# OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade! (Merged)



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

http://www.nba.com/nets/


----------



## talman (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

Let the speculation begin about what happens next! :biggrin:


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

Are any other teams pursuing a PF still that were pursuing SAR when this all started?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

So, does this change the opinion on John Nash, since it appears that Damon, Van Exel and Rahim all appear to be leaving for nothing?


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

Well this sucks...a little


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

Reef shoulda kept his mouth shut. Originally the Nets only had to make a decision about his knees. But after Reef spouted off about how he doesn't think he wants to play for them now, it wasn't just about the knees anymore. They had to make a decision about his knees and attitude.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



HKF said:


> So, does this change the opinion on John Nash, since it appears that Damon, Van Exel and Rahim all appear to be leaving for nothing?


 My opinion was not steller to begin with, but no, this does not change my opinion. This was a freak deal that went wrong. Any lessening of my opinion of Nash haveing to do with us net getting anything for SAR happened at the trade deadline last year.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



talman said:


> Let the speculation begin about what happens next! :biggrin:


If John Nash did this, David Stern would be all over it. Since Thorn is Stern's buddy, he will get away with this from a punitive standpoint but will now be very hard pressed to recruit high profile free agents in the future.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



HKF said:


> So, does this change the opinion on John Nash, since it appears that Damon, Van Exel and Rahim all appear to be leaving for nothing?


I doubt it. The reason we were supposedly getting the 1st for SAR to begin with is because Nash had no plans of even S&T with Shareeff, allegedly.

We'll see what happens from here, ther are other teams interested in Shareef...Sacramento for one, and Portland having waived DA can take on Salary and not pay :Luxury Tax...

Let's start a Shareef for Brian Skinner campaign.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



BIG Q said:


> If John Nash did this, David Stern would be all over it. Since Thorn is Stern's buddy, he will get away with this from a punitive standpoint but will now be very hard pressed to recruit high profile free agents in the future.


He didn't do anything wrong...the S&T was contingent on Shareef pasing the physical which he didn't. Now if he goes on to sign with NJ anyway, hthen that would be interesting, but I doubt that happens.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

NOW Shareef should be angry.

Didn't he already turn down a much bigger offer, from Milwaukee? His options have certainly dwindled while NJ dawdled.

I hope he finds a team that can get to the playoffs. If I were him I would find the best team that wants him and sign for one year for whatever they can afford.

Unless his knee really is shot.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

Unbelievable. Kidd must be fuming. Well, at least this will help our post count as the endless speculation starts.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

The Nets suck for this they had a chance of winning a title


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

Shareef will end up with either the Cavs , Kings , Spurs ,


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

Man, this really bites. 

I was already looking forward to all the draft and trade speculation next year: how high will our lottery pick be, what can we get for our lotto pick plus two more first rounders, all that.

Shoot.


----------



## VCFORTHREE15 (Jul 19, 2005)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

I am a pissed off Net fan but he cant go to the cavs, not enough money and dont need him. Spurs shot the MLE on Horry and Oberto and Kings just signed Jamal Sampson i believe. I am hopeful that he signs for the MLE but i doubt it. It could have been the sixth year that made THorn cut the deal and maybe five years made him feel a little better. It is possible the deal was proposed to Reef already and he plans on signing for the MLE. Although this would be great, i seriously doubt it would happen.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Schilly said:


> He didn't do anything wrong...the S&T was contingent on Shareef pasing the physical which he didn't. Now if he goes on to sign with NJ anyway, hthen that would be interesting, but I doubt that happens.


What I am alluding to and should have stated better is that if the Nets come up with a better deal, say Nets for Gooden and a second rounder or maybe lorenzen Wright from Memphis then this can look like SAR was dumped for a better deal, not because of an "injury."

I would also be interested in if SAR has any recourse. I would say that Thorn has released private medical info that you just can not do. He toned it down after his legal department I am sure told him to shut the hell up.

Does Thorn now have any credibility to be able to recruit and sign a free agent? Does Kidd or Frank want to work for that fool now after being stabbed in the back? I believe there is more to this.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

man, what on earth are the Nets thinking. he was already a bargain basement deal. even if the knee only held out for a few seasons, at the price they were paying it still would've been worth it. 

there we were in a dark alley, hunched over, our pants down, a jar of vaseline resting on our backs, a giant neon sign blinking "ALL YOURS ALL YOURS," and they walk away? sheesh. I feel even more unclean than I would've if they'd done the deed on us.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



BIG Q said:


> What I am alluding to and should have stated better is that if the Nets come up with a better deal, say Nets for Gooden and a second rounder or maybe lorenzen Wright from Memphis then this can look like SAR was dumped for a better deal, not because of an "injury."
> 
> I would also be interested in if SAR has any recourse. I would say that Thorn has released private medical info that you just can not do. He toned it down after his legal department I am sure told him to shut the hell up.
> 
> Does Thorn now have any credibility to be able to recruit and sign a free agent? Does Kidd or Frank want to work for that fool now after being stabbed in the back? I believe there is more to this.


True but the injury I am sure would have to be verifiable. If that were the case then intent has no bearing on it, but the facts do.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



VCFORTHREE15 said:


> I am hopeful that he signs for the MLE but i doubt it. It could have been the sixth year that made THorn cut the deal and maybe five years made him feel a little better. It is possible the deal was proposed to Reef already and he plans on signing for the MLE. Although this would be great, i seriously doubt it would happen.


I would speculate there would be some kind of collusion involved with this type of scenario.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

what is 38 mil Reef is way more than that , thats peanuts Foyle got 40 some mil last year right


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



VCFORTHREE15 said:


> I am a pissed off Net fan but he cant go to the cavs, not enough money and dont need him. Spurs shot the MLE on Horry and Oberto and Kings just signed Jamal Sampson i believe. I am hopeful that he signs for the MLE but i doubt it. It could have been the sixth year that made THorn cut the deal and maybe five years made him feel a little better. It is possible the deal was proposed to Reef already and he plans on signing for the MLE. Although this would be great, i seriously doubt it would happen.


doubtful he signs for the mid level it sounds like hes pissed off and decided not to bring in a angry player .

I predict Reef will go to the kings


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

Nash looks pretty stupid now imo. Of course my previous opinion of him was not glowing either.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> Nash looks pretty stupid now imo. Of course my previous opinion of him was not glowing either.




Why is it that Nash looks stupid? Thorn is the one that looks stupid IMO. 


Like it or not Nash is under orders to cut payroll. I really don't understand why some people can't comprehend that. Trading Damon, NVE and SAR for anything but a superstar, money or picks was simply out of the question. I think Nash dod a great job of getting a 1st round pick and the TE. NJ really ****ed this up. They had an second tier star for pennies on the dollar and lost him because they didn't want to part with a number 1 pick in a weak draft.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

ugh. 

Sheed traded for Ratliff and a bad draft pick. "We've just got to take our lumps."

Woods cut for nothing. "We've just got to take our lumps."

Damon walks for nothing. "We've just got to take our lumps."

DA cut for nothing. "We've just got to take our lumps."

NVE walks for nothing. "We've just got to take our lumps."

SAR walks for nothing. "We've just got to take our lumps."

I know that not all those guys were worth much, but this is getting to be like Rasheed and his "both teams played hard" bit.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



HKF said:


> So, does this change the opinion on John Nash, since it appears that Damon, Van Exel and Rahim all appear to be leaving for nothing?


You'd think so, because I (and other posters as well) were told to "wait and see" what Nash got for these guys before I bashed him. Nash is a terrible negotiator, he holds out for too much, and other GM's finally tell him to kiss off and he ends up with nothing.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



mediocre man said:


> Why is it that Nash looks stupid? Thorn is the one that looks stupid IMO.
> .


Because some people are broken records that say the same thing over and over again


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> Nash looks pretty stupid now imo. Of course my previous opinion of him was not glowing either.


I disagree. Thorn looks pretty stupid. Thorn has had the infatuation with SAR for a year, finally gets him at smokin' good price and then takes a crap all over the deal. Nash looks fine. He did nothing but agree to a deal, he didn't broker it.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



RP McMurphy said:


> You'd think so, because I (and other posters as well) were told to "wait and see" what Nash got for these guys before I bashed him. Nash is a terrible negotiator, he holds out for too much, and other GM's finally tell him to kiss off and he ends up with nothing.


