# Nash outdoes Whitsitt



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

What a brilliant trade this is! When you realize that Wallace was going to walk away at the end of the year and leave us with nothing, John Nash has practically pulled off a miracle. He has:

1. Helped ensure that we make the playoffs this year by adding more depth at the center position, more shot blocking, and a great scoring small forward who will be backed up by Darius Miles.

2. Added 3 "character guys" to the team who will work hard and never take a night off. Portland will love these players!

3. Made the team younger by replacing Wallace with Rahim. (Not to mention that Rahim has a higher scoring and rebounding average than Wallace, and shoots better from the field)

4. Given us TREMENDOUS cap flexibility in the summer of 2005. We can keep Rahim and Ratliff or trade them, but it's up to us! Their salaries, along with Stoudamire's and Davis' and I believe Kemp's remaining money all comes off the books after next season. 

In short, we get better without getting locked into any long-term contracts and without acquiring anybody with a rap sheet or a bad attitude. What a relief! And what a change from the Whitsitt regime. I salute John Nash and Steve Patterson for pulling off a great trade while sticking to their promise to the Portland fans. 

Let the good times roll in Portland!


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

If this team makes the playoffs, then I think Nash should be GM of the Year. Getting rid of bad eggs Bonzi, Jeff, and Sheed for better players with expiring contracts? Impressive!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Whitsitt would have added better players, and the team probably would have improved.

Nash and Patterson have traded our best players for guys who aren't quite as good but are nice guys... length of contract-wise, these deals are actually inferior to Rasheed and Bonzi.

I'm not sure they've out-done Whitsitt, since Whitsitt built up a team that made to WC Finals, but they've had a different focus and if the team wins on the court then they've certainly done a good job with that focus since taking over.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

HH salaries 

Kemps comes off the books this summer :wave: finally!


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I disagree. Whitsitt is the type of GM who would trade Patterson and Woods for Miles, or something to that effect. He was great in creating something out of nothing that summer. We ended up with Rider, Anderson, and another year in the playoffs.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard, it's very nice to see praise from your pen (electronic). I agree that Nash is definitely to be praised. 

I think in many ways BobW ran a very interesting experiment, and the rules did change significantly in the middle of his stint. However, the experiment did not ultimately maintain the franchise image/community support, which is truly the job of a GM/President. Let us hope that Nash can continue on this good roll!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Hate to say it, but Walton's words rang true on Sunday.

He said it was a shame to see the city of Portland, who once was the proudest NBA city, have so little love for their team.

Blazer Mania had died, and Bob Whitsitt and the issues of Character are alot to blame for it.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Blazer Mania had died, and Bob Whitsitt and the issues of Character are alot to blame for it."


Yes, and RASHEED WALLACE bears a lot of the blame himself. The guy is a punk almost by self-acknowledgement. I mean, who else says he doesn't care where he plays, as long as someone cuts the check? Who else rants about the NBA exploiting black players while making $17 million a year? Who else threatens the life of a referee after a game?

Good riddance to bad rubbish. May Wallace and Isaiah Rider and Bonzi Wells all rot in the land of NBA rejects and has-beens.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Blazer Mania had died, and Bob Whitsitt and the issues of Character are alot to blame for it.


it's not dead, it just took a sabbatical.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Yah, Ed O, I can't believe that Nash and Patterson haven't gotten us to the WCF yet either! I mean come on guys...do your job! Whitsitt surely would have put a championship banner up there in his first 8 months on the job! I mean, look at all those banners!

No comprende senior. What are YOU talking about, Ed? They haven't been here a season yet and some of you are bashing them in the middle of the rebuild with no knowledge of what their master plan is. Give us a break and have some patience.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Whitsitt would have added better players, and the team probably would have improved.
> 
> Nash and Patterson have traded our best players for guys who aren't quite as good but are nice guys... length of contract-wise, these deals are actually inferior to Rasheed and Bonzi.


Trader Bob, in his first year in Portland, trader Clyde Drexler.

Clyde Drexler, even at that point of his career, was by far a better player than Rasheed Wallace is, was or ever will be.

How many years after TB came to Portland, did it take to go to the WCFs? 4-5?

and yet, we're supposed to give up on Nash and Patterson after not even 1 season?


> I'm not sure they've out-done Whitsitt, since Whitsitt built up a team that made to WC Finals, but they've had a different focus and if the team wins on the court then they've certainly done a good job with that focus since taking over.
> 
> Ed O.


Trader Bob built a team that didn't make a lot of sense for the mid 90's (weren't good, 1st and out)..and then had one year where they were under the cap and signed Brian Grant.

Hey, that sounds like what 2005 might be..

and then he got greedy and stupid, and over did the experiement.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TP3</b>!
> Yah, Ed O, I can't believe that Nash and Patterson haven't gotten us to the WCF yet either! I mean come on guys...do your job! Whitsitt surely would have put a championship banner up there in his first 8 months on the job! I mean, look at all those banners!
> 
> No comprende senior. What are YOU talking about, Ed? They haven't been here a season yet and some of you are bashing them in the middle of the rebuild with no knowledge of what their master plan is. Give us a break and have some patience.


Your sarcasm is so misplaced it's pathetic.

The thread name is "Nash outdoes Whitsitt". According to the criteria of winning basketball games, Nash and Patterson have NOT outdone Whitsitt. In terms of getting good players for bad players, they have NOT outdone Whitsitt.

