# Would you call this offseason a dissapointment? Personally I would.



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

Now I understand we didnt have much money to spend but i remember listening to Jason Quicks season ending chat in which he said this past summer would define the Blazers future for a long time in which I agreed. Going into this summer the Blazers had alot of desicions to make like coach, gm, sign+trades, drfats etc and the only one I thought was solid....was hiring Nate....otehrwise it was a bust to me. Lets recap shall we....

1. Blazers IMO make their gravest mistake and sign Nash to a 1 year deal. (dissapointment)

2. Blazers actually catch a break and land the #3 pick in the 2005 draft.(solid)

3. We basically trade the pick for peanuts and draft a guy who cant contribute to our biggest hole..SG. Then we draft another PG which sends mixed signals about Telfair. (dissapointment)

4. We hire Nate McMillian which might be our only good move of the summer. (Solid) 

5. We release Van Exel and DA. What happned to NAsh saying Van Exel was a great bargan as far as trade bait? So we lose 2 of our only shooters for nothing. nash continues to get upset saying and I quote "who do you want me to trade them for?" Geez Mr Nash, maybe a SG so we can compete at an NBA level. (dissapointment)

6. Damon+SAR walk for nothing.....see above thread. (Dissapointment)

7.We sign Charles Smith....yes the same player that released 2 years ago.Nash says he was great in European leagues....and Nash would know since he spends most of teh NBA season in Europe "scouting/eating" at various Italion restaurants. (MAJOR DISSAPOINTMENT)


8. Finally we sign a NBA player in the summer of excitement as BLazer fans cause like Quick said....this summer was a big factor in the BLazers future. That player is Juan Dixon. I think the more disturbing part of the Dixon signing was on Courtside Monday night when Mike Rice was trying to get fans pumped up about Dixons arrival. What is more sickning is that 2 weeks before on the same show, Rice was actually trying to sell a DA comeback in 05/06. Low point of our offseason. (DISSAPOINTMENT)

9. Damon basically rips apart the Blazers organization basically calling Portland Utah which says more then I can continue to write here. (SAD)

10. Camp is around the corner and our starting roster looks like this..Telfair, Dixon, Miles, Zach(is he ready) Joel. Whats funny was the other day i told a fellow NBA fan our lineup and his first response was....shut up, for real who is it. After realizing I wasnt joking, he then said we will have the first pick in the draft. (LONG SEASON)


My point is, for a summer that was suppose to lay the foundation for the future....lets just say someone forgot to mix the cement. Other then Nate, we resigned Nash for another year and our lineup got worse if thats possible. :curse:


----------



## KoBe & BeN GoRdOn! (Aug 4, 2005)

mistake, yes


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

mixum said:


> 1. Blazers IMO make their gravest mistake and sign Nash to a 1 year deal. (dissapointment)


I'm not Nash's biggest fan, but given the circumstances, I think this was a decent move.



> 2. Blazers actually catch a break and land the #3 pick in the 2005 draft.(solid)


Agreed



> 3. We basically trade the pick for peanuts and draft a guy who cant contribute to our biggest hole..SG. Then we draft another PG which sends mixed signals about Telfair. (dissapointment)


Disagree strongly. I saw Martell play in Vegas and he most definitely can contribute at the SG position, although perhaps not this season. But who in the draft could contribute at SG this season? For Nash to get his man AND get another 1st round pick with the #3 pick is a plus.

Who would you have taken at #3? Which available player who wouldn't have sent "mixed signals about Telfair"?



> 4. We hire Nate McMillian which might be our only good move of the summer. (Solid)


Agree that it was solid, not that it was the only good move.



> 5. We release Van Exel and DA. What happned to NAsh saying Van Exel was a great bargan as far as trade bait? So we lose 2 of our only shooters for nothing. nash continues to get upset saying and I quote "who do you want me to trade them for?" Geez Mr Nash, maybe a SG so we can compete at an NBA level. (dissapointment)


Releasing DA was not a disappointment. But releasing Van Exel was. I would have liked to have seen the team hang onto him at least until the end of the summer to see if a possible trade could have been worked out. Maybe one wasn't available in July, but one might have opened up in August or September. And the Blazers had absolutely nothing to lose by hanging onto him for 2 more months, IMO.