Although that has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation at hand.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

*Nash is a terrible negotiator* 



:clap:


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Schilly said:


> Although that has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation at hand.


It doesn't? Nash had plenty of opportunities to trade Shareef over the past year and a half. He just had his head in the clouds and thought he could get way more for Shareef than what was actually possible. The current situation with the Nets may not be Nash's fault, but, when he postponed his decision until this summer, he was asking for things to wrong.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

I can't see how NJ turning down Shareef due to physical concerns is Nash's fault.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



RP McMurphy said:


> You'd think so, because I (and other posters as well) were told to "wait and see" what Nash got for these guys before I bashed him. Nash is a terrible negotiator, he holds out for too much, and other GM's finally tell him to kiss off and he ends up with nothing.




I agree with you about Nash not being the best negotiater, but I think if Nash was given the same slack that Whitsitt was he would have gotten something for all of those players.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Todd said:


> *Nash is a terrible negotiator*
> 
> 
> 
> :clap:


How do you figure? He got what he wanted out of this trade...New Jersey is the ones who bailed out, how is it that Nash is to blame for that?


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

The fact of the matter is that Nash has ended up with nothing to show for his supposedly valuable trading pieces of SAR, Damon, and NVE. It doesn't matter whether you blame Thorn or Nash for this latest deal not going through. The results are what they are. How anyone can say he has done a good job while receiving nothing for these assets is beyond my comprehension.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



RP McMurphy said:


> You'd think so, because I (and other posters as well) were told to "wait and see" what Nash got for these guys before I bashed him. Nash is a terrible negotiator, he holds out for too much, and other GM's finally tell him to kiss off and he ends up with nothing.



huh? Why would you blame Nash on this? He got the deal he wanted, but it was NJ who took the back door out of this deal. So, SAR's knee is bad? How many games has he missed in his career do to his knee? hmm.. I think the answer is 0.

The people who disliked Nash before, will point to this and say, "See!". I just can't see how this is his fault when NJ made the deal, and nixed it on what looks like a minor technicality that most teams just ok.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



theWanker said:


> ugh.
> 
> Sheed traded for Ratliff and a bad draft pick. "We've just got to take our lumps."
> 
> ...



You are so right.........I mean there's no way Sheed and his attitude, Woods and his legal troubles, DA and his health issues, and Damon and his contrast of contract to height had anything to do with it.......Maybe, just maybe some of you can start to see why Bob Whitsitt doesn't have a job anymore.


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

Is SAR's knee Nash's fault? Trading damaged goods isn't as easy as some seem to think.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> The fact of the matter is that Nash has ended up with nothing to show for his supposedly valuable trading pieces of SAR, Damon, and NVE. It doesn't matter whether you blame Thorn or Nash for this latest deal not going through. The results are what they are. How anyone can say he has done a good job while receiving nothing for these assets is beyond my comprehension.



So, what were the offers on the table for SAR, Damon, and NVE? Do you know? Maybe he thought they had more value, just like most of us. I'm sure if SAR didn't have his shoulder injury during the trade deadline, he would have been dealt.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Schilly said:


> How do you figure? He got what he wanted out of this trade...New Jersey is the ones who bailed out, how is it that Nash is to blame for that?



Here is your answer


> The fact of the matter is that Nash has ended up with nothing to show for his supposedly valuable trading pieces of SAR, Damon, and NVE. It doesn't matter whether you blame Thorn or Nash for this latest deal not going through. The results are what they are. How anyone can say he has done a good job while receiving nothing for these assets is beyond my comprehension.


Tlong pretty much sums it up!


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Scout226 said:


> So, what were the offers on the table for SAR, Damon, and NVE? Do you know? Maybe he thought they had more value, just like most of us. I'm sure if SAR didn't have his shoulder injury during the trade deadline, he would have been dealt.



Of course I don't know. Neither do you. I am absolutely certain they were worth more than nothing though and that's what we ended up with.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> The fact of the matter is that Nash has ended up with nothing to show for his supposedly valuable trading pieces of SAR, Damon, and NVE. It doesn't matter whether you blame Thorn or Nash for this latest deal not going through. The results are what they are. How anyone can say he has done a good job while receiving nothing for these assets is beyond my comprehension.


I guess the $40 million ($80 including tax) savings doesn't count for much. I'm disappointed the Blazers don't get the pick, but I blame that on Thorn. How many good trades can any of you think up for SAR that gave real value back without adding any salary. And I mean realistic trades, not homer garbage. I still can't see anyone I want out there for SAR or NVE that is worth taking on their salary. I'll take the savings and let the young guys and Nate build chemistry.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

Wank you've been readin the Extended works of Mixum too much. Operating under false expectations of what the team is doing I suspect. The team has been pretty stright up about reducing salary, now on to the quote war.


theWanker said:


> ugh.
> 
> Sheed traded for Ratliff and a bad draft pick. "We've just got to take our lumps."


That's not a complete concept, we also "had" the TE which could have been used. To assume it wouldn't isn't accurate but assuming the worst scenario. Heck the Nets supposedly landed Reef with the TE



> Woods cut for nothing. "We've just got to take our lumps."


Cur for nothing signed with Miami didn't play there, traded to Boston, cut by Boston...real value we lost out on.



> Damon walks for nothing. "We've just got to take our lumps."


Coming from a guy who would have paid someone to take Damon off our hands...



> DA cut for nothing. "We've just got to take our lumps."


Ridiculous, who in their right moind would have paid DA 9 mill a year over the next 2 years? Did you want Paul to? Considereing his health and mental aspect... I doubt it.



> NVE walks for nothing. "We've just got to take our lumps."


Ok I'll admit I'm surprised, but what do you think we could have got back for anbout 13mil that someoneelse would have wanted to simply salay dump on us? This was 100% about Money



> SAR walks for nothing. "We've just got to take our lumps."


You got a link on that? Last I checked he was still considered our FA. And depending on what we poentially could still get in return, that still factors into what we got for Sheed.

IMO those are some petty yet lame examples of Nash's moves. REef is incomplete, therefore Sheed is incomplete, heck for all we know Portland may now be able to get an even better return for Reef than a late 1st rounder. 
I know that not all those guys were worth much, but this is getting to be like Rasheed and his "both teams played hard" bit.[/QUOTE]


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> Of course I don't know. Neither do you. I am absolutely certain they were worth more than nothing though and that's what we ended up with.




Tlong look at it in these terms. 

Lets pretend I have a set of bagpipes that i want to sell to you for $20,000.00. Now you can either do that knowing you will never use the bagpipes, or do nothing and save yourself $20,000.00. Which is better.....I say it's doing nothing. Sometimes doing nothing is better.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

Does anyone know if this means that NJ loses it's TE also? It should expire if not used.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



mediocre man said:


> You are so right.........I mean there's no way Sheed and his attitude, Woods and his legal troubles, DA and his health issues, and Damon and his contrast of contract to height had anything to do with it.......Maybe, just maybe some of you can start to see why Bob Whitsitt doesn't have a job anymore.


I just don't see how you can look at all those players leaving, regardless of their character and talent weaknesses, with only Ratliff and a lousy draft pick to show for it, and call it a success. a GM's job is to take the players he's got, even the really crappy ones, and maximize the level of talent on his team. 

Sheed has been a key player on a championship and three other conference finals/nba finals teams. Damon is a starting quality PG. Nick Van Exel is a proven performer in the right situation. Woods was immediately snatched up right after we waived him. SAR is a 20/8 power forward. There was some real value there. 

I'm not asking the world here. I'm not trying to be unrealistic. I realize these guys all had to go. 

But just because they all had to go, it DOESN'T MEAN THEY ALL HAVE TO GO FOR VIRTUALLY NOTHING.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Reep said:


> Does anyone know if this means that NJ loses it's TE also? It should expire if not used.


it expires at 12AM EST tonight


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Reep said:


> Does anyone know if this means that NJ loses it's TE also? It should expire if not used.


New Jersey's trade exception expires at midnight tonight.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Reep said:


> Does anyone know if this means that NJ loses it's TE also? It should expire if not used.




They have until midnight tonight to use it. I'm assuming thats EST.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> Of course I don't know. Neither do you. I am absolutely certain they were worth more than nothing though and that's what we ended up with.