Please point out where I criticized them for not winning games yet. In fact, I did not and specifically said that IF they do that, then their strategies wil have worked.

Ed O.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Talkhard* -

How can you possibly say that Nash has done a better job than Whitsitt at this point? Whitsitt inherited a team that barely made the playoffs, made changes in personnel and in a few years, the Blazers were in the WCF - and went back there again 2 years later.

Nash also inherited a team that barely made the playoffs. He has also made changes in personnel. Shouldn't we wait to see how it turns out before proclaiming him successful? 

I understand that you hope he is successful. I hope the exact same thing. I'm a big fan and supporter of Nash - and have been on this board in the face of critical posts about him. I hope he DOES turn out to be more successful than Whitsitt. But even I know that there's no objective reason to say so today.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*SCBF:* I'm not saying that Nash has done more for the Blazers than Whitsitt ever did. All I'm saying is that, with this particular trade, Nash has surpassed the typical Whitsitt deal. He got us some very good players who don't have any baggage, and will not hamstring us with long contracts. Whitsitt could always get you a good player, but the guy almost always (Steve Smith being one exception) came with a rap sheet or other character problems. It's more difficult to trade away a bad apple for two good apples, than to simply acquire a talented bad apple. So, in my opinion, Nash has pulled off a beauty of a deal, on several levels.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> I understand that you hope he is successful. I hope the exact same thing. I'm a big fan and supporter of Nash - and have been on this board in the face of critical posts about him. I hope he DOES turn out to be more successful than Whitsitt. But even I know that there's no objective reason to say so today.


I agree with everything you're saying except, ironically enough, the last sentence... *if* the standard that one is judging the success/failure of a GM is based on "character" issues, then Nash and Patterson have done a better job so far. Rasheed, Bonzi and McInnis have all had numerous issues in their careers and they're all gone.

With that said, personally character is well down the list for me as far as GM success goes. Talent accumulation and (most importantly) success on the court are both above it, and the former seems like the new regime is doing worse than Whitsitt did and the latter is too premature to judge.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

If he can trade Damon by the deadline without screwing the team, I'll sing his praises...

As of yet, still holding out to see what comes of all this.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

this deal more than anything assures the Blazers of getting the latent fan base back on board. I believe there is a huge silent majority of portland residents that purposely tuned out the Blazers starting in 1996 or so and has grown steadily especially the last 3 years, not wanting to give money or time to what they percieved to be a low character, unworthy team regardless of wins and losses. I think this will correct that problem, and the Rose Garden will immediately see a significant increase in sales.

in commodities, when a market changes very quickly within a day we call it a "key reversal". This trade is a key reversal for Portlands future.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> *SCBF:* I'm not saying that Nash has done more for the Blazers than Whitsitt ever did. All I'm saying is that, with this particular trade, Nash has surpassed the typical Whitsitt deal. He got us some very good players who don't have any baggage, and will not hamstring us with long contracts. Whitsitt could always get you a good player, but the guy almost always (Steve Smith being one exception) came with a rap sheet or other character problems. It's more difficult to trade away a bad apple for two good apples, than to simply acquire a talented bad apple. So, in my opinion, Nash has pulled off a beauty of a deal, on several levels.


Fair enough. I would still say, though, that it's way too early to judge this trade. After all, the new guys have yet to even play one game. We can hopefully all agree that the deal improves character (clearly). But actually the Blazers have a little less cap space in 2005 because of this trade - due to Dickau's contract - probably not a significant amount, but true nonetheless.

Finally, the biggest question yet to be answered is how the team will perform on the court with the new pieces. I'd wait at least until the end of the year before trying to evaluate the deal on that basis.

All I'm saying is that it's one thing to say that you like the prospects of this trade and you appreciate Nash as a GM. It's another to portray it as an undeniable success. We can't label it as "success" or as "failure" yet, IMO.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with everything you're saying except, ironically enough, the last sentence... *if* the standard that one is judging the success/failure of a GM is based on "character" issues, then Nash and Patterson have done a better job so far. Rasheed, Bonzi and McInnis have all had numerous issues in their careers and they're all gone.
> ...




Talent accumulation and success on the court are undeniably important points in gauging a GM's success, but giving a players character/professionalism equal weight while not severely sacrificing talent and chemistry is something only the best GM's have done. Championship teams are built around good talent, great chemistry, and strong character/professionalism. Yes, Whitsitt was an amazing deal maker. But he sacrificed 1/3 of the equation and hindsight has proved, at least to me, that strong character/professionalism is equally important to good talent and great chemistry. Without all three traits, teams just don't win championships. 

So, in that respect, I DO think Nash has outdone Whitsitt. He's had a far more difficult job to do, and IMO, he's brought Portland closer to winning a Championship than they were before he was hired.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Professional Fan - 


Nice post....very well said & I agree 100%


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> 
> Championship teams are built around good talent, great chemistry, and strong character/professionalism. Yes, Whitsitt was an amazing deal maker. But he sacrificed 1/3 of the equation and hindsight has proved, at least to me, that strong character/professionalism is equally important to good talent and great chemistry. Without all three traits, teams just don't win championships.


I disagree strongly, to say the least. Chemistry and character are both bs dumps in that they help explain why some teams win and some do not.