> 6. Damon+SAR walk for nothing.....see above thread. (Dissapointment)


Letting Damon walk will improve this team - that was a huge positive for the organization, IMO. Seeing that NJ trade fall apart was disappointing given that the Blazers weren't willing to take back any salary (short of a star player) for SAR. And I guess that's what's most disappointing, that the team was intent on getting far, far beneath the luxury tax threshhold.



> 7.We sign Charles Smith....yes the same player that released 2 years ago.Nash says he was great in European leagues....and Nash would know since he spends most of teh NBA season in Europe "scouting/eating" at various Italion restaurants. (MAJOR DISSAPOINTMENT)


What minimum salary player would you have preferred they sign? Because that's the only exception they had remaining - the minimum salary exception. Which signing would NOT have been a disappointment to you? Given that they only had that exception, I can't say that this disappoints me. Once we see how Smith actually plays, this might change. 



> 8. Finally we sign a NBA player in the summer of excitement as BLazer fans cause like Quick said....this summer was a big factor in the BLazers future. That player is Juan Dixon. I think the more disturbing part of the Dixon signing was on Courtside Monday night when Mike Rice was trying to get fans pumped up about Dixons arrival. What is more sickning is that 2 weeks before on the same show, Rice was actually trying to sell a DA comeback in 05/06. Low point of our offseason. (DISSAPOINTMENT)


Again, which MLE player would you have preferred? And again, I can't call this disappointing until I actually see Dixon play with this team.



> 9. Damon basically rips apart the Blazers organization basically calling Portland Utah which says more then I can continue to write here. (SAD)


Disappointing that Damon would stoop that low, but not entirely unexpected if you've read interviews with Damon over the years. He'd better hope that Memphis serves him his free breakfast AND gives him a big per diem.



> 10. Camp is around the corner and our starting roster looks like this..Telfair, Dixon, Miles, Zach(is he ready) Joel. Whats funny was the other day i told a fellow NBA fan our lineup and his first response was....shut up, for real who is it. After realizing I wasnt joking, he then said we will have the first pick in the draft. (LONG SEASON)


The team will lose a lot of games - that's certainly disappointing. But they will certainly be entertaining and have the potential to get better. That's exciting in its own way.




> My point is, for a summer that was suppose to lay the foundation for the future....lets just say someone forgot to mix the cement. Other then Nate, we resigned Nash for another year and our lineup got worse if thats possible. :curse:


I think the Blazers sacrificed winning now in an attempt to lay a foundation for the future. Disappointing? Only if the moves don't translate into wins in 2-3 years.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

::sigh::....we all know how you feel Mixium....

But no....I do not consider this off season a disapointment....and I disagree with you on most of your points.

Is picking up Nash's option (not re-signing him...picking up his option)a mistake? No...of course not. Why pull the plug on him before you can see his results?

We made a GREAT draft pick with Webster.....who would you rather have seen us take? Green? Even less contribution (now and in the long term).....Chris Paul or Deron Williams? I would assume not since you knock the JJ pick as sending mixed signals to Telfair.....so tell me.....who SHOULD we have taken?

Sorry Mix.....no SG's that would have made sense for us were available for ending contracts......or for mini-me point or shooting guards.

We're rolling the dice w/ Smith....if he pans out....wonderful find for Nash...if he doesnt....nothing lost. What would you prefer we sign for that same price?

And personally....I'm excited about Juanny Dixon. Solid player....role player, not a star.....but he can fill his roles very well.

If you bought anything that Damon said in either article.....thats more sad than the article being done in the first place.

I dont buy your comment at the end of your rant either about the other NBA fan. Dont buy it for a second.

[strike]To see the validity of your post.....take a look at the guy who agreed with you.

