothing but bench him for the rest of the year, it'll only cost us a few games at most. 

Had it been Randolph, Miles or Telfair who had acted out, though, management would have a much bigger dilemna. We stand a chance of still winning 30 games without Ruben, but we stand no chance without any of those three.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> It was just a matter of time. This team has no chance of succeeding this year, and passionate veterans like Ruben are bound to become upset....
> 
> Ed O.


Then, you could always be KG. Now THERE's a "passionate veteran" that probably would deserve to be upset from time to time throughout his career. :yes:


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> It was just a matter of time. This team has no chance of succeeding this year, and passionate veterans like Ruben are bound to become upset. Fortunately in this respect, Portland has few veterans so there aren't that many people to send back home.
> 
> Ed O.


Geesh Ed you make it sound as though the team is intentionally trying to mail it in, by sending home "a passionate veteran".


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Could Patterson be any more stupid? Just like Miles no other team will give him these kind of minutes to become a better player. What does he think, he'll start for the Heat, Lakers,Pistons or Spurs? That's laughable. This is the most playing time that Patterson will ever get in the NBA and he pissing it away. 


Patterson, Zach and Miles, could this team have a lower I.Q.? 

Intresting they are the ones always in trade talk.

The sooner they're gone the faster the Blazers can run a real offense!


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Fork said:


> It's official. Ruben Patterson has jumped the shark.


This phrase. You keep using this phrase.

I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I find it a bit disturbing that Nash would say of Patterson, "We will continue to demand a higher level of professionalism and personal responsibility from all of our players or we will continue to take appropriate action." Remember back to last year when Nash took an extremely unprofessional approach to his public comments on his views of Ruben... Seems pretty hypocritical to me, but Ruben's the easiest one to make an example of.

Dan


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

dkap said:


> I find it a bit disturbing that Nash would say of Patterson, "We will continue to demand a higher level of professionalism and personal responsibility from all of our players or we will continue to take appropriate action." Remember back to last year when Nash took an extremely unprofessional approach to his public comments on his views of Ruben... Seems pretty hypocritical to me, but Ruben's the easiest one to make an example of.
> 
> Dan


What was it that Nash said? I can't remember.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> It was just a matter of time. This team has no chance of succeeding this year, and passionate veterans like Ruben are bound to become upset.
> 
> Ed O.


I guess that depends on the definition of 'success.' 

If your ONLY definition of success is winning a championship (or even GETTING to the playoffs) then you're right, this team has close to zero chance of success.

Then again, I accept that it can be a successful season if the young guys learn how to play team basketball, improve their game offensively and defensively and win a few games along the way.

Ruben Patterson clearly doesn't see group B's point of view, which is a shame for everybody involved. There's probably got a lot he could teach the young guys on the team, but he's too selfish to do that. Good riddance.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> It was just a matter of time. This team has no chance of succeeding this year, and passionate veterans like Ruben are bound to become upset. Fortunately in this respect, Portland has few veterans so there aren't that many people to send back home.
> 
> Ed O.


a passionate vet?

please ed, I know you to perpetuate the same argument about the team lacking certain things, but this is anything but a passionate vet.

This is a dip****, who's doing nothing different than he's always done. Whined, and make a big fool of himself.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Schilly said:


> What was it that Nash said? I can't remember.


I bet this is the quote in question:

“Ruben will be what he has always been during his career — a bench player,” Nash was quoted as saying. “I don’t see him getting many minutes.”

That's not unprofessional in the least.

Later, he said:

“Ruben changed his life last summer by giving up alcohol, and it has had an incredibly positive effect on his career,” the GM says. “He wanted to prove he deserved an opportunity to start. We talked about Shareef and Darius as starters, and he took the challenge. I’ve told him privately on several occasions this year I admire what he has done and how he has approached things.”

Yeah, how unprofessional that John Nash is.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> I bet this is the quote in question:
> 
> “Ruben will be what he has always been during his career — a bench player,” Nash was quoted as saying. “I don’t see him getting many minutes.”


Ohhh, that's right. Wasn't that in response to Ruben saying that he himself, should be the starting Small Forward on the team?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> I guess that depends on the definition of 'success.'
> 
> If your ONLY definition of success is winning a championship (or even GETTING to the playoffs) then you're right, this team has close to zero chance of success.
> 
> ...


Why on earth would Ruben Patterson want to sit on the bench while a bunch of young guys lose games?

He wants to win, and he wants to be a part of a winner.

For us as fans, or for management, a longer term approach is of course more palatable. But for a guy who's 30 years old and going to be a free agent in a year and a half, I don't see how a guy can continue to give a **** and not say something.

A tirade laced with profanity? Over the line, no doubt. I think that the team is right in sending him home, but management put itself in a position to have to do this by putting together such a bad team.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> a passionate vet?
> 
> please ed, I know you to perpetuate the same argument about the team lacking certain things, but this is anything but a passionate vet.
> 
> This is a dip****, who's doing nothing different than he's always done. Whined, and make a big fool of himself.


So if the team were winning he'd be acting the same? Of course not.

He's acting like a dip**** because the team is so bad, because there's no hope for it getting much better while he's here, and because he cares about winning.

A player like Theo Ratliff has been on a lot of bad teams... he might have had the passion kicked out of him. But Ruben's not used to losing, and I think that it's a point in his favor that he finds it unacceptable.

There are, of course, healthier ways for him to express himself than what he's done.

Ed O.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Bad move Ruben i hope hes traded by weeks end.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

One point that I will argue is that the Blazers will certainly be a poorer team without Ruben on it. He deserved to be sent home, but the team is now worse than it was when it started the trip.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Geesh Ed you make it sound as though the team is intentionally trying to mail it in, by sending home "a passionate veteran".


That's not my intent at all. I think that management had to have known--or should have known--that the makeup and lack of competitiveness of this team were going to cause problems beyond just losses on the floor.

We can blame Ruben for his role in this, but I think that management set him up for failure here.

Ed O.


----------



## dekko (Feb 18, 2003)

dkap said:


> I find it a bit disturbing that Nash would say of Patterson, "We will continue to demand a higher level of professionalism and personal responsibility from all of our players or we will continue to take appropriate action." Remember back to last year when Nash took an extremely unprofessional approach to his public comments on his views of Ruben... Seems pretty hypocritical to me, but Ruben's the easiest one to make an example of.
> 
> Dan


And last year when he was upset about Cheeks being fired instead of demanding a "high level of professionalism" they gave him time off to go home and pout and paid him...

Laurel T


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> So if the team were winning he'd be acting the same? Of course not.


The guy thinks he's much better than he is, and is entitled to much more. 



> He's acting like a dip**** because the team is so bad, because there's no hope for it getting much better while he's here, and because he cares about winning.


so all the other times he's acted like a dip****, were just coincidental?



> A player like Theo Ratliff has been on a lot of bad teams... he might have had the passion kicked out of him. But Ruben's not used to losing, and I think that it's a point in his favor that he finds it unacceptable.
> 
> There are, of course, healthier ways for him to express himself than what he's done.
> 
> Ed O.


Ruben has foot in mouth disease, regardless of whether or not the team is winning. does anyone remember the whole "kobe stopper" fiasco? The guy is a dip****, pure and simple. He doesn't understand how to play within a teams offense, and he's the kind of guy you don't want influencing young guys.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> He's acting like a dip**** because the team is so bad, because there's no hope for it getting much better while he's here, and because he cares about winning.
> 
> Ed O.


What a winner.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> Ruben has foot in mouth disease, regardless of whether or not the team is winning. does anyone remember the whole "kobe stopper" fiasco? The guy is a dip****, pure and simple. He doesn't understand how to play within a teams offense, and he's the kind of guy you don't want influencing young guys.


What players DO we want influencing young guys?