The teams that win are the teams with the best production, which means (to me) getting talent to perform. Portland was one bad quarter away from getting into the Finals and (in the opinion of most) kicking the crap outta Indiana. It wasn't a failure of character or a lack of chemistry that failed them that day... it was a bad streak of shooting, some bounces that didn't go their way, and the fact that Shaq and Kobe were both really good.

Teams throughout the league have focused on stuff like "character" and "chemistry" and yet, lo and behold, only the two teams with the best two (or three) players in the NBA have won championships in the last 5 or 6 years. 

Should we take it as evidence that chemistry and character are overrated when a team like Utah doesn't win a championship, in spite of having 2 of the top 50 players ever? I don't think so, and similarly I don't think the fact that Portland "only" got to two WC Finals as evidence that chemistry and character are somehow 67% of what it takes to win a championship.

Ed O.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

> I disagree strongly, to say the least. Chemistry and character are both bs dumps in that they help explain why some teams win and some do not.





> The teams that win are the teams with the best production, which means (to me) getting talent to perform. Portland was one bad quarter away from getting into the Finals and (in the opinion of most) kicking the crap outta Indiana. It wasn't a failure of character or a lack of chemistry that failed them that day... it was a bad streak of shooting, some bounces that didn't go their way, and the fact that Shaq and Kobe were both really good.




so you are saying that the mental part of the game and character had nothing to do with this loss???!!! that is one of the most rediculous things i have ever heard. if our team had a strong willed leader, like a Gary Payton type, we would NOT have lost that game. our players choked and lost it mentally. this is definately a sign of character and chemistry. 
if you think that winning is simply a result of having the group of the most talented players, you really need to try actually playing the game yourself. you will then understand.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I disagree strongly, to say the least. Chemistry and character are both bs dumps in that they help explain why some teams win and some do not.
> ...



You make a good point regarding the '00 PTB, but let's look at who was on that team.

Sheed
Smitty
Pip
Damon
Sabas
Bonzi
Detlef
BG
Anthony
Gary Grant
Jerm
Plastic Man
Antonio Harvey
Joe Kleine

That is in no way a team with an over abundance of bad Character guys. That was a very balanced team between strong character and question marks. There are always going to be some question mark kind of guys on Championship teams. Dennis Rodman comes to mind. I'm in no way saying that a team has to be filled with choir boys from top to bottom in order to win a Championship. What I am saying is if character/professionalism is overly sacrificed for an abundance of talent, that team will not win a championship.

For example, just two seasons after the debacle in the '00 WCF, here is the PTB lineup:

Sheed
Wells
Damon
Patterson
DA
Pip
DD
Kemp
Kerr
Barkley
Z-Bo
Mitchell Butler
Brunson
Boom Boom
Duds

The team isn't so balanced anymore. The loss of guys like Smitty, Sabas, Detlef, BG and Anthony coupled with the acquisition of guys like Patterson and Kemp hurt the over all character and professionalism of the Blazers. And by default, what was even more damaging than the acquitision of Patterson and Kemp was the fact that Sheed and Bonzi started taking on more of a “leadership” role. Still, good talent level, but no way could that group of guys put it together like their predecessors.

I just cannot shake the obvious. If every Championship team in Pro Sports is anchored by talented yet professional individuals, then how can one expect to build a Champion while ignoring character?


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

kobe and shaq seem to have real good chemistry together. and shaq, what a character...

but I do agree, usually a good chemistry makes the team better. but in some cases it doesn't matter if the players dislike each other, as long as they are professional about it... or they are good enough (shaq + kobe)


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> But actually the Blazers have a little less cap space in 2005 because of this trade - due to Dickau's contract - probably not a significant amount, but true nonetheless.



I'm fairly certain Dickau's contract has a team option after 05 and it will probably not be exercised with Dickaus disappoining pro career thus far.

So this trade doesn't hurt the 05 cap plan at all.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blazerboy30</b>!
> 
> so you are saying that the mental part of the game and character had nothing to do with this loss???!!! that is one of the most rediculous things i have ever heard.


You don't get out much, then. Stating that a team's "character" would ONLY show up in the last 15 minutes of the season is more ridiculous than stating it had nothing to do with the collapse.



> if our team had a strong willed leader, like a Gary Payton type, we would NOT have lost that game. our players choked and lost it mentally. this is definately a sign of character and chemistry.


If the Lakers didn't have Brian Shaw on the team, the Blazers DEFINITELY would have won the game. I don't doubt that Gary Payton would have won it for Portland, but it would have because he could make a few shots or get some defensive stops, not because of intangibles.



> if you think that winning is simply a result of having the group of the most talented players, you really need to try actually playing the game yourself. you will then understand.


Ah... if only I had played the game. I see. What a weak, weak position to fall back to.

Please point out where I said it's ONLY talent. I said that it's getting the most production, and production is a function of talent and maximizing that talent.

Shaq and Kobe have won because they're the best players, and they're the best players why? Because they're supremely talented and they have had a good coach to get production from them.

A team with talent won't always win, and I'm not saying it will. A team without talent will NEVER win. 

Ed O.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

> Shaq and Kobe have won because they're the best players, and they're the best players why? Because they're supremely talented and they have had a good coach to get production from them.