Thats right....a Laker fan.[/strike]


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

mixum said:


> 1. Blazers IMO make their gravest mistake and sign Nash to a 1 year deal. (dissapointment)


I disagree. I think it was the perfect move. I like Nash's eye for talent, I just don't think he's a good "finisher". Sign him to deal with our best pick in a long time, and then next season replace him. I like this move.



mixum said:


> 2. Blazers actually catch a break and land the #3 pick in the 2005 draft.(solid)


No arguement here, we got lucky.



mixum said:


> 3. We basically trade the pick for peanuts and draft a guy who cant contribute to our biggest hole..SG. Then we draft another PG which sends mixed signals about Telfair. (dissapointment)


Since they supposedly wanted Webster over anyone else available, I consider the trade a good move. Only time will tell if Martell was a good pick, so I'll withhold judgement. I think Jack was a good pickup though, we needed a backup pg who can push Telfair. It will make both of them better assuming they can handle the pressure (and if they cant, are they worth the effort anyways?)



mixum said:


> 4. We hire Nate McMillian which might be our only good move of the summer. (Solid)


Agreed, solid move.



mixum said:


> 5. We release Van Exel and DA. What happned to NAsh saying Van Exel was a great bargan as far as trade bait? So we lose 2 of our only shooters for nothing. nash continues to get upset saying and I quote "who do you want me to trade them for?" Geez Mr Nash, maybe a SG so we can compete at an NBA level. (dissapointment)
> 
> 6. Damon+SAR walk for nothing.....see above thread. (Dissapointment)



I'm extremely dissapointed by this. If we had gotten something of value out of any of these I wouldn't mind so much, but getting nothing out of all of them is a dissapointment.



mixum said:


> 7.We sign Charles Smith....yes the same player that released 2 years ago.Nash says he was great in European leagues....and Nash would know since he spends most of teh NBA season in Europe "scouting/eating" at various Italion restaurants. (MAJOR DISSAPOINTMENT)


I'll withhold judgement until he has played. It's not like we're paying him much and he is a veteran presence. Low risk signing.



mixum said:


> 8. Finally we sign a NBA player in the summer of excitement as BLazer fans cause like Quick said....this summer was a big factor in the BLazers future. That player is Juan Dixon. I think the more disturbing part of the Dixon signing was on Courtside Monday night when Mike Rice was trying to get fans pumped up about Dixons arrival. What is more sickning is that 2 weeks before on the same show, Rice was actually trying to sell a DA comeback in 05/06. Low point of our offseason. (DISSAPOINTMENT)


Like Smith, signed on the cheap. I would've preferred a better signing, but I wont be dissapointed unless he actually causes problems this season (and I do think he has a real chance of being very solid for us).



mixum said:


> 9. Damon basically rips apart the Blazers organization basically calling Portland Utah which says more then I can continue to write here. (SAD)


Damon is acting like a spurned lover. His opinion is not worth much to me. 



mixum said:


> 10. Camp is around the corner and our starting roster looks like this..Telfair, Dixon, Miles, Zach(is he ready) Joel. Whats funny was the other day i told a fellow NBA fan our lineup and his first response was....shut up, for real who is it. After realizing I wasnt joking, he then said we will have the first pick in the draft. (LONG SEASON)


I think this lineup will be more fun to watch then the last two years. We will be bad, but I think we will see a fun team at least to watch. Plus, you never know how fast these guys could develop. It certainly isn't going to be winning any championships though.


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

mixum said:


> 1. Blazers IMO make their gravest mistake and sign Nash to a 1 year deal. (dissapointment)


I don't agree. I think Nash has done a fine job, and he was very close to pulling off some good deals(shareef for carter) that feel through because of the other team.




> 3. We basically trade the pick for peanuts and draft a guy who cant contribute to our biggest hole..SG. Then we draft another PG which sends mixed signals about Telfair. (dissapointment)


We already drafted a player who we planned on being the SG of the future, Martell Webster. If we drafted another SG, would that be sending the same 'mixed signals' you complain about with Jack? If we had kept the pick, who would you purpose we draft? Chris Paul? Deron Williams? Again, that would send 'mixed signals' to Telfair, and wouldn't reall make sense for the team. We picked the guy we were targeting, and also got a steal in Jarrett Jack. I liked the draft.




> 5. We release Van Exel and DA. What happned to NAsh saying Van Exel was a great bargan as far as trade bait? So we lose 2 of our only shooters for nothing. nash continues to get upset saying and I quote "who do you want me to trade them for?" Geez Mr Nash, maybe a SG so we can compete at an NBA level. (dissapointment)


I don't see the release of DA and Van Exel as a disappointment, but a major relief. I'm so sure teams are going to trade for two old injury prone players who make 10+ mil a year. Get real Mixum.