I've read that DA was a terrible influence, that Ruben's a bad influence, that Zach and Darius are bad influences... at some point management will have to figure out that there are few angels in the NBA, and a "culture of winning" is actually dependent on winning some games, rather than repeatedly drawing lines in the sand and counting on repeated lottery appearances to improve the team.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> What players DO we want influencing young guys?
> 
> I've read that DA was a terrible influence, that Ruben's a bad influence, that Zach and Darius are bad influences... at some point management will have to figure out that there are few angels in the NBA, and a "culture of winning" is actually dependent on winning some games, rather than repeatedly drawing lines in the sand and counting on repeated lottery appearances to improve the team.
> 
> Ed O.


lets see, how about we don't have a guy who's a drunkard, has a horrible sexual past, doesn't understand how to play within a role, is a bully off the court..assaults people..

how about we get someone who doesn't do that kind of stuff?

I'll just say this..there's a very good reason why the Spurs traded away DA after 1 year. and it wasn't money related.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> What a winner.


What SHOULD he do? Shrug his shoulders at the losses, knowing that the team will let him walk just as they approach competitiveness? Bite his tongue as he remains affixed to the bench as an out-of-position backup, watching his free agent value whither away? Ignore his recent teammates scattered throughout the league that are playing significant roles on much more successful clubs?

Squeeky wheels get the grease, and it's natural that RP wants a change. Being a squeeky wheel is just about the only way to effect that. It has nothing to do with being a "winner".

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> He's acting like a dip**** because the team is so bad, because there's no hope for it getting much better while he's here, and because he cares about winning.
> 
> Ed O.


Sorry Ed, but from the reports I read, Ruben's complaint wasn't about losing; it was about playing time. He wanted more of it than Nate was giving him. Ruben was being selfish and threw a tirade fitting of a 2 year-old.

I'm with McMillan and Blazers management on this one.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> Sorry Ed, but from the reports I read, Ruben's complaint wasn't about losing; it was about playing time. He wanted more of it than Nate was giving him. Ruben was being selfish and threw a tirade fitting of a 2 year-old.


Are his minutes down this year? I'm honestly asking. Because I don't remember these sorts of explosions when the team was making the playoffs and winning 50 games a year. 

He has NO influence over whether the team can win or not (beyond being on the floor), but if he complains it's conceivable he can, at least, get extra minutes to help the team win.

Edit: his minutes ARE down. From 28 minutes or so last year to 19 or so this year. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> What SHOULD he do? Shrug his shoulders at the losses, knowing that the team will let him walk just as they approach competitiveness? Bite his tongue as he remains affixed to the bench as an out-of-position backup, watching his free agent value whither away? Ignore his recent teammates scattered throughout the league that are playing significant roles on much more successful clubs?
> 
> Squeeky wheels get the grease, and it's natural that RP wants a change. Being a squeeky wheel is just about the only way to effect that. It has nothing to do with being a "winner".
> 
> Ed O.


how about he a: realize his free agent value is low to begin with b: talk to the *COACH* privately c: realize that there's a reason why he plays out of position and thats because he's really not good enough TO play SF regularly and d: the players thare playing "significant roles on much more successful clubs" were much better players than him and really have nothing to do with him?


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

I really wish they'd just waive him - his tirades are really getting old. So you have to sit on the bench to make your millions - life is rough, deal with it Ruben.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Why on earth would Ruben Patterson want to sit on the bench while a bunch of young guys lose games?Ed O.


He wouldn't. He shouldn't. But frankly, he just isn't playing well enough to warrant getting more minutes. He needs to look in the mirror if he wants to know who's keeping him off the court. Cursing at the coach is not going to help get him traded to a winner. If he wasn't so stupid, I think he might get that.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Ed O said:


> It was just a matter of time. This team has no chance of succeeding this year, and passionate veterans like Ruben are bound to become upset. Fortunately in this respect, Portland has few veterans so there aren't that many people to send back home.
> 
> Ed O.


That post is full of ****. The only thing Ruben is passionate about is the number of minutes he gets on the floor. **** him and **** that post, too.

PBF


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> “Ruben will be what he has always been during his career — a bench player,” Nash was quoted as saying. “I don’t see him getting many minutes.”
> 
> That's not unprofessional in the least.


You don't consider that an unprofessional comment, coming from the GM?! How much further can you go to disrupt an individual's focus and confidence? If someone said that about you, how much motivation would you be left with to buy into what management and the coaching staff are saying? To me, that's just about the worst possible thing a GM could say publicly.



> And last year when he was upset about Cheeks being fired instead of demanding a "high level of professionalism" they gave him time off to go home and pout and paid him...


I'm not at all clear what you're implying... As I've stated before, there was never anything conclusive stating that Ruben (or NVE) quit on the team. From what I could tell, they _wanted_ to play and contribute, but were told no thanks, because the team wanted to play the youngsters almost exclusively. I would hope any competitive person would be upset with that.

Dan


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> He wouldn't. He shouldn't. But frankly, he just isn't playing well enough to warrant getting more minutes. He needs to look in the mirror if he wants to know who's keeping him off the court. Cursing at the coach is not going to help get him traded to a winner. If he wasn't so stupid, I think he might get that.


I'm not claiming he's an intelligent man, but do you think that his minutes are down this year because he's a worse player? Or because the team has better options?

Looking at the roster and roles of players, I think "no" and "no". I think that the team is playing him less because they are less concerned with winning than they are about developing players. That's TOTALLY FINE and TOTALLY LEGIT as a strategy for the team, but all I'm saying is that I understand why he's doing what he's doing, and I think that more NBA players would do it than some of us think.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> That post is full of ****. The only thing Ruben is passionate about is the number of minutes he gets on the floor. **** him and **** that post, too.


Are you serious? 

Please tell me you're joking.

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> Please tell me you're joking.


Yes, I'm dead serious.

No, I'm not joking.

I'm not in a frame of mind to mince words with you Ed, nor am I permitted to say here what I really think of you, your outlook on the team, or your agenda here on this forum because it most definately would qualify as a personal attack.

I said exactly what I meant to say, and that's all I'm going to say.

PBF


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

It's just a bad fit for everyone....a volatile veteran who wants minutes and wins....a bad team that wants to develop young talent....just doesn't work. Unfortunately for Ruben that is the chance you take when you sign a long term contract. I am so sick of these guys who want the security of a long term deal, yet when the going gets rough they want to be traded. Can't have it both ways!


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> Yes, I'm dead serious.
> 
> No, I'm not joking.
> 
> ...


I do not believe Ed has an _agenda _ on this forum. I know I don't.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

tlong said:


> I do not believe Ed has an _agenda _ on this forum. I know I don't.


I'll second that, Tlong.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

TRADE HIM PLEASE

NY?

Philidelphia?

Houston?

Sacramento?

All of those teams are destinations, hopefully.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> TRADE HIM PLEASE
> 
> NY?
> 
> ...


Hey, maybe we can get that Wells guy from 'em.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> It was just a matter of time. This team has no chance of succeeding this year, and passionate veterans like Ruben are bound to become upset. Fortunately in this respect, Portland has few veterans so there aren't that many people to send back home.


You're so wise and witty, Ed. And wrong, of course. This team obviously does have a chance to succeed this year, and sending Patterson home is going to improve that chance. I support this move 100% and I think it will send a loud and clear message to the rest of the team. 



> We can blame Ruben for his role in this, but I think that management set him up for failure here.


*deleted*. Your anti-management tirades are predictably over-the-top and you lose more of my respect every day. I suppose if Ruben molests another nanny, you'll blame that on management, too.

That's a personal attack. Not permitted.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> Yes, I'm dead serious.
> 
> No, I'm not joking.
> 
> ...


OK. Hopefully you can stop cursing long enough to look at these numbers:

00-01: 27.1
01-02: 23.5
02-03: 21.2
03-04: 22.6
04-05: 28.0
05-06: 19.3

Those are Ruben's minutes per game. If, as you claim so forcefully, ALL he cares about is minutes, why wasn't he cursing and steaming in public in 2002? Do you think those 1.9 minutes a game were so important to him?

I think that you need to look at other numbers: 

00-01: 50
01-02: 49
02-03: 50
03-04: 41
04-05: 27
05-06: 31

Those are the number of wins per season for the Blazers (extrapolating at the team's current .375 winning rate for this year.