They've also won due to their collective professionalism and character. Shaq, albeit, predominantly uses his god given talent (aka "size") more than his work ethic, but at least he follows the direction of his coach and shows up and keeps his nose clean. Kobe, on the other hand, has a supremely high work ethic, and is a consummate professional. But neither could have won a ring without the other. Beyond that, those Championship Laker teams were filled with real Pro's. Fisher, Fox, Horry, Harper, Green..on and on and on. First class Pro's.

Now, I'm speaking directly to the Laker's Championship years. Shaq's work ethic and desire have clearly diminished, and I have a feeling Kobe's Championship days are over. He's distracted. I don't think his head or heart will ever be in the game like they used to be. He totally fed off the perception that he was the NBA golden boy. He NEEDED that. He will never have that again, and I think that will effect him greatly.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> 
> They've also won due to their collective professionalism and character.


So they had less character before they won their championships?

And they have less character now?

I remember the Lakers' stars arguing about who's team it was and complaining about various things even while they were winning rings... I find it fascinating that their character just happened to improve for a couple of years, and then go back below the character of the Spurs.

Of course, the Spurs' professionalism and character took a similar sabbatical the three years that the Lakers were winning it all.

It's all clear to me that the "character and professionalism" explanation is a way to explain (in retrospect) why some teams fail and some succeed, when in fact they it has little if anything to do with what's happening on the floor (where championships are won).

Ed O.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

> Ah... if only I had played the game. I see. What a weak, weak position to fall back to.


well, experience would help you make better reasoning about issues such as this.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blazerboy30</b>!
> 
> well, experience would help you make better reasoning about issues such as this.


Yeah. If we go another round, maybe you can school me on such rhetorical tactics as name-calling?

Can you maybe explain what "make better reasoning" means?

Ed O.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Draco</b>!
> 
> I'm fairly certain Dickau's contract has a team option after 05 and it will probably not be exercised with Dickaus disappoining pro career thus far.
> 
> So this trade doesn't hurt the 05 cap plan at all.


Sorry, I meant to say "potentially" he leaves the Blazers with a little less cap space. Yes, both he and Woods have team options for 2005-06 that can be picked up before the 2004-05 season starts. 

As for whether or not it will be exercised, we'll see, won't we? Why was he included in the trade? Not simply as filler since the trade worked financially without him. The Blazers might see him as a long-term solution to backup PG. If so, they might very well extend his deal this October.

I don't think anybody knows at this point what Dan's role is going to be after this year. So, he could be off the books next summer and he could still count against the cap. We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> So they had less character before they won their championships?
> ...



Why are you over generalizing my point of view? I never said Shaq and Kobe won Championships ONLY because they're decent character guys. But their professionalism is without question ONE of the reasons why they've been successful.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> 
> Why are you over generalizing my point of view? I never said Shaq and Kobe won Championships ONLY because they're decent character guys. But their professionalism is without question ONE of the reasons why they've been successful.


I think it's not unquestionable... or at least not unquestionable AND relevant.

Every NBA player has some level of professionalism, and the vast majority of them are within a hair's breath of one another. I don't think that Shaq and Kobe are significantly above average in either of these respects. (Kobe's punched Samaki Walker and does other things that I'm sure he's not exactly proud of.)

They ARE, though, significantly above average in talent and production... 

If they had utterly lacked professionalism or character, they probably wouldn't have won any rings... but they probably wouldn't even BE in the NBA. So I don't think that stating that they won BECAUSE of their professionalism or character really is accurate (or, if accurate, not very helpful... like saying they won partly because they had a pulse).

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> Why was he (Dickau) included in the trade? Not simply as filler since the trade worked financially without him.


Maybe he was included because the Hawks wanted him gone... maybe the Blazers see him as someone who might not be the heir apparent to a starting guard slot, but rather someone who'll put a cute smiling face on their fanzine. I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think he'll ever be worthy of regular NBA minutes, so I'm suspicious that Blazer management wanted him for basketball reasons.

STOMP


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

seems to me the New England Patriots have won 2 out of the last 3 Superbowls with less talent and more character than their opponents. Character, work ethic, team orientation all are parts in the equation of what is a champion.

in the blazers 2000 WCF meltdown, I think coaching was as much to blame as anything the players failed to do on the court. And if you watch the 4th qtr again, you see Sheed and Smith miss gimme's they normally make, so I don't think character had much to do with that particular game or series.

however, in general terms I do believe character is an integral part of sports and life. Character is the X factor that makes a good player a great teammate, it is the glue that elevates a good team to a championship caliber team, it is the ability of a good coach to bring greatness out of his players. I think its a very important part of life, including sports.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think he'll ever be worthy of regular NBA minutes, so I'm suspicious that Blazer management wanted him for basketball reasons.


I think you're right. The Hawks get a BIT more cap space next year, and the Blazers get a local white kid to put on the bench.

I don't think that he's suddenly going to blossom into an NBA regular at age 25, although I hope he proves me wrong, too...

Ed O.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> Why was he included in the trade? Not simply as filler since the trade worked financially without him. The Blazers might see him as a long-term solution to backup PG.


I think he was included in the trade so his contract would not be on atlantas books next year and we figured we'd take him for the hell of it, being a local boy and all.

I'd be very surprised if Dickau's option was picked up unless he has a breakout 2nd half of a season here in portland. Dan has done nothing for two years on one of the worst teams in the league if he can't make an impact there its not likely he ever will.