> 6. Damon+SAR walk for nothing.....see above thread. (Dissapointment)


What exciting player could we get for Damon, and why the hell would a team trade for him when they can sign him to the MLE?



> 7.We sign Charles Smith....yes the same player that released 2 years ago.Nash says he was great in European leagues....and Nash would know since he spends most of teh NBA season in Europe "scouting/eating" at various Italion restaurants. (MAJOR DISSAPOINTMENT)


He played very well in Europe...how do you know how won't have sucess in the NBA? The Europeans kicked the NBA all-stars butts in international competition, so they are no pushovers. Why are you getting upset about this?? He's signed to like a 2 year 1 mil a year deal.


Why don't you give some realistic examples of what Nash SHOULD have done. Give us some specific trades that he didn't ALREADY try to do.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I've very disappointed, but I'm not surprised. Portland let a lot of players go and got absolutely nothing for them.

I didn't expect the team to become a contender given where they ended the season, but I had hoped that the team would walk away with more (or at least better) pieces for the future than it has this offseason.

Ed O.


----------



## sportkingJSP13 (Jul 11, 2005)

im from memphis so presonally we got damon so i'm happy but really i feel bad for you guys i am very dissapointed


----------



## sportkingJSP13 (Jul 11, 2005)

yep yep yep


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

sportkingJSP13 said:


> im from memphis so presonally we got damon so i'm happy but really i feel bad for you guys i am very dissapointed


Why exactly are you excited to have Damon Stoudamire?

I'll admit, I was exctatic to hear we acquired him 8-9 years ago after his tenure with the Raptors. However, for nearly a decade he's proven time and time again that he has no team concept, can't figure out how to run an offense and usually ends up putting his foot in his mouth during on the spot interviews. Maybe you just haven't had enough exposure to him over the years.

Best of luck with that.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

well we heard a lot of talk about us having a lot of valuable pieces in expiring contracts to leverage trades, nothing much happened on that front. of course it could be that nothing apt presented itself but really i expected more.

it might eventuate that this was the best move could have made, none - but commonsense tells me that are going to really really struggle for quite a few years.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

mixum said:


> Now I understand we didnt have much money to spend but i remember listening to Jason Quicks season ending chat in which he said this past summer would define the Blazers future for a long time in which I agreed.


The voices from "The Fan" use phrases like "this is the offseason that will decide the future of this franchise" to stir things up and create enough buzz for people to tune in more often. I've been guilty of letting those guys pump me up before myself, but we shouldn't. Nash did shoot himself in the foot a little by predicting a productive off season with the "Bargaining Chips" they had, no doubt about that. He probably wanted to believe that as much as we did--people have been calling for his head for some time now. Fact is, nobody wanted our "chips". Should Nash been able to forsee this? I don't know. I would have thought there would have been more interest, but you just never know. Who would have thought all LA could get for Shaq was Odom, Grant, & Butler? Sometimes I think the phrase "being able to sell a trade" is overused here. NBA GM's aren't like a teen in a used car lot . . . they're (mostly) savy businessmen who can't be sold on trade ideas. Has this off season been dissapointing? Yes. At the beginning of the summer, most of us thought we'd net more talent. It's just not all Nash/Blazer's fault.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Jason Quick is correct that this offseason would determine the Blazers' future for years to come. Therefore, to judge how good an offseason it was will require watching the next few years. This year, the season will only be a disappointment if the Blazers lose so many games that young players like Telfair, Outlaw, Webster and Jack lose confidence and don't develop as quickly as they should. It's a disappointment if the inability to sign a quality veteran means the young players aren't getting the guidance they need. It's a disappointment if we find out later that there were very good players who wanted to come to Portland but decided not to because of the clear youth movement. 

I'm looking forward to this season. I would have liked to have seen the Blazers get another pick or two, or maybe pick up better vets, but what that means is there's that much more pressure on Nate McMillan and the players we do have to step up and perform. Give the team a couple of seasons, and if the Blazers aren't back in the playoff hunt and continuing to improve, then let's see some heads rolling. Until then... patience, friends.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Overall I'm disappointed with this offseason, but I didn't have very high expectations going into it.