It's possible that he was less unhappy earlier in his contract, and now he sees that sitting on the bench is hurting his next deal... that's totally possible. But I find it just as likely that he cares about winning NOW as he does about any potential deal he might get in 2007.

As for me having an agenda: what a foolish thing to say on your part. My opinions and predictions on the team have been as accurate as anyone's on the forum... that they are primarily negative is a reflection of the current sad state of the team, rather than me attempting to spoil other people's fun.

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

The way I see it, Ruben is not a part of the future of this team. As currently constituted, there's little likelihood that this team will challenge for a playoff spot. This season is primarily about developing our young talent and figuring out which of them are going to be important pieces in rebuilding the team. Given all of that, I'd put keeping Patterson happy at only one notch higher importance than keeping the hotdog vendors at the Rose Garden smiling.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> *deleted* Your anti-management tirades are predictably over-the-top and you lose more of my respect every day. I suppose if Ruben molests another nanny, you'll blame that on management, too.


Predictably over the top? Perhaps. Predicably accurate? Absolutely.

You've got the former nailed, but need to work on the latter.

Ed O.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

I'm honestly not concerned about Rubens minutes played or anything else. Ruben is a career bench player. That's about all he'll be. Yes, he may get some games as a starter, but other than that, he's a spark off the bench. Him *****ing about playing time and doing it during game time is just not acceptable. Now if Zach complains because he's not getting minutes, then I can understand that, but as long as it's not during game time. 

So, the Blazers being a playoff team or not doesn't really mean much to me. It doesn't say in his contract the Blazers will be a playoff team during the length of his contract or they will trade him to a contender. You sign a gauranteed contract in which you are getting paid more than you contribute to the team. Live with it.


----------



## vicious2500 (Jun 29, 2005)

Ed O said:


> OK. Hopefully you can stop cursing long enough to look at these numbers:
> 
> 00-01: 27.1
> 01-02: 23.5
> ...


After 2003 we traded the core of our team and identity away with Rasheed Wallace and Bonzi Wells. We pretty much became bottom feeders after that so saying Ruben was helping us win is kind of a stretch. He was shining up the pine for Wallace & company to rest up so he could get out there to do a little work before going back to wax the pine. Trade him out for an expiring contract and let the young players get some PT and develop.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Ed...Come on now...

Is anyone REALLY surprised here?

Ruben has always been a knucklehead...ALWAYS been a knucklehead...he is always complaining...about playing time...about coaching decisions...about losing (while never looking at his own boxscore mind you)...So I fail to see how this is really a surprise to anyone here...POR is BETTER OFF w\o him...I don't think there is ANY doubt about that IMO.

And Ed...to justify a player's profanity laced tirade at his coach...IN THE MIDDLE OF A GAME is ridiculous...he deserves EXACTLY what he gets (and probably more)..and there is ZERO justification for lashing out at your coach like that...lack of playing time...or the team's record do not justify it, as you seem to insinuate that they do...

I don't know what your problem is Ed...but you sure seem hell bent on bashing POR no matter what...They lost a game they should have won last night...that is it...I see plenty of POSITIVE signs on this team (and some negative) so far this year...but all you and some other posters seem to see is negative....doesn't that get old?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Who's justifying?

Please tell me where I've justified anything. I look forward to specifics.

Thanks,

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> I don't know what your problem is Ed...but you sure seem hell bent on bashing POR no matter what...They lost a game they should have won last night...that is it...I see plenty of POSITIVE signs on this team (and some negative) so far this year...but all you and some other posters seem to see is negative....doesn't that get old?


A couple things:

1. Who says we "should" have won the game yesterday morning? The Knicks were in control the whole game and the Knicks are a better team. I don't know why anyone would think that we "should" have won in NYC.

2. If we "should" have won, isn't is a negative that we didn't? Shouldn't good coaching help us win the games we should, rather than lose the games we should?

As far as just seeing the negative: please pay closer attention. I've given numerous props to Telfair after his good showing in NY.

Ed O.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Ed O said:


> 1. Who says we "should" have won the game yesterday morning? The Knicks were in control the whole game and *the Knicks are a better team*. I don't know why anyone would think that we "should" have won in NYC.


I think that's very debateable. I can see both the Blazers and Knicks as on par with each other, but to say the Knicks are better period I would have to disagree with. They have their own issues just like the Blazers. Both are rebuilding.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Scout226 said:


> I think that's very debateable. I can see both the Blazers and Knicks as on par with each other, but to say the Knicks are better period I would have to disagree with. They have their own issues just like the Blazers. Both are rebuilding.


It's certainly debatable which team is better, but what evidence is there that the Knicks are rebuilding?

They have a new coach and some players are having adjustment issues, but the team features veteran players in their prime up and down the roster, with young guys sprinkled in, including a promising rookie class of Frye/Robinson/Lee.

Marbury? 28
Crawford? 25
Rose? 30
Davis? 37
Curry? 22

It's clearly GOOD that we (as a rebuilding team) can compete with them, because I don't see them as rebuilding by any stretch. But I look at the rosters of the two teams and see the Knicks as a clearly better team.

Ed O.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I've seen "passionate veterans" on teams that were going through rebuilding. Like Terry Porter in Minnesota. Did Terry curse his coach during a game? What about Shareef Abdur-Rahim? He's been on expansion or rebuilding teams his whole career. Some say he is a loser who brings losing, but I've never heard him curse a coach during the game. Chris Mullin? How many years did he suffer as Golden State stunk? Mitch Richmond was a professional year after year on a lousy Kings team. Ray Allen keeps playing when his team loses. I could go on and on. Passionate veterans do not undermne their teams, even when, or especially when the team is struggling.
From whom should the young guys learn? Well, Przybilla, who bounced around the league, had his best season last year and says he wants to stay even if the team is not at championship level and even if it costs him because Portland gave him a chance when no one else did. Or what about Theo? He works hard whether a starter or bench guy. What about the Russians? They were sure used to a lot of PT but they are being patient and waiting their turns. And oh yes, what about Nate McMillan, who could teach them a few things, as could Maurice Lucas? 
This team sure has better role models than Ruben Patterson.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Ed O said:


> It's certainly debatable which team is better, but what evidence is there that the Knicks are rebuilding?
> 
> They have a new coach and some players are having adjustment issues, but the team features veteran players in their prime up and down the roster, with young guys sprinkled in, including a promising rookie class of Frye/Robinson/Lee.
> 
> ...



Rebuilding was probably a bad word to use. I look at them kind of like the Blazers of the past. They seem to have talent, but can't put it together. They don't have as much talent as the past Blazer teams of a few years ago though. I look at NY as kind of a mess I guess. Marbury has his stigma with him, they have huge contracts, and they just aren't that good. I guess they aren't rebuilding, but just trying to right the ship with what they have. Anyway I look at it, they aren't in that good.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

As a broad generalization I'll post what I believe many people's opinions are of Ruben:

1. He works his behind off
2. At times we are glad he is in the game
3. At times we cringe when he has the ball
4. He has a relatively low BBall IQ
5. He is probably overpaid for his skills
6. He is not necessarily the kind of leader we want on a team
7. We'd all pretty much prefer to see Outlaw or the Russians playing instead of him
as they have more potential and fit better with the long-term team plan
8. Few would be sad to see him go

Sending Ruben home is good for the team in the long-run. It may hurt a bit in the short run as we lose some "experience". However, see point 3 above, maybe it isn't such as loss.

It is tirades such as this that will continue to perpetuate the "jail-Blazer" perception. Ruben has never had the greatest of reputations and personally, I'd just as soon see him waived if we can't trade him. 

I want to see the future and Ruben is not part of it. Ruben wanted Nate to come and now that Nate is here and Ruben isn't getting what he wants, he throws a fit. Everyone knew coming into the season that we weren't going to be a very good team. Ruben still seemed happy that Nate was coming and seemed ok staying.

I have to agree with e_blazer in that it seems more the rant of a spoiled two-year old rather than that of a professional. I also don't see how management really fits into this as far as blame goes; they've continually made effort to move Ruben. I suppose their key fault would be keeping him around rather than cutting him. Still with a team as young and inexperienced as ours, it is tough to trade/cut all the experience.