I'd love to be wrong though and have Dickau be our solution at PG, I just don't see it happening.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> seems to me the New England Patriots have won 2 out of the last 3 Superbowls with less talent and more character than their opponents.


Less talent at the glamour positions sure, but IMO they have an extremely talented defense. Ted Wahington, Richard Seymour, Willie McGinest, Tedy Bruschi, Ty Law, Rodney Harrison, ect... 

What is it "they" say about defense and championships??? Thats exactly why I would have much rather had Diaw then Dickau.

STOMP


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed,

I think the problem might be that your posts often come off tooooo statistical and logical which isn't wrong. You're hard to beat that way; but it does make people wonder if you've missed some of the larger X factors of sports.

I don't know if you've played hoops on different levels or any sport for that matter and it's not my business, but for myself who has played football on multiple levels there has to be good leadership and respect to win. With leadership and respect comes chemistry, they just all kind of go together for some reason.

Respect for your coach, his agenda, respect for your teamates, and the overall theory of GOOD FOR THE TEAM.

Sheed has had problems with Dunleavy, Sabas, the refs, the media and the fans. He's even called out Stern this year.

My feeling is SAR may not have all the talent Sheed does but he tries harder, scores more, and people like him which puts butts in the seats and sells merchandise for a city in need of some happier basketball days. 

SAR and Theo will bring the X factors that you NEVER write about and that's character and sense of team first, not me first. That's something Sheed could never get and that's why he's in ATL tonight. 

Now I know you'll say Sheed is a very unselfish player and you'll have pages of stats to back that opinion, but the fact is anytime a player has to be right more than his team has to win, he's selfish!!!


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> My feeling is SAR may not have all the talent Sheed does but he tries harder, scores more, and people like him which puts butts in the seats and sells merchandise for a city in need of some happier basketball days.


Why wasn't he able to put butts in the seats at any of his previous stops? Could it be that sports fans like to see their team win, and don't tend to pay to see their team lose?

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> Less talent at the glamour positions sure, but IMO they have an extremely talented defense. Ted Wahington, Richard Seymour, Willie McGinest, Tedy Bruschi, Ty Law, Rodney Harrison, ect...


And did they really have less talent than the Panthers? I would say not. Even at the skill spots, the Panthers didn't really have an advantage (I don't think Davis is much more talented than A. Smith, or the Panther WRs moreso than the Pats' WRs, and Brady's almost certainly more talented than Delhomme).

The Colts might have had more talent, but they were younger at some key spots and they didn't have the defensive studs that STOMP mentions above.



> What is it "they" say about defense and championships??? Thats exactly why I would have much rather had Diaw then Dickau.


Well, that and Diaw can actually play 

Ed O.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Stomp, a great team is run well from the top down, check the PATS for a great reference of this. From management down the PATS are an A+ franchise. That said for many years Portland was an A franchise and the fans responded, and these same fans have endured Sheed for 7 years and being knocked out in the first round for three straight years of those.

SAR has never been on an A franchise! NOT EVER! HE'll be shipped to PTOWN who's trying to go from a B average to an A and I'll bet SAR will respond cause the fans will respond to him.

It's not fair to say that SAR doesn't put butts in seats when the owners are building a team for a half a decade later.

In Vancouver and now in ATL, SAR has done his best with a two different organizations that suck from the top down!

That wont be a problem in Portland.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> 
> It's not fair to say that SAR doesn't put butts in seats when the owners are building a team for a half a decade later.


The thing is, it's just not accurate to say that he DOES put butts in the seats when he never has. Whether he didn't do it because his teams were always in rebuilding mode (and last year in Atlanta, with the franchise's guarantee that their team would make the playoffs, I don't really think they were rebuilding) is interesting at some level, but doesn't help support the assertion that he puts butts in seats.

Ed O.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed, 

With Sheed gone a monk on rollerblades will bring back 10% of the fans that feel embarassed by how the team is viewed over the last few years.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I have watched Atlanta play several games this past month or so. Shareef has the body language of complete fruatration. The dude plays hard, does his job and does it very well, and for most of his career has been alnoe on the island. Last year was a little different, but he was teamed with a notorious chemistry killer, who is once agaion working his magic in Philly.

The dude has flat out been stuck on bad teams.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Every NBA player has some level of professionalism, and the vast majority of them are within a hair's breath of one another.


Well, considering only 12 or so players out of roughly 360 can win a title each year, I'd say that “hair's breath” is of monumental importance. In Portland's case, I'd venture to say their character and professionalism over the last handful of years has been far from a “hair's breath” away from the winners of the NBA. And I'm not even talking about the Champions of the NBA, because that isn't a fair comparison. Trying to compare the character and professionalism of a San Antonio vs Portland is a flat out joke. To say San Antonio's character hasn't seriously assisted them in winning 2 titles over the last 5 years would be a gross mistake.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I find it interesting that every analyst in the United States (that I have seen) have pinned Portland with the "Just waiting to self destruct" label. 

Experts who are on the 50 all time greatest players list themselves and have played at a higher level than any of us have ever hoped to play at, continually point to Rasheed as being a cancer and a distraction to Portlands success. THey also have said that Portland will not be a title contender with Sheed around.

Yet so many of us disregard those opinions as they are just picking on us, or they have no clue, or are misinformed themselves.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Exactly right, Schilly. NBA experts who have some distance on the situation will tell you that Wallace is a detriment to Portland, despite his great talent. Yet the homers on this board will go on and on and on until the cows come home defending Wallace. It's quite strange.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> 
> Well, considering only 12 or so players out of roughly 360 can win a title each year, I'd say that “hair's breath” is of monumental importance.