Ok, I'm sure they were as well. Would you accept Foyle for any of them? Maybe Finley's contract? How about Houston?

The problem is, sure, I'm sure Nash could have pulled "something" off, but if he pulled a Foyle trade for one of them, everyone would be calling for his head on a platter..


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

I had bad gas last night, it was Nash's fault.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



mediocre man said:


> Tlong look at it in these terms.
> 
> Lets pretend I have a set of bagpipes that i want to sell to you for $20,000.00. Now you can either do that knowing you will never use the bagpipes, or do nothing and save yourself $20,000.00. Which is better.....I say it's doing nothing. Sometimes doing nothing is better.



If your occupation is being a bagpipe player in a bagpipe band then you damn well better have a set of bagpipes.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

SAR's status now reverts to the same as it was July 1...unrestricted free agent. All of the options that were available then are still available, with the exception, apparently, of trading him to the Nets. If another S&T that makes sense becomes available, the Blazers could still end up getting something out of Shareef. If his knee is really that bad, then it's possible that Shareef is now considered damaged goods and will have to take a shorter term and cheaper offer. If that's the case, maybe the Blazers even consider re-signing him as a backup PF.

IMO, hyperventilating about this turn of events and blaming Nash for the condition of SAR's knee or Thorn's actions is ridiculous.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Scout226 said:


> The problem is, sure, I'm sure Nash could have pulled "something" off, but if he pulled a Foyle trade for one of them, everyone would be calling for his head on a platter..


Ther is a dissapointingly large number of posters that do as such regardlees of the move Nash makes...What I don;t get is how people are so intent on looking for flaw they start blaming him for problems and mistakes other teams made, I mean Miami probably could have saved a little more by making Shaqs contract more incentive ladden.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> If your occupation is being a bagpipe player in a bagpipe band then you damn well better have a set of bagpipes.




Ok then let's say you already have enough bagpipes, and your wife tells you that you can't buy anymore because she is trying to save money. Nash has cut 40 million dollars from the payroll. He is doing a great job of that. Yes it sucks that the Cavs wouldn't trade us LeBron, or that Miami refused to trade Wade straight across for DA. Face it, the players we could have gotten in return wouldn't have been in the best interest of the FUTURE of the team.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Scout226 said:


> Ok, I'm sure they were as well. Would you accept Foyle for any of them? Maybe Finley's contract? How about Houston?
> 
> The problem is, sure, I'm sure Nash could have pulled "something" off, but if he pulled a Foyle trade for one of them, everyone would be calling for his head on a platter..


When you're in management the one thing you better do is "take action." Sitting around with your thumb up your arse is the way to get a quick ticket out the door. I think you will see a lot of people calling for his head on a platter for failing to get anything done.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> When you're in management the one thing you better do is "take action." Sitting around with your thumb up your arse is the way to get a quick ticket out the door. I think you will see a lot of people calling for his head on a platter for failing to get anything done.




Why would he get fired for doing EXACTLY what his owner told him to do.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



mediocre man said:


> Ok then let's say you already have enough bagpipes, and your wife tells you that you can't buy anymore because she is trying to save money. Nash has cut 40 million dollars from the payroll. He is doing a great job of that. Yes it sucks that the Cavs wouldn't trade us LeBron, or that Miami refused to trade Wade straight across for DA. Face it, the players we could have gotten in return wouldn't have been in the best interest of the FUTURE of the team.



It didn't have to be players. We were getting a draft pick for New Jersey. Regardless, nobody can tell me that getting nothing is in the team's best interest. That is illogical.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Schilly said:


> Ther is a dissapointingly large number of posters that do as such regardlees of the move Nash makes...What I don;t get is how people are so intent on looking for flaw they start blaming him for problems and mistakes other teams made, I mean Miami probably could have saved a little more by making Shaqs contract more incentive ladden.



What I don't get is how people can give Nash a free pass regardless of the situation the team finds itself in. If basketball operations are not going well you have to place the blame with the person in charge of basketball operations. The buck has to stop somewhere.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> When you're in management the one thing you better do is "take action." Sitting around with your thumb up your arse is the way to get a quick ticket out the door. I think you will see a lot of people calling for his head on a platter for failing to get anything done.


Let's say you're trying to sell your used car and you find a potential buyer who wants to have his mechanic check it out before he seals the deal. He's being wise because he doesn't want to get stuck with a lemon. You agree because he's made a fair offer and you haven't had any problems with the car. The guy takes it to the shop and decides he's going to back out of the deal when the mechanic says the transmission could fail sometime in the next 20-40K miles.

So, do your actions equate to sitting around with your thumb up your arse?


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> When you're in management the one thing you better do is "take action." Sitting around with your thumb up your arse is the way to get a quick ticket out the door. I think you will see a lot of people calling for his head on a platter for failing to get anything done.


That goes both ways. When you're in management, if you make moves, just to make moves, you will be shown the door quickly as well. 

About the only trade I can look at now and say we didn't get much would be the Sheed deal. Other than that, DA, Damon, and NVE aren't much of an asset.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

Schilly, you do have a valid point that I may be pushing the panic button on SAR. there's still a chance that we can do a sign and trade deal. if he pulls it off, then I'll be happy to look at that as a positive. 

as for the rest, I stand by what I said. 

Woods was immediatley picked up after we cut him. that indicates to me that he was valued by the Heat, even if their value was misplaced. 

I can't stand Damon, but when guys like McGrady and Jerry West want you on their teams, clearly you have value. I may think he's worthless, but clearly important people in the NBA disagree with me. 

Anderson on his own is as close to worthless as they come. I won't condemn Nash for not trading him. however, he didn't try to package him with draft picks/youth to upgrade some other part of our roster, either. 

it doesn't take much imagination or effort or daring to just watch guys with some value leave for nothing and "rebuild with youth." every team in the league that isn't a contender can do that. 

McInnis for Miles is a fantastic example of what I want Nash to do more often. even the Bonzi deal I view as a moderate success. we at least got a draft pick and the use of Person for half a season. 

I just want to see more stuff like that happen.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



e_blazer1 said:


> Let's say you're trying to sell your used car and you find a potential buyer who wants to have his mechanic check it out before he seals the deal. He's being wise because he doesn't want to get stuck with a lemon. You agree because he's made a fair offer and you haven't had any problems with the car. The guy takes it to the shop and decides he's going to back out of the deal when the mechanic says the transmission could fail sometime in the next 20-40K miles.
> 
> So, do your actions equate to sitting around with your thumb up your arse?


Okay, let's go over this one more time...

Damon is gone and we have received nothing in return.
NVE is gone and we have received nothing in return.
SAR is soon to be gone and we will likely receive nothing in return.

What is it about this scenario that indicates Nash is doing a good job?


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

I think you guys are wasting your time on changing tlong's mind. 

The concept that sometimes the best move is not to move is not sinking in. While it is practiced every day by successful businesses, it is just not sinking in here. 

Similarly the concept that hindsight is only available after the event in question is lost. It is always easy to look back knowing the outcome and say what should have happened. Not everyone is capable of stepping back into the shoes of the decision-maker and looking at the situation with only the knowledge that they had at the time. Hindsighters can't see the event without looking at everything that happened after that.

By the way, I wouldn't buy bagpipes for $20,000 if I didn't need them.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> When you're in management the one thing you better do is "take action." Sitting around with your thumb up your arse is the way to get a quick ticket out the door. I think you will see a lot of people calling for his head on a platter for failing to get anything done.


Unless of course you have been instructed by your employer, not to be fiscally irresponsible, based on the expected performance of your investment.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

Somehow.. the lineup of

Kidd, Carter, Jefferson, Marc Jackson

does not sound as good as 

Kidd, Carter, Jefferson, Rahim

:whoknows:


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> Okay, let's go over this one more time...
> 
> Damon is gone and we have received nothing in return.
> NVE is gone and we have received nothing in return.
> ...


OK, let's do go over it one more time.

Damon's gone. The Blazers never intended to get anything for him because they're going with a youth movement.

Ditto with NVE.

SAR they also didn't plan to try to get any compensation for, but agreed to participate in a S&T after Nash negotiated terms that were very favorable to the Blazers and consistent with their salary guidelines. The deal fell apart because of SAR's knees so now we're back to exactly the place the Blazers planned to be in the first place.