Gramps...


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Good for the Blazers. They set a good example by showing the rest that these kinds of outbursts will not be tolerated. If anything, this SHOULD give Outlaw and Khryapa a chance to come out and prove to Nate that they belong. This is how opportunities happen, it's up to the new(er) guys to make things work.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

ProudBFan said:


> That post is full of ****. The only thing Ruben is passionate about is the number of minutes he gets on the floor. **** him and **** that post, too.
> 
> PBF



I remember the last game of last year, when we hung on to beat L.A. Ruben ripped his Jersey off and celebrated like we'd won the championship. I think he's certaintly passionate about more than minutes. I've actually always liked Ruben because he tries hard every night. But passion or not, his attitude is pathetic and he should be traded as soon as possible.

Someone in this thread asked "Why on earth would Ruben Patterson want to sit on the bench while a bunch of young guys lose games?" Maybe because he's getting paid rather well to do that. It's his job. He doesn't have to like it, but a reasonable level-headed individual would realize that there are better ways to deal with the situation. 

Personally, I find it border-line amusing that Patterson wants MORE playing time considering the way he's been playing lately. Against New York there was a stretch where he missed no less than FOUR STRAIGHT LAY-INS in a matter of a few minutes. I just sat there in stunned silence at his incompetance. And now I hear this... Yeah, he needs to go.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Regarding the Portland vs NY comparison. Both teams are bad, determining which is better or worse is irrelevant. Bad teams usually lose on the road. Therefore I expected the Knicks to win (and hoped I was wrong) just as I expected Portland to win when we played them previously. I would hardly blame Ruben for this loss.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Update with more info from Nash


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Update with more info from Nash


Does Nash expect Patterson to play again for the Blazers?
"I have no expectations."

Ouch.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Viktor is smiling


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

I hope they sent Ruben's stupid azz home in coach..


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Man, I hope we get a trade goin'. Not necessarily because of this whole incident, I just want to see some new faces and fill some holes.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

> Patterson is in Memphis tonight and is hooking up with Damon Stoudamire before he returns to Portland tomorrow. He'll spend Thanksgiving in Ohio to "get his mind right."


Ah, a brain transplant! Just what the doctor ordered. :cheers: 

Wait, he's "hooking up" with Damon to "get his mind right?"

:raised_ey


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Patterson is in Memphis tonight and is hooking up with Damon Stoudamire before he returns to Portland tomorrow. He'll spend Thanksgiving in Ohio to "get his mind right."


If you hooked up with Damon, could you ever really get your mind right afterwards?

barfo


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> If you hooked up with Damon, could you ever really get your mind right afterwards?
> 
> barfo


Ask Jason Quick


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I've seen "passionate veterans" on teams that were going through rebuilding. Like Terry Porter in Minnesota. Did Terry curse his coach during a game? What about Shareef Abdur-Rahim? He's been on expansion or rebuilding teams his whole career. Some say he is a loser who brings losing, but I've never heard him curse a coach during the game. Chris Mullin? How many years did he suffer as Golden State stunk? Mitch Richmond was a professional year after year on a lousy Kings team. Ray Allen keeps playing when his team loses. I could go on and on. Passionate veterans do not undermne their teams, even when, or especially when the team is struggling.


Well said. As much as I wanted to give Ruben a second chance, and as much as I admire his hustle on the court, he seems cut from the same cloth as Wallace and Wells. Disrespectful, angry, belligerant, etc. Let's hope Nash trades him out of town. I no longer have any interest in retaining his services.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Ask Jason Quick


So, that'd be a 'No', then?

barfo


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I've seen "passionate veterans" on teams that were going through rebuilding. Like Terry Porter in Minnesota. Did Terry curse his coach during a game? What about Shareef Abdur-Rahim? He's been on expansion or rebuilding teams his whole career. Some say he is a loser who brings losing, but I've never heard him curse a coach during the game. Chris Mullin? How many years did he suffer as Golden State stunk? Mitch Richmond was a professional year after year on a lousy Kings team. Ray Allen keeps playing when his team loses. I could go on and on. Passionate veterans do not undermne their teams, even when, or especially when the team is struggling.


No offense, but that's one of the worst collection of examples I've seen, at least in terms of relevancy to the topic of discussion -- namely, Ruben wanting more opportunity to contribute. Each of those players named above was a key player on their respective teams and would've had no reason to complain about minutes, even if it were their disposition to do so.

And Ray Allen an example of harmonious play through tough stretches? Give me a break.

Dan


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Patterson is in Memphis tonight and is hooking up with Damon Stoudamire before he returns to Portland tomorrow. He'll spend Thanksgiving in Ohio to "get his mind right."


(with credit to Marc Cohn: )

_Put on my blue suede shoes 
And I boarded the plane 
Touched down in the land of the Delta Blues 
In the middle of the pouring rain 
W.C. Handy -- won't you look down over me 
Yeah I got a first class ticket 
But I'm as blue as a boy can be 

Then I'm walking in Memphis 
Walking with my feet ten feet off of Beale 
Walking in Memphis 
But do I really feel the way I feel 

They've got catfish on the table 
They've got gospel in the air 
And Reverend Green be glad to see you 
When you haven't got a prayer 
But boy you've got a prayer in Memphis 

Now Muriel plays piano 
Every Friday at the Hollywood 
And they brought me down to see her 
And they asked me if I would -- 
Do a little number 
And I sang with all my might 
And she said -- 
"Tell me are you a Christian child?" 
And I said "Ma'am I am tonight"_


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Ask Jason Quick


post of the year


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

dkap said:


> No offense, but that's one of the worst collection of examples I've seen, at least in terms of relevancy to the topic of discussion -- namely, Ruben wanting more opportunity to contribute. Each of those players named above was a key player on their respective teams and would've had no reason to complain about minutes, even if it were their disposition to do so.
> 
> And Ray Allen an example of harmonious play through tough stretches? Give me a break.
> 
> Dan


If Ruben's play justified him getting more minutes, I could understand why we have people defending his *****ing. But his play doesn't justify it.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I agree that he hasn't played at a particularly high level so far this year, but last year he was one of the most productive players on the team, yet we had these same issues on the table. Ruben and management are simply at odds, regardless of his output on the court.

Dan


----------



## Chalupa (Jul 20, 2005)

The team should activate Ha.
Give him about 10 min a game at center and let Theo get the back up PF mins and what ever is left over at center.

It sounds like Victor is still questionable with a Toe injury and really there is enough small forwards activated as it is. I'd rather have more size for now in the back court.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> I no longer have any interest in retaining his services.


Well then, you should send him a certified letter along with the balance due on his contract.

barfo


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> But for a guy who's 30 years old and going to be a free agent in a year and a half, I don't see how a guy can continue to give a **** and not say something.
> Ed O.


Then there is what I said all summer long. Its entirely possible that Ruben opts out of his contract this year... He may not have to wait a year and a half. If he is motivated to get out of here, he has his own fate in his hands at the expense of loosing bigger dollars by opting out. He will not get over $6 mil if he resigns with another team on mid July IMHO. But he can put himself in a position to be where he wants and on a winning team.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I've read that DA was a terrible influence, that Ruben's a bad influence, that Zach and Darius are bad influences... at some point management will have to figure out that there are few angels in the NBA, and a "culture of winning" is actually dependent on winning some games, rather than repeatedly drawing lines in the sand and counting on repeated lottery appearances to improve the team.
> 
> Ed O.



The flip side to your argument is that management actually may be right and you may only have an opinion.

And the solution to the problem is? What will make us title contenders in 2 years?..... I am waiting? :wait:

The Blazer brass has painted themselves into a corner and they have to live with it. Assuming we try to trade Ruben and get something in return. Even at an even talent return which is unlikely or he opts out this summer... the talent pool has been dwindling for a few years. We have untapped potential... no proven talent. Winning seasons are in a galaxy far far away....


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ruben has gone off each year with some of his tirades.... usually 2x a year. Its like the rains and snows in the fall, and the flowers coming out in the spring. You can just about count on it.