I wouldn't. I'd say that having future Hall of Famers (preferably two) on your roster is much more important.



> In Portland's case, I'd venture to say their character and professionalism over the last handful of years has been far from a “hair's breath” away from the winners of the NBA.


How do they keep winning 50 games then? If all of these teams that have all-stars on their team (which Portland does not) AND nice guys, but they're still not winning at a better clip than Portland, what does that say about the importance of character and professionalism?



> And I'm not even talking about the Champions of the NBA, because that isn't a fair comparison. Trying to compare the character and professionalism of a San Antonio vs Portland is a flat out joke. To say San Antonio's character hasn't seriously assisted them in winning 2 titles over the last 5 years would be a gross mistake.


Give Portland a HoFer in his prime and a HoFer still producing (David Robinson was at least as good as Scottie Pippen the last couple of years) and all this talk of professionalism and character would be more obvious to you in terms of what it is: just talk.

Ed O.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

I totally agree Schilly! 


This was a great trade, cause the darkest cloud in my mind has stopped hovering over Portland. ATL however will see some interesting storm fronts hence forth. 

Portland will turn SAR into an allstar because he's a player the Rose City can get behind. SAR has been looking for a team like Ptown his whole career. Just wait and see. I believe Theo will feel the energy as well and even get better.

I have a good feeling about this trade, and I think Nash is smart enough to see a log jam right now too.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> I find it interesting that every analyst in the United States (that I have seen) have pinned Portland with the "Just waiting to self destruct" label.


And yet, year after year, they're proven incorrect. Portland made two conference finals in spite of those experts, and they won 50 games a year the last few years in spite of having no all-stars and playing in a tough conference.



> Experts who are on the 50 all time greatest players list themselves and have played at a higher level than any of us have ever hoped to play at, continually point to Rasheed as being a cancer and a distraction to Portlands success. THey also have said that Portland will not be a title contender with Sheed around.
> 
> Yet so many of us disregard those opinions as they are just picking on us, or they have no clue, or are misinformed themselves.


Well, considering these experts keep throwing predictions out there that have been proven wrong time and time again, how SHOULD we treat them?

Actually, who are these "Top 50" experts? Bill Walton? I don't really remember too many HoFers taking Rasheed to task like you seem to make it sound like they have. Maybe I'm just drawing a blank, or maybe you're exaggerating things a bit.

Ed O.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

There have been teams in the past that have won it all with nothing but "chemistry" really. The 1977 Blazers are the first team that comes to mind, along with the 1970 NY Knicks (although they did have the regular season MVP on that team).

In '77, you could not argue that the Sixers didn't have as much talent as the Blazers did... In fact, Philly was STACKED beyond belief. The closest thing to big stars the Blazers had were Bill Walton and Maurice Lucas. Portland just played much better as a team. The only way I can really describe how they played was like they all thought with the same brain. Everyone on the floor was always on the same page.

The Sixers were definitely the more talented team in that Finals series, but the Blazers played a better team game, and that's why they were the champions.

Had they not had all the injuries the following year, they probably would have won 68-70 games and another title. They were on pace to do so I believe.

Granted, today's NBA is a much different game then it was back then. Still, teams have had the highest success in the past with nothing more then "chemistry."


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> And yet, year after year, they're proven incorrect. Portland made two conference finals in spite of those experts, and they won 50 games a year the last few years in spite of having no all-stars and playing in a tough conference.
> ...


Charles Barkely as well. Actually maybe the shorter lists of analysts would be to name the ones who support Rasheed. How good could have portland been in those years with player who's head was on square?

How about a guy who "Played Hard" every night?

Ed I know you love Sheed and all I can appreciate that, I do think he is underated, but I think undervalueing class and character is as folly as underating talent.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HearToTemptYou</b>!
> Granted, today's NBA is a much different game then it was back then. Still, teams have had the highest success in the past with nothing more then "chemistry."


This is a good example of painting good teams with the "chemistry" brush to explain away why they won.

Portland was a good team, and it wasn't just chemistry. Bill Walton was perhaps the greatest collegiate player EVER and he was a dominant force in the NBA that year. Mo Lucas was a good player, too, and Portland had a lot of guys who were good solid players even if they weren't as talented in one-on-one play.

The Sixers, on the other hand, mostly had players who were pretty well-hyped by the East coast media but who really weren't that accomplished at the time and who didn't do much after. McGinnis and Erving were second team all-NBA, but the team only went 50-32... not exactly the 1986 Celtics and only 1 game better than the Blazers that year.

Did the Blazers have good chemistry? Sure. Did it matter as much as Bill Walton's production or any of the other players' contributions on the court? Not in my opinion.

Ed O.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

*It sure is encouraging to see the enthusiasm on this board.*

:no: :no: :no: 

Congratulations, the Blazers now have SAR's.
_Perfect opportunity to test my theory (if I actually cared)._

Simply stated I have lost all (well, close to all…) faith. 
I knew this team had to be rebuilt but I was one who held on to the hope of the Blazers acquiring the (oh so close) consecutive playoff streak record in the process. 
Now, don’t interpret this as me jumping ship and going after one of the "in teams", because that is not the case. 
I can honestly say however, that my attachment to the Blazers has been frayed (dangerously close to a complete sever). 