The most that the Blazers could have gotten for any of these guys is mid-level talent. You don't rebuild around youth by bringing in mid-level vets who are simply going to suck up the playing time you need to develop the young players. The Blazers have a strategy and they're sticking with it.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

I've never really bought the "hindsight is unfair" argument. if you only judge the GM by what you know right now, you are basically giving the GM way too much credit. he knows far more about the deals available than you do, so how are you supposed to evaluate him? 

time is the great equalizer. a year after all the trades are made, you are exposed to many of the deals that didn't get done. you also have the insight of actually measuring performance. you wouldn't promote or fire an employee without looking at his track record, so why on earth would you praise/condemn a GM without doing the same?


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> Okay, let's go over this one more time...
> 
> Damon is gone and we have received nothing in return.
> NVE is gone and we have received nothing in return.
> ...



Regarding Damon: Was Nash suppose to get some value at the trade deadline this last year? After the trade deadline, his value was zilch. He isn't worth more than the MLE, so we weren't getting a S&T for him. I doubt anyone was beating down the door wanting Damon.

Regarding NVE: His value is cap relief and that's it. No one wants to pay a quiter. So, NVE wasn't that valuable. We would have to take about 12 mil back in crap contracts for NVE.

Regarding SAR: We should have gotten something for him. But our luck, he was injured during the trade deadline, and now NJ wiggles out of a deal with a so called knee injury that hasn't cost him any games.. 

I guess it comes down to, if you are a glass half full person, or a glass half empty person..


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



theWanker said:


> Schilly, you do have a valid point that I may be pushing the panic button on SAR. there's still a chance that we can do a sign and trade deal. if he pulls it off, then I'll be happy to look at that as a positive.
> 
> as for the rest, I stand by what I said.
> 
> ...


All duely noted, but I think too many People are trying to rush the process....Portland has made no effort to hide wahat htey are doing. They have come out and said flat out that they are in Money saving rebuild mode. But some fans continue to reject that notion as a failure on behalf of the GM who has really been doing what he was asked to do, clean up team image and be more fiscally responsible.

So let's analyze the Financial aspect....

For NVE Portland takes back no less than about 11mil
For Damon, no less than about 3mil
for Shareef about 5 mil

So that then tags on 19mil to our salary which is already at about 58mil...Total 77mil. Add in a trade DA and the return and ignore the Amnsty waive and Porland is close to 20mil over luxury tax.

On top of that they likely have in the neighborhood of 17 players on roster at that point. 

Now that's assuming that they traded those players this offseason, had it been during the season Portland would have had to have taken in...

12mil for Damon, 10 mil for Nick amd about 12mil for Reef....so a total of 34mil, added to about 58mil...so over 90mil in salary liability. Of course they could have gotten expiring deals in return but then we'd be complaining that we let thos guys go for nothing.

You want a Knicksesque salary figure, along with thier success?

People gripe about the Carter Reef deal...I was doing the math the other day, if the rumor was true that Toronto was demanding NVE and Shareef for Carter and Demanding they take Jalen Rose as well...Jalem and Vince would have cost Paul about 130mil over 3 years to have on his roster. (32mil Jalen 46mil Vince x2 for luxury tax and remove a little for amnesty)


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Schilly said:


> Unless of course you have been instructed by your employer, not to be fiscally irresponsible, based on the expected performance of your investment.


And that reconciles with the extensions to Darius, Theo and Zach how exactly???????

Keep apologizing for failure.

I will keep noticing the Blazers have FAILED by THEIR OWN STANDARDS.

They said character was paramount - kept the Mouse to the end of his deal. Patterson is still on the roster. Extend Zach same time ugly questions where swirling around a bar shooting. Failed their standard.

They said fiscal responsibility was paramount - but traded Sheed and Bonzi for (essentially) Theo and SAR, and paid a boatload of luxury tax because of it. Had they traded for expiring deals and picks THAT would have been fiscal responsibility and got us under the lux tax level one year sooner. They also handed out extensions sooner than they needed to. Not contributing to fiscal responsibility. Failed their standard.

They said being competitive was paramount - but the attempts to STAY competitive did not work. The experienced players brought in were either not as good as those going out or were not at positions we needed, and thus less help on the floor. A worse team was the result. Failed their standard.

After all the failures - they throw all that out the window and say now we rebuild around youth - which is the same strategy half the league uses.

That does not excuse the prior failures - only validates that they occured.

What's the NEW standard?


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



theWanker said:


> I've never really bought the "hindsight is unfair" argument. if you only judge the GM by what you know right now, you are basically giving the GM way too much credit. he knows far more about the deals available than you do, so how are you supposed to evaluate him?
> 
> time is the great equalizer. a year after all the trades are made, you are exposed to many of the deals that didn't get done. you also have the insight of actually measuring performance. you wouldn't promote or fire an employee without looking at his track record, so why on earth would you praise/condemn a GM without doing the same?


Of course you grade a GM based on his record. The distinction that exists here, however, is that some fans are trying to evaluate Nash's record based on their own opinion that he was supposed to get compensation for his expiring contracts. The problem with that is that the Blazers appear to have made a deliberate decision that they weren't going to go that route because they wanted to cut costs and develop young talent. Nate McMillan was told at the time of his hiring that the team was going to rebuild around the young players and that ownership understood that this was going to take time to be successful. While some fans (myself included) understandably wanted a quicker rebuild based on using some of the expiring contracts, I think you have to at least be fair and accept that Paul Allen's entitled to develop his team anyway he wants. Blaming Nash for following a defined strategy and not doing things that are counterproductive to that strategy is simply unfair.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

Nash certainly has let a LOT of talented players get away for nothing / almost nothing:

Rasheed
Bonzi
McInnis
Qyntel
DA
Nick
Damon

Shareef might soon appear on that list, but the jury's still out. A S&T could still materialize that gets the Blazers something they need in return. But even if that happens, it won't be a "star" level player. Therefore, the body of evidence will still show a whole lot of talent leaving for little / no return (bad thing).

On the other side of the coin, that's a whole lot of salary leaving for little / no return as well (good thing). And look at the names on that list... That's a whole lot of trouble leaving for little / no return, too (good thing). So it seems to me that the combination of character & money are trumping talent in just about every one of Nash's moves.

Either that, or Nash is just a bad negotiator.

Either that, or no one has wanted to give us what we want for what we've had to work with.

The truth is probably somewhere in-between.

On the side... it's too bad we don't have much of our MLE left, isn't it? I mean, we still need a legit backup PF and Shareef (you know, that guy with the bad knee?) is available again.

PBF


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Masbee said:


> And that reconciles with the extensions to Darius, Theo and Zach how exactly???????
> 
> Keep apologizing for failure.
> 
> ...


IS their salary figure lower than it was 2 years ago? If it is then they have saved money. I think we are finding as Blazer fans that we overvalue our own players and what they will yield. We complain about what we get in return then those palayers move on and move on and the teams they leave after Poretland get ntohing more than Portland did.

AS far as failures and saying they are rebuilding around youth I think htere is a reason why. Right now their own yout is more ptromising tot he success of the team than a band aid here and a band aide there. I think Portland is actually in a situation where their picks are panning our better than anticipated and that's too hard to ignore at this point.

You can call me an aplogist all you want, I'm not apologizing for them, just calling it the way I see it. You can lay the best plans in the world but rarely does everything fall into line and if you refuse to go with the flow you likely will sink faster... Ever hera the saying about Lemons?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

PBF Shareef is our own FA we can re-sign him for something lke 18mill a year if we wanted to


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



e_blazer1 said:


> Of course you grade a GM based on his record. The distinction that exists here, however, is that some fans are trying to evaluate Nash's record based on their own opinion that he was supposed to get compensation for his expiring contracts. The problem with that is that the Blazers appear to have made a deliberate decision that they weren't going to go that route because they wanted to cut costs and develop young talent. Nate McMillan was told at the time of his hiring that the team was going to rebuild around the young players and that ownership understood that this was going to take time to be successful. While some fans (myself included) understandably wanted a quicker rebuild based on using some of the expiring contracts, I think you have to at least be fair and accept that Paul Allen's entitled to develop his team anyway he wants. Blaming Nash for following a defined strategy and not doing things that are counterproductive to that strategy is simply unfair.