In the past couple of years he has settled down and kept his foot out of his mouth and played inspired ball. Maybe this is his usual rant... maybe its beyond that now, and as Ed says.. very frustrated and hating to loose. He is emotional.... which is not a problem. Its how he harnesses it that makes the difference.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I think it's entirely possible that Rben won't be a Blazer by the time he makes it back to Portand. Remember they said he's gonna hang out with Damon today then head to Ohio where his wife and kids are.

Nash on Courtside said he has had several discussions regarding Patterson and trades, in the last 24 hours in fact had multiple this afternoon. There was a lot of caution regarding wether anything was pending, in fact I got the impression the way it was handled that it was possible, that talks may be serious. The Courtside guys were cautious to ask things by prefacing by pointing out that Nash shouldn't feel pressure to mention if anything was pending, nor should he feel pressure to drop hints. Nash didn't even aknowledge the fact they mentioned the term "pending" so neither aknowledged nor denied. IMO if nothing is pending Nash says "there is nothing iminent".


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Trader Bob said:


> Then there is what I said all summer long. Its entirely possible that Ruben opts out of his contract this year... He may not have to wait a year and a half. If he is motivated to get out of here, he has his own fate in his hands at the expense of loosing bigger dollars by opting out. He will not get over $6 mil if he resigns with another team on mid July IMHO. But he can put himself in a position to be where he wants and on a winning team.


The easiest way to move Patterson is to get him to waive his trade kicker. If he will not do that then he will most likely not opt out and management will most likely just park his butt until he becomes an expiring deal. In all, I agree 100% with your post.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Its funny the way they are handling this with Ruben compared to what Darius did last year???

Ruben seems to be getting set up for a much harsher penalty


I am not 100% positive but I do not think they can waive the trade kicker

Rubens salary $6.3 mil... with trade kicker about $8.3 mil

25% less for teams over the cap puts it about $6.1 mil in return


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

anybody have any idea what the other transgressions were that have been cited in the articles? 

i wonder if ruben has been picking fights in practice or mouthing off to coach constantly...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

BIG Q said:


> The easiest way to move Patterson is to get him to waive his trade kicker. If he will not do that then he will most likely not opt out and management will most likely just park his butt until he becomes an expiring deal. In all, I agree 100% with your post.


Just to extrapolate on this. He can only waive as much of the kicker as it takes to get the deal done, no more.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

Coupla quick things.....and I promised myself I wouldn't respond to Ed in this thread.....but two things just demanded a response. 




Ed O said:


> Who's justifying?
> 
> Please tell me where I've justified anything. I look forward to specifics.
> 
> ...


C'mon Ed.....I totally respect your views and your right to have and express them.....but are you seriously suggesting you weren't justifying anything Ruben did? By trying to shift blame (in whole or in part) to management, you are defending him. By calling him a "Passionate veteran who wants to win" you are describing him with words of praise. If those aren't at least attempts at justification....I dont know what it would be considered.








Ed O said:


> A couple things:
> 
> 1. Who says we "should" have won the game yesterday morning? The Knicks were in control the whole game and the Knicks are a better team. I don't know why anyone would think that we "should" have won in NYC.
> 
> Ed O.


I disagree with this statement. Completely. Did you watch the game Ed? I know it was early on a Sunday morning on the west coast, so I wouldnt be suprised if you didnt. I know I would have missed it if I were in Portland. But I'm in Jersey and I was at the game. As I've said time and time again since the game....it was completely back and forth the entire game. The ONLY stretch in which the Knicks were in control or looked anything like a "better team" was a 2-4 minute stretch in the third quarter when Zach, Telfair, and Miles were all out of the game. If you remove that 9-0 run, we lose by two points.

Two.

And how can you say the Knicks were in control the whole game when WE were leading at halftime....and throughout the first half (though by slim margins).


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Schilly said:


> Just to extrapolate on this. He can only waive as much of the kicker as it takes to get the deal done, no more.


You are correct, and Patterson can also waive his player option for next season to facilitate a trade.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

RPCity said:


> C'mon Ed.....I totally respect your views and your right to have and express them.....but are you seriously suggesting you weren't justifying anything Ruben did? By trying to shift blame (in whole or in part) to management, you are defending him. By calling him a "Passionate veteran who wants to win" you are describing him with words of praise. If those aren't at least attempts at justification....I dont know what it would be considered.


You and I have a lack of common ground on "justification" then.



> I disagree with this statement. Completely. Did you watch the game Ed? I know it was early on a Sunday morning on the west coast, so I wouldnt be suprised if you didnt. I know I would have missed it if I were in Portland. But I'm in Jersey and I was at the game. As I've said time and time again since the game....it was completely back and forth the entire game. The ONLY stretch in which the Knicks were in control or looked anything like a "better team" was a 2-4 minute stretch in the third quarter when Zach, Telfair, and Miles were all out of the game. If you remove that 9-0 run, we lose by two points.
> 
> Two.


Of course I watched the game. I don't comment on games I don't watch.

Who cares if you take out a single run the game was close? The game started with a Knicks 4-0 run, then the Blazers had a 7-0 run, and then the Knicks had a 6-0 run. If we're going to pull out that 9-0 run, then we might as well take out the Blazers' 7-0 run, too. It's silly.

You're entirely correct that the Knicks weren't ahead the whole game. You're entirely WRONG, though, that it was back and forth throughout the whole game. NY took the lead with 3.5 minutes left in the third quarter and Portland never really challenged after that.

It was clear to me that the Knicks were in control almost from the very beginning.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I don't comment on games I don't watch.


I do.

Just try and stop me!


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Well, I would suggest you learn what "justification" is. I'm not posting on this board to give you vocabulary lessons, sorry.


Can we do without the dripping sense of superiority please? 

I know darn well what justification means. The way your posts read drips with justification for Ruben. Maybe that wasn't the intent with how they were written, but thats how they read. You're not justifying Ruben completely....but you're sure absolving him from a large portion of the blame.

In case you weren't aware, absolving of blame is the definition of justification.





Ed O said:


> Of course I watched the game. I don't comment on games I don't watch.
> 
> Who cares if you take out a single run the game was close? The game started with a Knicks 4-0 run, then the Blazers had a 7-0 run, and then the Knicks had a 6-0 run. If we're going to pull out that 9-0 run, then we might as well take out the Blazers' 7-0 run, too. It's silly.
> 
> ...


Ok.....I can buy the basis for your argument here....but not the conclusion you're drawing. 4-0 run, 7-0 run, 6-0 run....you seem to be arguing it was a game of runs until the Knicks final 9-0 run that I pointed out. But you can't argue that it was a game of runs in one breath and then say the Knicks were in control throughout in the next. They're not compatible. If you want to say the Knicks controlled most of the 2nd half than sure.....I can buy that. they kept the Blazers from making a run to take back the lead in the end, so I suppose that'd be controlling it plenty. 

But the whole game? Not so much. But I don't think either of us are going to convince the other on this argument. We watched the same game....but drew clearly opposite conclusions.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

RPCity said:


> In case you weren't aware, absolving of blame is the definition of justification.


I'm not absolving Ruben of anything. He acted emotionally and contrary to the best interests of the team. I'm pointing out that Blazers management set him up to fail in such a fashion.

A guy who is drunk and drives down the street and hits an equally drunk pedestrian who's jaywalking... is it absolving the guy of drunk driving by pointing out that the pedestrian is to blame, too?

I don't think so.

Similarly, management made these moves knowing they had Ruben on the team. If they didn't see this coming then they're blind. If they did, then they deserve part of whatever blame comes from it... or credit, of course, if it turns out to be a good thing.



> But the whole game? Not so much. But I don't think either of us are going to convince the other on this argument. We watched the same game....but drew clearly opposite conclusions.


The Knicks were consistently better than the Blazers from what I saw. The Blazers had some shots go down, especially in the first half, but based on the types of shots the two teams were getting it seemed unavoidable that NY would pull ahead at some point.