I felt it best that Rasheed and this organization parted ways but I was hoping for a deal along the lines of a Marion or a Milicic (even a Kwame Brown).

_To say that I am not enthused about this deal would be an understatement_

-----

I suppose I can be counted as one of the reverse PR casualties (I suspect their will be many in the coming years). 
As for Talkhard’s assertion of the Blazers making the playoffs this season... I am so positive that they will not I would put the keys and the note to my SUV down on it (well... probably not that far).

I will go out on a limb however, and predict that the Blazers miss the playoffs for the next 4-5 seasons. 

_As the Garden grows bone bare, fans lose interest; games are no longer nationally televised. 
All hail the lottery... 
Board support dwindles as the true blue stumble across the ever unnerving realization that it is infinitely better to back a team that everyone loves to hate then a team that nobody bothers to care for. 
I fear we are about to embark on an era of mass apathy (an age of invisibility)._ Oh how the mighty have fallen. A new day is born.

Rasheed Wallace is gone, Pippen is gone, Sabonis is gone and the entertainment value of a Randolph and a Raheem is certainly not appealing to me (first and foremost, I as a fan, expect to be entertained).

*The final chapter*

This will likely be my last contribution to this site (for at least an age or so). I would like to part by saying that I truly valued the idle time spent debating Basketball with you folks. Even in disagreement (and I know I could be awfully disagreeable at times) it was fun bumping wits with individuals as knowledgeable of the game of basketball as you BBB faithful (a good debate and the game of basketball… a merger of passions).
I wish you all the best in your true-life endeavors and I wish the team the best (during my sabbatical). I will check up to see how things are doing (perhaps to rub in the ceremonial I told you so’s more then anything else... _all in fun of course_). Until we meet again.

"Peace be the journey" for the ones who hold true (for this I commend you), I bid you adieu.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I wonder what the dude will do if Portland actually steps up their performance?


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Kwame Brown for Sheed? I think you did sever something! Go directly to the hospital!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> Charles Barkely as well.


You honestly want us to believe what Barkley and Walton think? For real?

Do you think that Barkley follows the Blazers, or any team for that matter, half as closely as most of us on this board do? Could he name how many games the team has won the last 3 seasons, for example? Or who Portland gave up to get Rasheed in the first place?

I seriously doubt it.

He'd paid as an entertainer, not as a serious analyst, and I have serious difficulties taking anything he says seriously.



> Actually maybe the shorter lists of analysts would be to name the ones who support Rasheed. How good could have portland been in those years with player who's head was on square?
> 
> How about a guy who "Played Hard" every night?


I've heard more people say Rasheed is a great player (and I don't think he's "great" by any stretch) than I have that he's a cancer. Maybe people are unwilling to say what they really mean, or maybe some of us are willing to extrapolate based on the likes of Walton and Barkley.

As far as if we had a player that "played hard" every night: who knows? They might be better, or they might be worse. If it's a player who's as good as Rasheed at his best, they woulda been awesome. If it's a player as good as Rasheed at his worst (but CONSISTENTLY so) then they'd be significantly worse.



> Ed I know you love Sheed and all I can appreciate that, I do think he is underated, but I think undervalueing class and character is as folly as underating talent.


I don't love Rasheed by any stretch of the imagination. He had holes in his game and he WAS an inconsistent player. But he's not Satan and he wasn't the reason Portland hasn't won a championship in the last decade (I attribute that to Damon's failure to improve and Whitsitt's poor coaching hiring).

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> You honestly want us to believe what Barkley and Walton think? For real?
> ...


Fine. :|


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> Fine. :|


C'mon, Schilly! Whatchu got?



Ed O.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Kwame Brown for Sheed? I think you did sever something! Go directly to the hospital!


Kwame (filler) and their extremely high pick would be good value IMO.

Seriously, I made my last post to poke fun at the situation. In actuality I am reaching a point where I will lack the time to watch basketball games, much less post on message boards.

That coupled with the fact that I am simply not enthused about watching this particular ensemble play I choose to focus my limited leisure time and creative energies elsewhere (certainly their are more productive pastimes then chatting on the internet). 

In terms of your insult I shrug that off for what it is (truly sad).

I am rather confident that you wouldn’t have the stones to insult me (something I did not do to you) in the real world. 

I will take solace in that (see you around).
_Feel free to proceed with some press on internet tough guy routine (I really do have better thing(s) to do). _

----

Had to get one in for the road.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Less talent at the glamour positions sure, but IMO they have an extremely talented defense. Ted Wahington, Richard Seymour, Willie McGinest, Tedy Bruschi, Ty Law, Rodney Harrison, ect...
> ...


well, based on how many all-pro's they had, the rest of the league doesn't think they're all that incredible.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

Seriously, I will still be around (cant get rid of me that easily).
I just felt like releasing a bit of steam (over some questionable managerial decisions) while having a bit of fun gauging the responses to my piece.

When I get the opportunity I will appear and partake in debate (as I always do).

I would end this post with a GO BLAZERS!!!, but I don't do that sort of thing.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!
> Seriously, I will still be around (cant get rid of me that easily).


Glad to hear it! I know that I appreciate the perspectives you bring, and can understand you needing to vent on a deal you don't really agree with (not that I would EVER do such a thing  ).