Nash has repeatedly said in interviews that he held valuable bargaining chips in Reef and NVE. I do not believe that Allen instructed him to discard these bargaining chips while receiving no value for them.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Nets screwed Rahim royally*

I can't believe the raw deal that Abdur-Rahim is getting from the Nets. Not only have they hurt his market value considerably, and probably cost him millions of dollars, they may have finally and irrevocably stamped him with the title of "loser," something he has been trying to get past his entire career.

Why didn't the Nets give him a physical BEFORE they made him the offer??!! That way any concerns they had about his knees would have been kept private, and Rahim would have been free to seek other trades. Now every team in the league is going to have major concerns about his health, and he is going to be hard-pressed to get a new job period. This is about the worst thing that could happen to a free agent, and it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. I feel for him--and I despise what the Nets have done.


----------



## goglik (Mar 14, 2005)

*Re: Nets screwed Rahim royally*

If Shareef can't get on a good team anymore, than id be praying for New Jersey to loose each game. I already hated Jason Kidds wife and their ugly kid for 2 years now.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> Nash has repeatedly said in interviews that he held valuable bargaining chips in Reef and NVE. I do not believe that Allen instructed him to discard these bargaining chips while receiving no value for them.


If in fact he knew they weren't much of a bargaining chip, would you rather he say, "Well, SAR, NVE, and Damon aren't worth much on the open market, so we probably won't get much, if anything, from them."?

It's just like draft positioning, there is a lot of BS out there. I'm sure Nash fluffed what he was really holding in regards to his bargaining chips. Hell, I was only guessing SAR would net us anything of value. But when he was injured up until the trade deadline, I wasn't expecting much after that.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Nets screwed Rahim royally*

I have to agree. The Nets definitely are not doing Reef a favor here.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> What I don't get is how people can give Nash a free pass regardless of the situation the team finds itself in. If basketball operations are not going well you have to place the blame with the person in charge of basketball operations. The buck has to stop somewhere.


It does, and the name on the name plate is PAUL ALLEN! I am sure that Nash and Patterson know full well what is expected of them. Question Paul Allen, not Nash.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



BIG Q said:


> It does, and the name on the name plate is PAUL ALLEN! I am sure that Nash and Patterson know full well what is expected of them. Question Paul Allen, not Nash.


I don't expect Paul Allen to fire himself anytime soon, so I will place the blame with Nash.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: Nets screwed Rahim royally*

It's nice to see the Portlanders give Reef a nice sendoff.

It's all too frustrating.

I think Reef must have pissed on his prayer mat as a kid and this is Allah's way of paying him back.

:curse: 

Screw thorn.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> I don't expect Paul Allen to fire himself anytime soon, so I will place the blame with Nash.


that's one of the lamest things you've ever typed tlong. but **** does flow downhill doesn't it?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Schilly said:


> He didn't do anything wrong...the S&T was contingent on Shareef pasing the physical which he didn't. Now if he goes on to sign with NJ anyway, hthen that would be interesting, but I doubt that happens.


Actually, Schill, he DID pass the physical.

They just had ancillary concerns that the Nets used to nullify the deal.


----------



## goglik (Mar 14, 2005)

*Re: Nets screwed Rahim royally*

He probably intentionally ate pork.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Playmaker0017 said:


> Actually, Schill, he DID pass the physical.
> 
> They just had ancillary concerns that the Nets used to nullify the deal.


That pisses me off even more.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

I can understand why a lot of people may not like the decision that the Blazers have made to cut costs and go young. What I don't really get is why this turn of events regarding SAR has unleashed all of this venting about Nash. He made a good deal for the Blazers and can hardly be blamed for Shareef's knees or Thorn's wussy decision not to go through with the trade. 

The summer's not over and Nash may or may not be done trading. Nobody here knows how the team that the Blazers have assembled will actually play and whether they'll lose more than they win. Maybe it would be a good idea to see what the team actually looks like coming out of fall camp before you decide to barbecue Nash's backside.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Nets screwed Rahim royally*

Rahim is the one party in all of this I feel really bad for. Definitely got a bum deal out of this whole wack situation. Hopefully he'll find his way onto a title contender before the summer is up to make up for it somewhat.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



e_blazer1 said:


> I can understand why a lot of people may not like the decision that the Blazers have made to cut costs and go young. What I don't really get is why this turn of events regarding SAR has unleashed all of this venting about Nash. He made a good deal for the Blazers and can hardly be blamed for Shareef's knees or Thorn's wussy decision not to go through with the trade.
> 
> The summer's not over and Nash may or may not be done trading. Nobody here knows how the team that the Blazers have assembled will actually play and whether they'll lose more than they win. Maybe it would be a good idea to see what the team actually looks like coming out of fall camp before you decide to barbecue Nash's backside.


Exactly.

I knew it was lost when people starting complaining about losing DA for nothing.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Schilly said:


> That pisses me off even more.


It's pretty bogus.

I think it boils down to the fact that NJ never wanted to trade a 1st rounder nor anything else.

So, they backed out for those reasons. It had nothing to do with a "knee problem" ... it was just the convenient excuse.

I mean, even his 4 medical "experts" were telling him it was pretty safe and any "arthritis" that may show probably wouldn't affect a guy that seems as resiliant as Reef has during his career. That says a LOT when a doctor says this.

This had a lot to do with something OTHER than Shareef Abdur-Rahim.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: Nets screwed Rahim royally*

I'm just going to put on my mudsloggers and suck it up --- it's Reef's destiny to never win in the NBA.

So, expect whereever he goes to have some catastrophic loss. 

Sometimes I love being a Reef fan!


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



e_blazer1 said:


> I can understand why a lot of people may not like the decision that the Blazers have made to cut costs and go young. What I don't really get is why this turn of events regarding SAR has unleashed all of this venting about Nash. He made a good deal for the Blazers and can hardly be blamed for Shareef's knees or Thorn's wussy decision not to go through with the trade.
> 
> The summer's not over and Nash may or may not be done trading. Nobody here knows how the team that the Blazers have assembled will actually play and whether they'll lose more than they win. Maybe it would be a good idea to see what the team actually looks like coming out of fall camp before you decide to barbecue Nash's backside.


Just *when do you * start placing blame at Nash's feet? *Never*? He has not acquired *ANY * talent with the bargaining chips he had at his disposal. How can it be any clearer that he has performed poorly? If he is able to obtain some kind of value for Reef then perhaps I will cut him some slack, but as of now he deserves to be barbecued.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Playmaker0017 said:


> It's pretty bogus.
> 
> I think it boils down to the fact that NJ never wanted to trade a 1st rounder nor anything else.
> 
> ...



You might be right, but if so it shows they never really placed much value on Reef.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

I'm no CBA expert like a bunch of you guys, so tell me if this is way off base.

My understanding is that Marc Jackson was acquired for a second-round pick. Picks have no salary value, and thus something needs to go back with them (although I seem to remember trades such as Kerry Kittles for a second-rounder...where there wasn't a TE involved...just 'cash considerations'.). 

Anyways, think about how quickly that Sheed was turned around and traded from Portland to Atlanta to Detroit. Is it possible that New Jersey was totally opposed to giving up a first rounder, and instead is attmepting to do a different deal. I posted this over at the Nets forum in their thread. 

Essentially, since we are so logjammed up at SF, we need to move someone. Reuben has good value since he is a great energy spark plug and a good defender. Maybe if we were to trade Rahim and Patterson for Jackson and the TE...yeah it's a pretty crappy deal on our end; however, we do get a legit backup big man instead of running 6'5" patterson there against Amare. Jackson has two years on his deal (unfortuantely instead of one...in which case I see this deal much more likely), at about 5 million, so we wouldn't save that much money with Patterson gone.


Anyways, it just sorta came to me that something like that could happen if NJ still had the TE...but even that I am uncertain of. 

I think Rahim will get the shaft. Maybe he takes a 1 yr. MLE deal and then tries to get a contract next year....hmm, and he can show he still is 20/8 and no knee problems.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> Just *when do you * start placing blame at Nash's feet? *Never*? He has not acquired *ANY * talent with the bargaining chips he had at his disposal. How can it be any clearer that he has performed poorly? If he is able to obtain some kind of value for Reef then perhaps I will cut him some slack, but as of now he deserves to be barbecued.