The only strong positive was hiring McMillian.

The draft is next on the list, but mostly because nothing else good happened. Webster can shoot and may become a solid player, but he will never be a star in this league. If the Blazers had the 15th pick in the draft and just took Green it would have been just as succesful.

Letting SAR, Damon, and NVE go for nothing is a disappointment. Now I know there are voices who say "what could Nash have gotten, NOTHING". They are right that during this offseason those players had little value. The problem is Nash has been the GM for years, he should have moved these players for something of value back when they were in higher demand. That is the job of the GM, to improve your talent, to exchange players that have little use to your team for players that may be of use in the future. SAR ultimately signed for a max MLE deal, but he had value in the league. The Bucks gave him a big offer, which shows there was legit interest in him. Nash has done a poor job of closing trades during his time as GM. 

The result is that now Portland has a lack of talent, and will not be a good team.

I suppose one positive is Nash didn't give out extensions. This offseason may not have anything to celebrate, but it won't have anything to regret.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

> This offseason may not have anything to celebrate, but it won't have anything to regret.


Well put. It may have failed to meet expectations, but at least it stayed on course without jeopardizing the future.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Interesting post...I could dissect it and argue each point, but frankly every point made (other then hiring Nate) depends upon whether you are a optimist or a pessimist IMO. Yes this could be one of our worst offseasons ever, since I am a optimist I'll wait and see and make my judgements later.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Interesting post...I could dissect it and argue each point, but frankly every point made (other then hiring Nate) depends upon whether you are a optimist or a pessimist IMO. Yes this could be one of our worst offseasons ever, since I am a optimist I'll wait and see and make my judgements later.


funny way of bringing it up..if you're a pessimist, it's horrible. if you're an optimist, it might be a good one.

the difference between the two opinions is one is a little unrealistic, and the other is a little more realistic.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

I dont think anyone is doing handstands and flips over this offeseason.....outside of the coaching hire. But I seriously don't think there's anything to be upset about. And I don't see where the disapointement would come in unless you were really expecting us to get an All-Star 2 guard....and that would have been very unrealistic expectations in my opinion. 

If you wanted big time trades with our contracts involved....they would have had to come at the trade deadline.....and they didn't happen (all for legit reasons....such as Shareef's arm injury). That left our options very limited....especially if we expect to keep Joel next year.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

RPCity said:


> If you wanted big time trades with our contracts involved....they would have had to come at the trade deadline.....and they didn't happen (all for legit reasons....such as Shareef's arm injury). That left our options very limited....especially if we expect to keep Joel next year.


How have we done anything to improve our chances at retaining Joel? If anything, with the signing of Dixon, we took a step backwards in that regard.

Part of my disappointment is that we didn't clear out any of the salary ballast that we have except for Derek Anderson, and since the team has decided to waive him, there's NO chance of getting his contract off the books now. Ruben Patterson and Theo Ratliff are still Blazers, and this summer's dearth of moves makes it all the more likely that Joel will be playing with another team next year.

Ed O.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

I didnt say we improved our chances......only that we did not make them worse.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

RPCity said:


> I didnt say we improved our chances......only that we did not make them worse.


I think Ed's point is that we actually have made our chances worse. Although we got rid of some big contracts (for nothing), we added Juan Dixon and got rid of Derek Anderson in a way that makes it impossible for us to cut his salary. I'm usually optimistic about our franchise, but I don't see how we're going to be able to resign Joel unless we make a big trade to get rid of some big contracts.

Our next best option is to just hope that Joel has a bad year and his contract status becomes one less burden for this team.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

there hasnt been one huge move in the nba at all this year, the era of trading garbage for good players is long since over. 

we had a solid set of players that dont have attitude problems, unlike the players that were cut. That were on the team why too long, its way too early to say 
that we will suck and that none of our players will stars. The games arent playe don paper, if we had Mo CHeeks as our coach still then yes you could throw in the towel already but we have one of the best young and hungry coaches in the league. 

we cut our salary which is better than keeping DA on the team, so we open space who is to say Joel stays? I am not so sure Joel will want to stay like some of you think, why would he? cus he said so? you know how many times Ive heard that where a player or owner says all the right stuff but does the oppositie? too many.