Ed O.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Enigma careful talking about the stones, I wouldn't want you to sever those too!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> well, based on how many all-pro's they had, the rest of the league doesn't think they're all that incredible.


They chose to go without superstars but with an overall very talented lineup. Kind of like the Lakers and Blazers on 1999-00. Lakers had two superstars and a "name" in Glen Rice and Portland had one All-Star reserve. But Portland had a more overall talented lineup and it nearly meant a championship.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> C'mon, Schilly! Whatchu got?
> ...


i imagine schilly is banging his head on his desk repeatedly right about now.

:dead:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!
> Seriously, I will still be around (cant get rid of me that easily).
> I just felt like releasing a bit of steam (over some questionable managerial decisions) while having a bit of fun gauging the responses to my piece.


Well, hope to see ya posting, ocassionally. You add a lot to the public discourse and you make a strong debater.

Good luck in the endeavours that you expect to take up a great deal of your time. I hope you reconsider and watch the Blazers a bit. They *may* surprise you (or, of course, they may not).


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

If you want to criticize the Enigma personally, please do so an a PM. Thanks!


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> deleted


OUCH!


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Good luck in the endeavours that you expect to take up a great deal of your time. I hope you reconsider and watch the Blazers a bit. They *may* surprise you (or, of course, they may not).


I was thinking about investing in a TiVo for those 10:00 pm Eastern Time games but now I am questioning whether I will even renew NBA league pass for next season.

What’s so great about TiVo (btw)? Is it worth it (?)... I record games on VHS already.

I will give it until the end of the summer before I make my decision (I see no reason to go out of my way if the team is unappealing).


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

If you want to argue on a personal level, please take it off the board. Thanks!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!
> 
> What’s so great about TiVo (btw)? Is it worth it (?)... I record games on VHS already.


I think TiVo is totally worth it... being able to pause live TV is an incredible advance, and "clicking" back to watch a replay or playing the action in slow-motion are both excellent for sporting events.

I bought a new DirecTV/TiVo combo box a few months ago and only pay an extra $5 a month for the TiVo service. Plus, I can take two inputs into the box and pause one channel while watching another. VERY nice way to watch more than one game at once...

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Plus, TiVo will discover what shows you enjoy the most and search them out even at odd times and save them for you, to watch whenver you want (or, if you don't want, you can just say so and it's gone).

A small thing here, but unlike VHS, it's not serial. So you don't have to watch things in order to seek through the tape to find what you want. You can watch whatever's been taped at any time, directly.

Also, if you connect it to a computer, you can save recorded programs to CDs or DVDs.

Combined with the features Ed noted, it's a grat product, IMO.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> Portland was a good team, and it wasn't just chemistry. Bill Walton was perhaps the greatest collegiate player EVER and he was a dominant force in the NBA that year. Mo Lucas was a good player, too, and Portland had a lot of guys who were good solid players even if they weren't as talented in one-on-one play.


Portland had a pretty mediocre supporting cast... They were just able to pass like no other team. They also all knew what their role was on the court, and they accepted it. They didn't try to do anything that wasn't asked of them.



> The Sixers, on the other hand, mostly had players who were pretty well-hyped by the East coast media but who really weren't that accomplished at the time and who didn't do much after. McGinnis and Erving were second team all-NBA, but the team only went 50-32... not exactly the 1986 Celtics and only 1 game better than the Blazers that year.


The best team in the league that year (the Lakers) only went 53-29. You have to remember that it was the first year after the ABA merger, and because of that, parity in the league suddenly got a lot closer. Every bench in the league improved (well, except the Nets...) The Sixers still had a better regular season record then Portland did also (49-33).

Erving was (arguably) the best player in the game at the time. Doug Collins was one hell of a player too. Along with Dawkins and McGinnis (who did struggle that series). Free wasn't half bad either. And of course, there was high flyin' rookie Mike Dunleavy! (Just kidding about Mike.)

Anyway, If you look at the turning point of that series, it was the fight in Game 2. It brought the Portland team together, and broke the Philly team apart. To me, that was the defining moment of the series. Portland went on to win 4 straight.



> Did the Blazers have good chemistry? Sure. Did it matter as much as Bill Walton's production or any of the other players' contributions on the court? Not in my opinion.
> 
> Ed O.


Maybe the problem is that no one has ever set a definition of "chemistry" when it comes to basketball. I'm not talking about everyone getting along with everyone off the court, finishing each other's sentences, etc... When I talk about chemistry, I mean a team that plays well together, and can anticipate what their team mates will be doing to set them up, etc...

I’m also not saying that “Chemistry” is the #1 thing to consider when putting together a basketball team, but it is important to think ahead on how the team will play together on the floor.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

Chemistry and talent....

The two ingredients for a championship team?

Talent alone will win a lot of games. Obviously a complete lack of talent will never win any NBA game under any circumstance.

Chemistry will overcome a reasonable disparity in talent levels allowing a lesser team to perhaps 'over-achieve'. It will never replace talent as the overriding factor in terms of number of wins.

However, I suggest that there has never been a NBA Champion that didn't have large helpings of both. (I include the ability to be professional and put aside personal differences under 'chemistry'.)

Which is more important....As far as number of wins are concerned, talent. For one great team to overcome the other great teams in the playoffs, I think chemistry and talent deserve equal billing.


----------