It might have been mere pessimism shading my view of the game, of course, but considering it occurred exactly as I'd expected I think it was actually enlightened realism.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

RPCity said:


> Can we do without the dripping sense of superiority please?


I can try 

I apologize for the way that was written. I actually edited it slightly before you'd responded, hoping to catch it before anyone saw it. I was just too slow.

Sorry.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I'm not absolving Ruben of anything. He acted emotionally and contrary to the best interests of the team. I'm pointing out that Blazers management set him up to fail in such a fashion.
> 
> Ed O.


So it's not Rubens fault since management shoved him down the path to blowing up at the coach during a game. Just like Budweiser is at fault for my grandpas alchohal problem.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Schilly said:


> So it's not Rubens fault since management shoved him down the path to blowing up at the coach during a game. Just like Budweiser is at fault for my grandpas alchohal problem.


Come on Schilly. Ruben is being the same guy he's been for a while, and since Ed predicted this sort of problem happening with Rube being one of 5 SFs on the club, it's pretty silly to place all the blame on him for acting in the predictable way he has. Don't you think it's a pretty important componenet in a club's success for management to be able to correctly access what their players are like when assembling the roster? Many other posters (myself included) thought that he was the one that they should have cut under the one time out they used on DA.

Of course Rube is to blame for acting out like this, Ed hasn't contended otherwise, *but so is management* for not being proactive in correctly accessing this obviously volatile situation.

STOMP


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Schilly said:


> So it's not Rubens fault since management shoved him down the path to blowing up at
> the coach during a game. Just like Budweiser is at fault for my grandpas alchohal problem.


I think Ed's example of the drunk driver and drunk pedestrian is spot on -- Ed's not saying Ruben's off the hook. In fact, if you look back, there are several points where Ed agrees Ruben was out of line. He's only pointing out, accurately I think, that management was either inept or had to see this coming. What they were to do about it (other than get him out of town in yet another deal where they give up more than they're getting back) I don't know. Really, the situation is much like the Eagles' situation with TO, save that, at least TO and a healthy roster, the Eagles would've had a chance to do more than this Blazer team is likely to -- that and that TO is much more of a difference maker than Patterson. And, it's easy enough to just let Patterson sit until either he opts out or a team offers him something reasonable in return. And, it's always possible that Patterson might pull his act together and do what Nate's asking of him.

Regardless, I don't think Ed's point is that Ruben didn't screw up -- clearly he did -- Ruben's already basically said as much.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

Ed O said:


> I'm not absolving Ruben of anything. He acted emotionally and contrary to the best interests of the team. I'm pointing out that Blazers management set him up to fail in such a fashion.
> 
> A guy who is drunk and drives down the street and hits an equally drunk pedestrian who's jaywalking... is it absolving the guy of drunk driving by pointing out that the pedestrian is to blame, too?
> 
> ...


Ha....I love how every single post of yours ends up being spun to make you seem smarter than everyone else....and thats not sarcastic at all. I seriously love that.

I don't think your drunk driver example works here. What would be the purpose of pointing out the jaywalker other than to take SOME of the blame off of the driver? In my mind there is no purpose outside of that. Why bother bringing management up at all if not to do one of the following:

a. Remove some of the blame off of Ruben by moving it to management. Which you have already pointed out with your DD example that it is not effective at doing. Even so...it is an ATTEMPT at justification.
b. Use the situation to attack management's strategy in the past few years.
c. Show that you can say "They should have seen this coming because I did."
d. Am I missing anything here?

And just let me say....I would hope it wouldn't be for reasons B or C.

I know how this must be coming off....and its not intended in any cynical way at all. But seriously....outside of those 3 reasons (and I'm not suggesting that your motivation was any other than A....which is what we've been arguing)....what else is there?


And apology accepted about the whole justification thing.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

RPCity said:


> I don't think your drunk driver example works here. What would be the purpose of pointing out the jaywalker other than to take SOME of the blame off of the driver? In my mind there is no purpose outside of that.


Whether you see purpose or not is irrelevant to whether it's true or not. 



> Why bother bringing management up at all if not to do one of the following:
> 
> a. Remove some of the blame off of Ruben by moving it to management. Which you have already pointed out with your DD example that it is not effective at doing. Even so...it is an ATTEMPT at justification.


You repeating a weak argument doesn't make it stronger. I'm not attempting to justify anything. I've told you that a couple times now. Ruben was wrong. He should be sent home and perhaps even suspended without pay for his comments. I have no problem with him being disciplined. I think that his actions hurt the team and I hope that he can avoid doing it in the future... and if he cannot, he should be punished more severely.



> b. Use the situation to attack management's strategy in the past few years.


It's just another sign of their lack of success, absolutely. One in a long line of them since Nash has taken over.



> c. Show that you can say "They should have seen this coming because I did."


I thought it was just me being pessimistic?

I find it hilarious that some people on this board write off so much of what I say as pure pessimism, and then as soon as I'm proven right on something nobody wants to hear about it.



> I know how this must be coming off....and its not intended in any cynical way at all. But seriously....outside of those 3 reasons (and I'm not suggesting that your motivation was any other than A....which is what we've been arguing)....what else is there?


Well, your second and third points are actually pretty accurate (if incomplete) representations of why I've pointed it out. I don't know why you don't consider those to be valid bases for my point, but to be honest I don't judge what I think or say based on what you think I should think or say, so I'm not overly concerned about it.

Another one, and the primary one, is simply because it's the way I feel and I think that it helps paint a more accurate and complete story of the Ruben meltdown to look at the bigger picture.



> And apology accepted about the whole justification thing.


Cool. Thanks.

Ed O.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

RPCity said:


> I don't think your drunk driver example works here. What would be the purpose of pointing out the jaywalker other than to take SOME of the blame off of the driver?


Maybe for the purpose of an honest assessment of the situation? 

barfo


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Well, your second and third points are actually pretty accurate (if incomplete) representations of why I've pointed it out. I don't know why you don't consider those to be valid bases for my point, but to be honest I don't judge what I think or say based on what you think I should think or say, so I'm not overly concerned about it.
> 
> Another one, and the primary one, is simply because it's the way I feel and I think that it helps paint a more accurate and complete story of the Ruben meltdown to look at the bigger picture.
> 
> ...


Well there we have it folks. Instead of breaking this down bit by bit, some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with, I'm just gonna cut to the chase and say we have an understanding. 

The fact that its not 2:30 AM here also has something to do with my decision to be so brief.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

barfo said:


> Maybe for the purpose of an honest assessment of the situation?
> 
> barfo


Ok...last post of the night....I PROMISE.

But if it doesn't change the outcome of the situation (or my agreement or disagreement with the outcome/punishement) how does it change the assessment?

If I were an eyewitness to the event described above and I told you "The driver was drunk and hit a pedestrian who was walking across the street." versus saying "The driver was drunk and hit the jaywalker," how is my assessment of the situation any different? Its more detailed? Ok...I suppose I can accept that......but it still seems unneccessary to me.

Now if I were say "The driver hit the pedestrian in the crosswalk" versus "The driver was drunk and hit the pedestrian in the crosswalk,".........then I can see how it affects the assessment. It's a predominant factor and should have an affect on the outcome or the judgement....or the rationalization if you'd prefer. So I suppose from Ed's perspective, it was a predominant factor? But if it was a predominant factor, then wouldn't you also have to say you're moving some of the blame one way or another? 

I dunno....its late and I'm losing focus and having trouble following this post myself. That means its time for bed.

Spirited debate Ed. No harm no foul on my end. I hope its the same on yours.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

RPCity said:


> Spirited debate Ed. No harm no foul on my end. I hope its the same on yours.


Agreed. It's in good fun.

Ed O.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

RPCity said:


> But if it doesn't change the outcome of the situation (or my agreement or disagreement with the outcome/punishement) how does it change the assessment?


Well, whether it changes your agreement or disagreement is up to you of course. 

As for the assessment... well, maybe there are other questions to ask. In the example, you are laser-focused on "is the driver guilty or not?". Yes, he's guilty. Everybody agrees with that. That's not the whole story.