The one thing I am disappointed is that we havent traded or signed a pf cus i am not so sure zbo will ever be the player he once was.

As for nash, patterson and monty williams they help build the spurs and look how that turned out, I hope we draft a big next draft.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Ed O said:


> How have we done anything to improve our chances at retaining Joel? If anything, with the signing of Dixon, we took a step backwards in that regard.
> 
> Part of my disappointment is that we didn't clear out any of the salary ballast that we have except for Derek Anderson, and since the team has decided to waive him, there's NO chance of getting his contract off the books now. Ruben Patterson and Theo Ratliff are still Blazers, and this summer's dearth of moves makes it all the more likely that Joel will be playing with another team next year.
> 
> Ed O.


I thought DA was waived in a way that would keep his contract off the cap.

Maybe I don't understand what the amnesty rule is.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

HearToTemptYou said:


> I thought DA was waived in a way that would keep his contract off the cap.
> 
> Maybe I don't understand what the amnesty rule is.


nope, counts against the cap, just doesn't count against the LUX tax limit figure.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

Overall, yes, a disappointment, though certainly no disaster. Over the last year, I was hoping that some combo of expiring contracts and extra/recent draft picks would be turned into one or more superstars. Some have clearly been available, like Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Baron Davis, and who knows what else, but Portland never got any of them. In the end, the picks just stayed picks and the expiring contracts are all gone. You can't call that anything but a disappointment. Not all blame goes to Nash, since I think the times are changing (witness Michael Finley), so that big contracts are harder to move than ever. Still, doing nothing isn't exactly the sign of a great GM or a demonstrated method to building contenders. Hey, at least we're not Knicks fans.

I'm also a little disappointed in the Juan Dixon signing, since I don't think he's necessary, has many of the same problems the team just got rid of (undersized defense, poor shooting/selection), and got too long a deal. He may pan out and I hope to be proven wrong, but I think he'll just be in the way by next year. At least he gives great effort. OTOH, I'm pleased with the Charles Smith deal: at worst, it's harmless. I liked him in his short stint before, and he seems to have reversed his prior shortcoming (shooting). He ought to be a good addition on the court and in the lockerroom.

The draft turned out about the best it could, I think. It sounds like Webster may be further along than I would have thought (on both ends of the court), and Jack is an excellent backup prospect who may end up good enough to be a starter or trade.

And Joel isn't really a bad situation, either. If the management doesn't think they can convince him to sign for the MLE next summer, then he'll be traded for something hopefully useful before then.


----------



## Victory thru Synergy (Aug 21, 2005)

mixum said:


> Now I understand we didnt have much money to spend but i remember listening to Jason Quicks season ending chat in which he said this past summer would define the Blazers future for a long time in which I agreed. Going into this summer the Blazers had alot of desicions to make like coach, gm, sign+trades, drfats etc and the only one I thought was solid....was hiring Nate....otehrwise it was a bust to me. Lets recap shall we....
> 
> 1. Blazers IMO make their gravest mistake and sign Nash to a 1 year deal. (dissapointment)
> 
> ...