Miles for Jeff???? It's not the deal of the decade, but we got a lot more talent than what we had in Jeff. 

For me, I blame him for the extension to Theo and giving ZBO his so early.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> Just *when do you * start placing blame at Nash's feet? *Never*? He has not acquired *ANY * talent with the bargaining chips he had at his disposal. How can it be any clearer that he has performed poorly? If he is able to obtain some kind of value for Reef then perhaps I will cut him some slack, but as of now he deserves to be barbecued.


I don't blame Nash, mostly because I see that the team is rebuilding, infact thought the moment that Whitsitt was fired the team would then begin rebuilding...and they have. 

I don't blame Nash because I know his instrustions were to reduce salary and clean up the imnage, and I doubted at that time that it would be possible to do the 2 and remain competitive, we all questioned that, but I'm not holding him to it, nor am I blaming him for saying what any GM would have said under those criteria,

I for one am looking forward to the prospect of a fresh start minus Sheed, Damon, Derek Bonzi etc etc... I am looking forwar d to seeing a group of young guys who are just going out there to play. 

I'm willing to accept thjat the tream will be down,a dn personally it's better for me to fdo so than it is to get my boxers in a bunch over it.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> Just *when do you * start placing blame at Nash's feet? *Never*? He has not acquired *ANY * talent with the bargaining chips he had at his disposal.


Looking at the big picture, what did you want to see happen with this team? Do you like overpaid, underachieving teams? What players are available that would have given Portland a title? Lebron is not coming to Portland. Who exactly was Nash going to get that you wanted? Good players usually stay with their teams. Pierce is the only name I've heard that may have been a possibility that may have put Portland in the playoffs. But, I have real concerns even about adding him to our mix (chemistry and he hasn't won in Boston). 

Personally, I like the team now. I like the players on the team, and I like the salary situation. The only one I don't like is Theo's salary, but I can live with it.

I have a hard time thinking of any player on the current roster who I really don't want around. Miles would be the closest, but I think he might really blossom under Nate, so I'll keep him for now. All the young guys have been working hard, and the new guys look to be hard workers too. Ruben, Zach, Vanilla Gorilla all hustle and work hard to keep in shape. A couple of years ago I could have handed you a handful of guys who I didn't like. 

So, looking at the big picture, I like what Nash has put together.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: Nets screwed Rahim royally*

I'm glad there is a separate thread lamenting how badly New Jersey screwed Shareef. (The other thread turned into a Nash thread.)

It's really amazing when you consider the $$ they cost him by stringing him along, having him pass on other opportunities, then cutting him loose at the 11th hour and 59th minute. Not to mention the ammunition other teams will use to lowball him from now on.

Really unreal. 

I would wish that New Jersey would just completely tank the next few years, but then they might get a franchise player in the lottery. 

So I curse them to three decades of mediocrity, never sniffing a great player in the draft; never sniffing another finals appearance. :curse:


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: Nets screwed Rahim royally*

BTW: 

Hi Playmaker! :wave:


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

karma will hit thorn and the nets in thier back size when sar comes to town with marc jackson i expect the Injury bug to be attacking Kidd and carter for most of the season now!

How can you blame Nash for Thorn's decision?

Get valuve for da? the only value da had was the amensty tax saving if you honestly think DA had any trade value you are off your rocker nickname: glass anderson should tell you right there.

Nve? yeah we could have got finely hoowooo that twisslers my my stick....his greatest value was the fact we cut 13m off our pay role.

I am sure Nash isnt done, heck he might already have a deal for SAR in place with another team, if i was SAR it would be a cold day in hell before ever even thought about putting on a nets jersey. He will go to a team that isnt so shaky when it comes to injury prone and lame brain led team like the nets the biggest flop in the east next season!


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



Playmaker0017 said:


> It's pretty bogus.
> 
> I think it boils down to the fact that NJ never wanted to trade a 1st rounder nor anything else.
> 
> ...



its stupid for them because reef is way valauble than a 1st rounder in the mid 20s


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

I am disappointed that PatterNash wasn't able to turn Sheed into more than a ham sandwich. I believe national perception about this team and ALL its players played a big part. I would guess Nash didn't get any fantastic offers for ANY of our players.

I am glad at the financial progress - getting closer to flexibility is a proven management model in the NBA. I am also glad at the influx of young talent at almost all positions.

However, this sucks. Sheed, Wells, McInnis, Stoudamire, Shareef and NVE ****ALL**** left town for less than we (generality) thought they were worth in return.

I said back in February that this summer was the time to evaluate Nash for his work as GM. So far, he's done a good job on the cutting salary part, and drafting young players with potential part, ****BUT**** he has really done a poor job on the TRADING players part. 

Our return to greatness could have been alot further along if we'd turned one or two of these players into a rising star or two to put this young talent around. Sad truth is ****** we haven't.

Less than three months to go before season starts - but the track record indicates we're going into the season with what we got.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> Just *when do you * start placing blame at Nash's feet? *Never*? He has not acquired *ANY * talent with the bargaining chips he had at his disposal. How can it be any clearer that he has performed poorly? If he is able to obtain some kind of value for Reef then perhaps I will cut him some slack, but as of now he deserves to be barbecued.


How about we take a breath and look at this objectively. At the present time, the Blazers have the following players under contract for next fall:

PG: Sebastian Telfair, Jarrett Jack 
SG: Juan Dixon (combo PG/SG), Charles Smith, Martell Webster, Sergei Monia 
SF: Darius Miles, Travis Outlaw, Viktor Khryapa 
PF: Zach Randolph, Ruben Patterson 
C: Theo Ratliff, Joel Przybilla, Ha Seung-Jin 

That's 14 players out of a max of 15. Salaries total just over $57 mil, or about $4 mil under the luxury tax threshold. Other than the trade exception deal with New Jersey, using any of the "chips" of Damon, NVE, or SAR in a S&T would have thrown the team well over the luxury tax threshold. It would also bring back a player or players that would necessitate less playing time for some of the existing roster players. Less playing time equates to less time to develop young talent. The only reason to make a move like that is if you're getting back a player who is really going to be a star on this team and make a major difference in the chances of winning. 

My question for you is, who do you think you could get that meets that standard in trade for an undersized PG who plays like a SG, a worn out, at the end of his career, PG, or a PF who's never played for a playoff team and who has bad knees? 

Perhaps your expectations of Nash don't match up well with reality.


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*

When we had players like SAR, NVE, Damon, DA, anyone else I'm not listing, Nash says that they are bargaining chips, right? Well, what if no one wants to bargain? What are your options? Everyone criticizing Nash: Do you think that there were offers for SAR, NVE, Damon and DA that we did not accept? Yes, there likely were. Do you think that there were trades that were accepted by the other side that would have given us any significant value back, and Nash just said, "No I'll wait for something better?"

My point is that I really don't believe that there was anything except bloated contracts like Houston offered, or scrubs or 2nd round draft picks. Do you think that there was an offer of a 1st round pick for any one of those players at any time we had them? Do you think if there was that Nash wouldn't pull the trigger? It seems very obvious to me that people saying Nash didn't do anything with our "valuable" commodities are just putting to much value on these players and have unrealistic expectations of what we should get in return. If all you can get back is huge, unwanted contracts, then sitting tight and letting players walk is the right thing to do.

Think of it this way, what would you trade away to get Damon back, right now, if he still had a large contract and you knew that you could get him next year for a much reduced price. DA? Van Exel? I wouldn't trade more than a second rounder and scrubs for any one of them. Why take the salary when you could have them the next year? If you wouldn't be willing to take their contracts, then who would?

I think that Nash has done a good job of clearing cap space. I question his signing of Theo for the amount he did, and do agree we overpaid him, but I applaud him for all the cost cutting and I don't blame him one bit for letting any one of our players walk. If something works out for SAR, great, but you can't deal if no one is willing to deal.


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



RedHot&Rolling said:


> However, this sucks. Sheed, Wells, McInnis, Stoudamire, Shareef and NVE ****ALL**** left town for less than we (generality) thought they were worth in return.


Could this have anything to do with our percieved value of these players, being Blazer homers?