Why was that guy staggering out into traffic in the first place? Did he just come out of that bar next door? Is there something attractive on the other side of the street? Is there a history of accidents here? Is a pedestrian overpass needed here? Or did the pedestrian actually know the driver? Were they, in fact, once married to each other? [Yes, gay marriage, this is Multnomah County]. Was it really an accident? Was it a coincidence? Was the pedestrian pushed? Who was that man dressed in black seen running from the scene?

But maybe it is easier just to say "he was drunk, so he's guilty, lock him up, the rest of that stuff doesn't matter"? 

If you are interested in punishing Ruben, no additional considerations are needed. He screwed up, punish him. If you are interested in improving the Blazers, you have to ask the question "why did Ruben screw up?" And "because he's a bad bad man" is not the only possible answer.


barfo


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

_Deleted Content_


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

STOMP said:


> Come on Schilly. Ruben is being the same guy he's been for a while, and since Ed predicted this sort of problem happening with Rube being one of 5 SFs on the club, it's pretty silly to place all the blame on him for acting in the predictable way he has. Don't you think it's a pretty important componenet in a club's success for management to be able to correctly access what their players are like when assembling the roster? Many other posters (myself included) thought that he was the one that they should have cut under the one time out they used on DA.
> 
> Of course Rube is to blame for acting out like this, Ed hasn't contended otherwise, *but so is management* for not being proactive in correctly accessing this obviously volatile situation.
> 
> STOMP


_Deleted Content_


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

barfo said:


> Well, whether it changes your agreement or disagreement is up to you of course.
> 
> As for the assessment... well, maybe there are other questions to ask. In the example, you are laser-focused on "is the driver guilty or not?". Yes, he's guilty. Everybody agrees with that. That's not the whole story.
> 
> ...



Aaaah....you make me sound like a crazy "hanging judge" here man. I know things are always black and white. But now you're taking that example a step further. This example is simply going too far to be consistent with what it was meant to show to begin with. And no, while "Because he's a bad bad man is not the only possible answer," you'd be stubborn to be unwilling to admit that he has no history of things like this. Even removing his troubled legal history.....he's got a history of opening his mouth and not controlling things that don't come out. To take the example still one step further....if this is a driver's fourth time driving drunk, I think that's the more predominant issue in the situation rather than the street he was driving on was not well lit. Sure you're going to have multiple factors going into anything that happens....but I think there's clearly one overriding factor here. 

But maybe thats just because I don't like Ruben....never really have.

I've more than said my piece in this thread. I'm finished.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

I was just reading some of the posts on page seven of this thread and had to jump ahead and post this without reading all posts before I forgot my thought. 

To all that are trying to say Rubens outburst was inevitable because of the five sf's we have I sure hope that come draft time you do not suggest we take the best player available like so many people point out is why we should have had MJ. Odds are high that come draft time the best player available will be a sf. When Portland traded for Miles, they were getting back young talent while dumping a malcontent. We had drafted Outlaw who was considered the best player available, and subsequently the Russians.

It was not "inevitable for Ruben to blow up because management created this situation." They were just following the draft plan most posters here subscribe to; "draft the best player available regardless of position, thin it out later." For Patterson, later will be the end of the season if he opts out, or some time next season when he is an expiring deal. I suspect that Patterson, who had little trade value to begin with has done as most of last years Blazers free agent crop did; killed his own trade value to the point where it is easier to just keep them and let them expire. You would be hard pressed to get more than a six pack and a pizza for this moron.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

I confess that I am poor when it comes to argument, but why did Ed' O say management was the "jaywalker"? 
Looks to me like managementy may very well have been in the crosswalk. 

Ruben was not Nash's purchase, and although he needed to get rid of him as one of the "problems" they had only one cut they could logicly do and they elected to do DA. They did try it seems to trade Ruben and elected to showcase him to the league and it seems that no one has taken them up. Looks to me like they *were* "walking within the crosswalk" after all.

gaotpops :biggrin:


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

I think Ed's bottom line point is that management basically set Ruben up for this outburst at worst and should have seen it coming at best. His argument is that Ruben is passionate and wants to win while management has built a team that is not capable of winning at the rate Ruben would like to see.

I don't really agree with him...but its not management's actions with Ruben specifically that make the team a "jaywalker," rather the direction they've taken the team as a whole.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> [strike]Awww, I think its kinda cute that you like to stick up for your buddy.... :makeout:[/strike]


[strike]huh... since when did they make a smiley of your fantasy date with Morrison? [/strike]

Would you like me to link threads where I say the same things months ago? Or would that totally deflate your attempt at humor too much to be worth it?

STOMP


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

ProudBFan said:


> Yes, I'm dead serious.
> 
> No, I'm not joking.
> 
> ...



I have to agree with PBF here, I wonder if Edo seriously believes what he posts, or if he's just trying to stir up controversy.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Trader Bob said:


> Its funny the way they are handling this with Ruben compared to what Darius did last year???
> 
> Ruben seems to be getting set up for a much harsher penalty


What Ruben did was far worse in my opinion, so deserves a harsher penalty. It's one thing to get into a heated arguement with the coach behind closed doors, quite another to do it in the middle of a game. That's not to say what Miles did was ok, but they are on different levels in my opinion.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> [strike]Its disgusting that Ed would take Ruben's side on this situation and it affirms my own personal beliefs of what Ed's reasoning for posting on this board (which I won't get into detail about, because I don't feel like someone running off tattle-taling on me for "personally insulting" him) is.
> 
> With this guy though nothing ever ceases to amaze me...[/strike]


Is this an appropriate post?

I keep asking over and over again: how many times can zagsfan take shots at me in the forum without some steps being taken to discipline him?

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Is this an appropriate post?
> 
> I keep asking over and over again: how many times can zagsfan take shots at me in the forum without some steps being taken to discipline him?
> 
> Ed O.


you should know the reason of that ed. and not the reason you think.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

RPCity said:


> I think Ed's bottom line point is that management basically set Ruben up for this outburst at worst and should have seen it coming at best. His argument is that Ruben is passionate and wants to win while management has built a team that is not capable of winning at the rate Ruben would like to see.
> 
> I don't really agree with him...but its not management's actions with Ruben specifically that make the team a "jaywalker," rather the direction they've taken the team as a whole.



I related these thoughts, below, in another thread. I'd be curious to know what Ed's thoughts are related to it...



> One very pronounced complication with Ruben's status is, the Blazers HAVE tried to trade him - even gone to his agent (to me, that was HUGE) and gave him full freedom to attempt to work out a deal. Of course, this is not new news. As most of us are aware, this all happened LAST SUMMER. Obviously, the primary criteria being, the Blazers aren't taking on any "bad" (long-term, over-valued, or such) contracts in return. Thus far, no apparent takers or "workable" deals.
> 
> So, Ruben sits.............................................. ..and will probably continue to sit until his perception/attitude has been re-adjusted to fit within the team/management concept.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Is this an appropriate post?
> 
> I keep asking over and over again: how many times can zagsfan take shots at me in the forum without some steps being taken to discipline him?
> 
> Ed O.


No it's not and he has been warned for it...I just logged in and have seen this for the first time, it isn't appropriate.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Basically Ruben and the team are stuck. His contract, and especially the trade kicker, make it almost impossible to deal him unless you take back a bad contract. I don't think he will be dealt. Just another reason why this team is going to suck.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I find it mildly humorous and deeply ironic that several of the people most upset with Ruben's antics are in turn treating fellow posters with more disrespect than Ruben apparently showed Nate.

Dan


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> you should know the reason of that ed. and not the reason you think.


And that would be....?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> And that would be....?


Adam Morrison is the next Larry Bird, duh?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

You cannot place blame on Nash or the Blazers organization here IMO. A player/employee is expected to act respectfully at work and towards his superiors regardless of his job status and unhapiness with it. 

Sure you can blame the team for causing Ruben to be upset since they cleared out all his buddies and shipped them out, began to play the youngsters more and fired a coach he liked. You would expect him be upset, ask to be traded, complain to his agent and the media. You would not expect him to publicy berate and slander his coach. It's fine for Ruben to be upset and agree he had a right to be but to express his anger and displeasure in the manner he did is totally unacceptable and must be dealt with. 