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

If one steps back and looks at the events of the last ?14 months, it tends to look like the Blazer management at first tried to "rebuild in place" without a blow up. They signed Theo,Zbo,and Darius to big long term contracts and then tried their best to trade Shareef by showcasing him last fall. They also made Ruben available to any takers. However, when no decent trades ever materialized for SAR, Ruben, NVE, and probably others, it became apparent that they could not get value for their veteran players. I believe at that point (trading deadline), management decided it was impossible to "rebuild in place". 

They then decided to go to a "youth movement" full bore. The earlier decision of a long term deal for Theo didn't really fit well with this, but it couldn't really be helped. The ZBo and Darius deals were not really out of whack financially, they were however optimistic given the maturity levels of those players. However, both players do fit a "youth movement" assuming they can keep their heads on straight -- I know, this is a big assumption. They have continued their focus on a youth movement by not accepting junk in S&T for SAR/Damon/NVE. They also dumped DA. Nash's deal with the Nets fit the new strategy well. How can he anticipate that the Nets would reneg when they had been courting SAR for more than 1 year?

Anyway, I think that some here are really frustrated by the change in strategic focus from "build in place" to "youth movement". My opinion is that this was due to other teams not placing much value on the players that Whitsitt acquired (SAR being an extension of Sheed, NVE an extension of DDavis). I think Blazer management had little choice. Accept mediocrity in talent in trades and continue to pay big on salaries and the luxury tax, OR absorb the hit quickly by going for a total "youth movement". I think the Blazers have made the correct choice.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

I think that they should have hired a new coach before they traded away sheed, ETC. I think that Cheeks had alot to do with our players being idiots, but it all goes back to Nash not making the right decisions, IE coaching.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Not really disagreeing Todd, but what coach would have satisified Sheed? Many think they brought in Cheeks to please Sheed. Before the trade for Rat and SAR, Sheed had already told the Blazers he was not going to resign with them. I suppose if they had gotten a new coach and in 1-2 months he worked well with Sheed, things could have been different. But I think by that last fall, it would have been a real long shot.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

Bwatcher said:


> Not really disagreeing Todd, but what coach would have satisified Sheed? Many think they brought in Cheeks to please Sheed. Before the trade for Rat and SAR, Sheed had already told the Blazers he was not going to resign with them. I suppose if they had gotten a new coach and in 1-2 months he worked well with Sheed, things could have been different. But I think by that last fall, it would have been a real long shot.


 Probably would've been a long shot, but I think maybe it would have worked. Our players were just running all over Cheeks, and a new face might have at least slowed that down a little.

 I think Sheed would have stayed if people had realized he was just a good player, and not a leader. Sheed always had someone else on the team that could take the heat until it was just him left. When the spotlight was focused on him, he couldn't handle it.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: OFFICIAL: Nets Void Trade!*



tlong said:


> Just *when do you * start placing blame at Nash's feet? *Never*? He has not acquired *ANY * talent with the bargaining chips he had at his disposal. How can it be any clearer that he has performed poorly? If he is able to obtain some kind of value for Reef then perhaps I will cut him some slack, but as of now he deserves to be barbecued.


As plain and simply as can be stated: The alleged bargaining chips were not worth much! Players coming off of huge contracts that can only muster the MLE are barely worth anything (SAR/Mouse). NVE may get the LLE, so what can you get for him? Sheed and Bonzi killed their value with character issues. Even SAR killed his value by electing to have surgery before the trade deadline, bygones!

When Sheed was traded they wanted players back, vets it seems. In hind sight they should have taken the Detroit deal, expiring contracts and a FRDP. To bad they didn't start the youth movement then, bygones! 

You can not shine a turd and try to convince people it is a diamond. Even when we traded the turd known as JR Rider, we got Steve Smith who was on his last leg and Jim Jackson who was a locker room cancer.

You always pimp your players as valuable trade assets, but the league knows who the turds are. It is just the way the league is now.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

> You can not shine a turd and try to convince people it is a diamond


LOL

Sig material right there.


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

Well put big Q. Rep points for you.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Bwatcher said:


> If one steps back and looks at the events of the last ?14 months, it tends to look like the Blazer management at first tried to "rebuild in place" without a blow up. They signed Theo,Zbo,and Darius to big long term contracts and then tried their best to trade Shareef by showcasing him last fall. They also made Ruben available to any takers. However, when no decent trades ever materialized for SAR, Ruben, NVE, and probably others, it became apparent that they could not get value for their veteran players. I believe at that point (trading deadline), management decided it was impossible to "rebuild in place".
> 
> They then decided to go to a "youth movement" full bore. The earlier decision of a long term deal for Theo didn't really fit well with this, but it couldn't really be helped. The ZBo and Darius deals were not really out of whack financially, they were however optimistic given the maturity levels of those players. However, both players do fit a "youth movement" assuming they can keep their heads on straight -- I know, this is a big assumption. They have continued their focus on a youth movement by not accepting junk in S&T for SAR/Damon/NVE. They also dumped DA. Nash's deal with the Nets fit the new strategy well. How can he anticipate that the Nets would reneg when they had been courting SAR for more than 1 year?
> 
> Anyway, I think that some here are really frustrated by the change in strategic focus from "build in place" to "youth movement". My opinion is that this was due to other teams not placing much value on the players that Whitsitt acquired (SAR being an extension of Sheed, NVE an extension of DDavis). I think Blazer management had little choice. Accept mediocrity in talent in trades and continue to pay big on salaries and the luxury tax, OR absorb the hit quickly by going for a total "youth movement". I think the Blazers have made the correct choice.


Great post, I agree 100%!


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Todd said:


> LOL
> 
> Sig material right there.


Thank-you


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

TheoSaysNo said:


> Well put big Q. Rep points for you.


And thank-you.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

*DoubleTalk from Thorn??*

Not sure what to make of the material quoted below. One the one hand, Thorn seems to be saying that no one should blame the Blazers or SAR for this. Then he says that the Nets tried to renegotiate a new deal with SAR, but that SAR wouldn't go along.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/basketball/nba/08/09/nets.ap/index.html



> The Abdur-Rahim trade was put on hold last week after the nine-year veteran failed a physical. The Nets didn't disclose the nature of the medical problem, but team president Rod Thorn said it was something neither Abdur-Rahim nor the Trail Blazers knew about.
> 
> "Obviously we weren't aware of it, and after all the conversations back and forth, I don't think the player was aware there was any problem," Thorn said. "He hadn't missed any games regarding this. To my knowledge, [Portland] wasn't aware of it."





> Abdur-Rahim missed 22 games with the Blazers last season after undergoing surgery in mid-January to remove loose particles in his right elbow. Thorn said that *the Nets tried negotiating a different deal with Abdur-Rahim in recent days*, but that he didn't want to change the agreement that was in place.



The simpliest answer to me would seem to be that the Nets decided to try to force SAR into a 5 year or less deal using the MLE, based on the idea that he might suffer more from his arthritic knee condition than he is suffering now. SAR didn't like the idea. Other thoughts?


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

*Re: DoubleTalk from Thorn??*

My guess is that the Nets tried to add team options into the contract. The deal was signed so it couldn't be significantly changed.


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

*Re: DoubleTalk from Thorn??*

I hope I'm wrong, but I can't help but think that the Nets just changed their minds, and/or thought they could force SAR to sign for less through this process and so found a weak excuse. The fact that they tried to renegotiate again makes it even more fishy.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: DoubleTalk from Thorn??*



TheoSaysNo said:


> The fact that they tried to renegotiate again makes it even more fishy.


And that it should be investigated by the league. I do not buy this crap. Thorn was looking for a way to screw Nash for his not taking less than the FRDP, IMO. He gambled wrong by thinking this "injury" crap would convice Nash to take a SRDP. When it didn't work and it became obvious that he pissed off SAR, Thorn then had to follow through and not sign SAR. 

My belief is that this was all scripted by Thorn, but was not supposed to be so public. He wanted to get that pick back. It just goes to show that Thorn's word are meaningless and a contract is not worth the paper it is written on when he is involved. The word Weasel comes to mind! End of my conspiracy theory.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

why cant we just keep him..

grr. :curse:


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

ryanjend22 said:


> why cant we just keep him..
> 
> grr. :curse:


The Blazers could try to keep him, but sometimes, it's just time to leave. I have the feeling that Abdur-Rahim has had it with Portland - now he's had it with New Jersey, too - and he's looking for a new opportunity. 