If my boss fires a bunch of friends that I work with, hires others to replace them and cuts my responsibilities surely I have right to be mad and upset but that doesn't mean I have a right to cuss my boss out in front of my co-workers and customers.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> You cannot place blame on Nash or the Blazers organization here IMO. A player/employee is expected to act respectfully at work and towards his superiors regardless of his job status and unhapiness with it.
> 
> Sure you can blame the team for causing Ruben to be upset since they cleared out all his buddies and shipped them out, began to play the youngsters more and fired a coach he liked. You would expect him be upset, ask to be traded, complain to his agent and the media. You would not expect him to publicy berate and slander his coach. It's fine for Ruben to be upset and agree he had a right to be but to express his anger and displeasure in the manner he did is totally unacceptable and must be dealt with.
> 
> If my boss fires a bunch of friends that I work with, hires others to replace them and cuts my responsibilities surely I have right to be mad and upset but that doesn't mean I have a right to cuss my boss out in front of my co-workers and customers.



I don't think you can apply the same standards of the normal workplace to pro sports. Acting like a jerk may be Ruben's most effective method to get traded. Shareef wanted to be traded for much of the time he was here and he acted totally professionally. Look where that got him.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

tlong said:


> I don't think you can apply the same standards of the normal workplace to pro sports. Acting like a jerk may be Ruben's most effective method to get traded. Shareef wanted to be traded for much of the time he was here and he acted totally professionally. Look where that got him.


Acting like a jerk is only going to further delay RP's departure. NBA GM's look at guys like Ruben as career killers. Sure, he can do some nice things on the floor, but it's not worth it if he's going to blow up your locker room. You can't compare SAR to Rube. Shareef got hurt last year. Most people thougth if SAR was traded, it would be to a team who was willing to rent his services for the remainder of the year in order to make a playoff push. What good would it have done to trade for the guy when he's hurt and is a FA after the season? And, as it so happened, last year seemed like the first year that GM's really weren't as enamoured with clearing cap room. Why? I don't know. Maybe they learned that clearing cap room doesn't necessarily mean you'll be able to attract the FA you want. The summer before, the Spurs were supposed to have all this room and sign some marquee guys and they got . . . Brent Barry. This theory is just MHO, but I still don't think SAR being a nice guy had anything to do with why he didn't get traded. Plus, his agent was making all kinds of noise for him anyways.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

i agree with ruben on this.

hes not getting enough time, and he should be playing more. we are more productive when he is on the floor. 

he hustles his *** off, period. the "youth movement" thing is fine, but coach mcmillan and nash need to realize we are trying to win games.

im mad, because just the other day i was thinking how happy i am that we still have ruben. now this happens and we are about to get mirked tonite @ memphis without him. as well as the rest of the roadtrip most likely :curse:


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

ryanjend22 said:


> i agree with ruben on this.
> 
> hes not getting enough time, and he should be playing more. we are more productive when he is on the floor.
> 
> ...


So how does that explain the fact that he was cussing at Nate, because he himself didn't want to go back in the game?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ryanjend22 said:


> i agree with ruben on this.
> 
> hes not getting enough time, and he should be playing more. we are more productive when he is on the floor.


actually, if you go by 82games.com, we're more productive with him off the court.



> he hustles his *** off, period. the "youth movement" thing is fine, but coach mcmillan and nash need to realize we are trying to win games.


of which, Ruben's mistakes (and other "vets") are more detrimental than helpful.



> im mad, because just the other day i was thinking how happy i am that we still have ruben. now this happens and we are about to get mirked tonite @ memphis without him. as well as the rest of the roadtrip most likely :curse:


Ruben wasn't (more than likely) going to be the difference maker. We'd be getting beat tonite with or without Ruben. Maybe for once, we'll not see a guy (cept for Darius or Zach) thinking they're skill set is MUCH higher than it is, and they won't be going 1 on 3.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Let Ruben sit.

And sit.

And sit.

And sit.

And sit.

And sit.

And sit.

And sit.

Well, you get the idea.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Let Ruben sit.
> 
> And sit.
> 
> ...


And we'll let Outlaw and Khryapa play

And play

And play

And play...

Nice avatar by the way when you take into consideration the heat that avatars have been taking lately.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Okay, here's maybe a newish spin. Let's say Ed's right that HQ should've seen this coming so let's presume they did. Unlike ryanjend22, I'm *not* convinced that winning games should be the focus right now and, perhaps HQ isn't convinced of that either. On one hand, Nate's made it clear that he's going to play whomever he thinks gives them the best chance to win, at least somewhat on a situational basis. On the other, they've got a lot of youth that other teams have expressed at least some interest in. Ruben is almost certainly not going to be a part of the Blazers' future, if only due to his age. Now the team has a fairly legitimate reason for sitting him, giving the staff a better look at guys like Monia, Khryapa, Outlaw, and Webster. And as RedHot&Rolling and SheedSoNasty are suggesting, Ruben might end up rotting on the pine for ages -- or better yet, not even on the pine but further away from the team. *If* that happens, what's Ruben likely to do? I'd bet that he's even more likely than he had been to opt out of his contract at the end of this year, something Nash and the rest of HQ would probably be thrilled about.

Myself, I've been something of a Ruben Patterson fan for awhile and, as Hap points out, there's some evidence the team's actually more productive without him on the floor. While that point could be argued (as not everything shows up statisically, for example), it seems clear, at least in hindsight, that*if* Patterson's going to be playing at all, there's likely to be trouble if: the team is losing and; if he's not playing more minutes than Nate seems to want to play him. I'd argue that, for him to be a happy camper, the team would need to be playing something at least near .500 basketball *and* he'd have to be able to consider himself a main (25 or more minutes a game) contributor.

While I'm not going to go so far as to call this a brilliant move by management, I can see how it may well have been somewhat intentional and working more or less according to plan. And, there was always the chance that Patterson wouldn't take the bait and would, in fact, have been happy with his role -- I'm guessing they'd have been at least ballpark as happy with that possible outcome, too.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

McMillan in the OLive blog:



> I didn't think the Blazers' punishment would be this harsh. I thought they would fine him, maybe suspend him for one game, but sending him home? Anyone who knows Ruben knows that he's emotional and can say things off-the-cuff...


Sure sounds to me like management went out of their way to make an example of Ruben, which is in line with their handling of him last year. No one should be surprised that he's a bit upset with the situation.

It's funny how the reports keep changing...

Ruben cursed out Nate with the "worst of swear words"...

No, Ruben dropped a few f-bombs that weren't directed at Nate...

The coaching staff is thrilled that management stood up for them instead of "cutting them off at the knees" like was done last year with Mo...

No, the coach was surprised at how stiff the penalty was...

Sometimes I think, the more information we get, the less we really know.

Dan


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> Adam Morrison is the next Larry Bird, duh?



Adam Morrison looked pretty damn good last night.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> Adam Morrison looked pretty damn good last night.


so did Maurice Ager. I guess he'll be the next big thing too.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

dkap said:


> McMillan in the OLive blog:
> 
> Dan


sorry Dan, but thats not a McMillan quote. Thats the BLOG quoting. Why would McMillan refer to the organization as the "Blazers"?

here's the whole quote



> I didn't think the Blazers' punishment would be this harsh. I thought they would fine him, maybe suspend him for one game, but sending him home? Anyone who knows Ruben knows that he's emotional and can say things off-the-cuff, and captain Joel Przybilla was one of the many who was taken aback.


Why would McMillan refer to Joel as "captain Joel Pryzbilla"? 

That was obviously the opinion of the blog writer, not McMillan. Me thinks you grasped at a straw there.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Sorry, I read that wrong. The previous two paragraphs were quotes by McMillan, and I missed the transition.

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

dkap said:


> Sorry, I read that wrong. The previous two paragraphs were quotes by McMillan, and I missed the transition.
> 
> Dan


well, it WAS written by Quick, so it's not like missing transitions are uncommon in his articles.


----------