Tell me if I'm right on the upshot for every party involved here: 

*Abdur-Rahim* - has lost virtually all bargaining power now that his agreement to a sign-and-trade (which he signed after giving up more $ from Milwaukee) was voided due to a mysterious injury. 

*Blazers* - continue to look suspicious simply because they're the Blazers and were involved in some kind of shadiness. But, now they've got Abdur-Rahim's rights and could sign-and-trade him someplace else (teams will offer less, but SAR will likely be less picky in terms of his destination). 

*Nets* - Thorn looks cold, cold, cold to free agents and other teams. If you were a team looking to make a trade, would New Jersey be the very last team you called, or is there a bigger ******* out there? If you were a free agent, and New Jersey asked you to take a physical, would you want your own doctor in the room? 

If I'm the Blazers, I have a long heart-to-heart with Abdur-Rahim and assure him that we'll do what all we can to put him in a good situation.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

*Thorn trys the Squeeze*

The Nets wanted to shorten SAR's deal to 4 years, guaranteeing him 22.7 million. After he turned it down, they used the TE to get Jackson for just under 10 million for 2 years. Of course they saved that valuable 1st round pick for next year.


http://www.nj.com/nets/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/112365254036540.xml&coll=1



> "I couldn't compromise to that point," Abdur-Rahim said last night. "There was no way I could take that deal and feel good about myself. At the end of the day, I really wanted to be in New Jersey, but I wasn't going to take that.
> 
> "If my health was truly an issue, they wouldn't have even offered a four-year deal. I have never even played in pain. If I was hurt or felt like I was slowing down, I'd compromise and take a four-year deal.
> 
> There was no bitterness, Abdur-Rahim added, "just some disappointment by how it was handled. I just wish everyone would have been left whole, and nobody would have to repair their reputation."





> The Nets also received cash in the deal, and unlike the agreement with Portland, no first-round draft pick had to be included. The Sixers, who are in cost-cutting mode after re-signing their own free agents, took nothing in return other than the trade exception, and an option to switch second-round picks in 2006.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

A couple thoughts

-- Bum deal for SAR. I wonder, though, if his pride is hurting him by not allowing him to take the 4 year deal. He might end up in an Antonio McDyess-type situation where he has to sign a short term deal and never really reemerges as a starter. In that case, even the shortened NJ deal will seem sweet.

-- I would love to know what NJ is thinking. They save money and get to keep their pick (from a weak draft) but their chances at succeeding go way down with Marc instead of SAR.

-- It seems tough to blame Nash for the failure of this deal, but I can understand how this is the straw that broke the camel's back for some Blazers fans... Nash backers have been telling us to wait and see for just about 2 years now, and the rosters's been flipped and the team is horrible. I wouldn't mind if all of the guys that we've lost were lost for nothing if the team was decent. But it's not, and I (like tlong and others) wonder when some are finally going to admit that Nash hasn't done a good job... to compare tlong, tW, and others to mixum is silly considering the woeful state of this basketball team.

-- Funny how Nash is now saying, "The exception was something that was attractive to us" after I was assured by almost everyone on this board that it would have had zero value to the Blazers.

Ed O.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

Like many others, I am disappointed that the deal didn't go through.

We've given up a lot of very high salary players and not received a lot in return. In many cases, we've received nothing in return. However, high salary doesn't equate to high value. I don't think anyone will disagree that Damon, NVE, DA & Shareef were all overpaid. At the same time, of that group, the only one I regret losing (and we haven't totally lost him yet) is SAR; he is, I believe, a quality player. Unfortunately, he doesn't play SF well and we already have Zach as a PF. 

Over the past couple years we've gone from a team on a gradual downward slide to a team that greatly accelerated the slide and, hopefully, can now start on the way back up.

On the surface, I love the potential of this team. I just hope that potential is realized and we don't become a Darius Miles, showing flashes of brilliance, spates of ignorance but overall decent but nothing to write home about.

I don't expect a very good team this year. Better (I hope) than the team was post-Cheeks but I would be excited to see 35 wins this year. I'm thinking the kids are going to get some real education throughout the year and the Blazers may become one of those teams others look on their schedule and say "Good, the Blazers are coming, we'll get a win".

However, my hope is that toward the end of the year the Blazers become more consistent (consistently good that is), and lay a good foundation for 2006-2007 when they may challenge for a playoff spot.

How has Nash done? Sure, I wish we got something of value in return for out players but the last thing I wanted was the rejects from other teams.

Dixon and Smith, I think are good signings (although still not sure why we got both). They are players with some experience who can provide some veteran leadership while still allowing the youngsters plenty of time to play and as the best of the young guys mature, they will get increasing playing time. Neither Dixon or Smith expect to be foundation type players and I don't believe will be overly offended if the young guys emerge quickly and they get relagated to more time on the bench.

Gramps...


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> -- It seems tough to blame Nash for the failure of this deal, but I can understand how this is the straw that broke the camel's back for some Blazers fans... Nash backers have been telling us to wait and see for just about 2 years now, and the rosters's been flipped and the team is horrible. I wouldn't mind if all of the guys that we've lost were lost for nothing if the team was decent. But it's not, and I (like tlong and others) wonder when some are finally going to admit that Nash hasn't done a good job... to compare tlong, tW, and others to mixum is silly considering the woeful state of this basketball team.


The thing that I'd like to see some of the Nash-bashers admit is that there's a reason that Nash wasn't able to get much in return for most of the guys that he jettisoned in the past couple of years: It's tough to get value in return for players who are either highly talented head cases or under-talented but sporting bloated contracts. The blame for having so many of both of those types of players on our roster falls squarely on the shoulders of our previous GM, who flat out didn't give a rip about character and overpaid like a drunken sailor on a weekend bender.

I don't know what the ultimate view of John Nash as Blazers GM will be a couple of years down the road. So far pretty much all he's been able to do is shovel Whitsitt's refuse out of the Blazers' locker room. His worth will be proven by what he's able to get out of this young bunch of players, his new coach, and any moves he makes to build around the pieces he's already assembled. He may be a total bust and if so, I have no problem in calling him on it. I'm just not willing to kick him for failing to get all-star talent for flawed players.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> A couple thoughts
> -- Funny how Nash is now saying, "The exception was something that was attractive to us" after I was assured by almost everyone on this board that it would have had zero value to the Blazers.
> 
> Ed O.


During the negotiations you take the stance... it has no value to us. All along knowing it would have at least soime value. Its playing poker in the NBA


You and I were one of the advocates for using the TE Ed... picking up a player for $5 mil by purchasing him seemed like a good option if the right player came available. All along.. it was an asset.. it was another option to use.. it along with the pick was a commodity to at least get something of worth. It had worth... it was just not an instant all-star.


Its not over yet. Maybe the same type of deal or the right player will come our way.... its even slimmer odds now. But it can happen. There already is interest in Rahim by the Kings.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> I don't know what the ultimate view of John Nash as Blazers GM will be a couple of years down the road. So far pretty much all he's been able to do is shovel Whitsitt's refuse out of the Blazers' locker room.


Exactly.

Much of what has occured has been the natural turnover of roster so that players that were no longer wanted are now gone.

Yet I and you and EdO and lots of other people could have done that. It takes no special skill to waive Derek Anderson, watch Damon ride off into the sunset, waive Nick Van Excel, watch Shareef flee town for little or nothing in return.

Many could do all that. Those are NOT accomplishments. They are FAILURES.

Success would have been either:

1) Flipping the players and contracts we had when Nash got here that had value into picks and turning longer contracts with less value into shorter ones. 

2) Angling to be in a position to trade for a Star on the move. In the last two years a bunch of them have been in play. Yet, the Blazers have not been situated properly to allow them to be in on that game.

Instead we get a botched "Retooling" that 1 1/2 years into it is abandoned for a rebuild around youth coupled with much increased belt tightening (which is much the result of loss of revenue which is much the result of all that damn losing which is much the result of a poorly thought out and executed plan)

Not only did we start the process 1 1/2 years too late, but many of the moves made were impediments to the new plan.

I don't care much if the blame goes mostly to Nash or mostly to the Blazers braintrust. I do care that what has gone on has been badly done.


----------