Mix (and other negative thinking responders): I am quite simply awed and nearly rendered speechless by your optimism towards the Trailblazers. Has the off-season been a disappointment? I would be more inclined to describe it, in terms as being ... terrible + ly exciting. I agree with you that getting the # 3 draft pick and Nate McMillan as Coach were solid moves. As for the other actions listed, they all happened (pretty much) as detailed. And they all made the Blazers a better team. Last year, Portland only won 27 games. This is not news! But the Blazers lost 23 games by 6 points or less. This was done primarily as a result of Portland (1) not having a good coach, (2) not having good perimeter defense, (3) having a small starting backcourt, (4) not having a good, solid shooting guard option, and (5) having 3 of their main (and at times, starting) players be extremely poor defenders. Namely, SAR, NVE, and Damon. All of these weaknesses were addressed, dispatched and the team has improved. Just because the results have not been manifested in team wins yet, does not mean good moves were not made. It only means the season has not started yet. How has the team gotten better? The poorest defenders on the team were all released. But they walked free and clear; Portland made no trades. That is correct. Portland is rebuilding essentially from the ground up. By not making any trades, it was addition by subtraction, resulting in cut salary and open roster spots to add youthful talent. The backcourt weaknesses and poor perimeter defense were addressed with the additions of 6' 3" Jarret Jack, 6' 3" Juan Dixon, 6' 4" Charles Smith, 6' 7" Martel Webster, and 6' 8" Sergei Monia who all bring much better defensive play and scoring compared with what was lost. It is true that this team lacks NBA experience. But this team has heart and soul. For the first time, in a long time, I see the Blazer team as having life. They will be a big breath of fresh air for Portland and the fans. Yes, they will lose games this next year. But I don't think it will be anything like or near last year. If it is, I will lament. Instead, I think it is going to be fun and exciting to watch this team grow together and develop. Develop as players and develop the chemistry needed to take the team back to the playoffs. Will this happen by the end of the season? Speculatory, to say the least, but for sure the lads will be competitive. This is a team of and for the future. [strike]If so-called, proclaimed Blazer fans can't see this, then, IMO, they fall into the category of being somewhat south of fair weather fans.[/strike] Indeed, thanks to John Nash, Paul Allen and others in the Blazer organization, it has been a most productive and exciting off-season. Like many of you, I am quite anxious for the season to start. Unfortunately, it is still weeks away so we have to be patient and wait and see what happens.

:cheers: :cheers:


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

sportkingJSP13 said:


> im from memphis so presonally we got damon so i'm happy but really i feel bad for you guys i am very dissapointed


I would be a lot more disapointed if I were a Memphis fan, than I am with the Blazers. At least the Blazers have a focused strategy and a bright future, whereas the Grizz look like they are going to be stuck in lower-mediocrity hell for a while. Damon is a negative and that's the truth brotha. Sure, he'll fool you at times, but it's all an illusion. IMO Jerry West isn't looking too great right now. It's tough without a Shaq out there to gobble up. 

I don't consider losing Damon, DA, NVE for nothing to be disapointments. IMO those guys weren't worth anyone of value. And tho getting a draft pick or two would have been nice, we already have enough young guys as it is. I could care less what Damon says, I'm just glad he's gone.

Losing Reef for nothing is somewhat disapointing. Personally, I think Reef was exposed in Portland and showed he was overrated. I knew his trade value was dropping like a rock a month after he came here. But I still thought he had enough value to at least get us a good pick. 

I will also be disapointed if Webster doesn't become starter quality by at least the end of this season. 

Smith and Dixon are both low risk with a possible high reward. The only FA I had any interest in was Finley, but it's not like we were in the running with the Spurs in the fold.

Overall this offseason has been pretty much what I expected. I'm willing to endure a tough year as long as the team shows steady improvement throughout. I think next offseason will the be the big one. We will know what we have with these young guys and what direction to take.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> there hasnt been one huge move in the nba at all this year, the era of trading garbage for good players is long since over.



Well this season hasn't even bugun so it's no surprise we haven't seen any trades like this yet. However, last season Baron Davis, Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, and Shaq all got traded for packages of lesser players. I think it's far too early to call that 'era' over.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Interesting post...I could dissect it and argue each point, but frankly every point made (other then hiring Nate) depends upon whether you are a optimist or a pessimist IMO. Yes this could be one of our worst offseasons ever, since I am a optimist I'll wait and see and make my judgements later.


Huge disappointment? Nah... more like just losing the last shreds of hope that management actually had a decent master plan they were operating under. These past two loser seasons I've been preaching patience and defending their headscratcher moves as hopefully fitting into an overall picture that will make sense of the confusion in retrospect. I've been pointing to this off-season for some time as a fair time to judge them on what they've accomplished. 

(IMO) what talent they've assembled has either been overpaid (by current management), or is years away and looking up at average. Unfortunately management tried to assemble a team that was all things to everybody, refusing to commit to rebuilding from the ground up or reloading through trades and FAs. Their assembed results are a mishmosh of players and contracts that (in all likelyhood) has them capped out until the 2008 off-season and (IMO) with only an outside shot of legitimately competing for a playoff spot until then. If things continue to unfold the way they have, I expect them to lamely try to hold onto Joel and watch him walk after this season leaving the club with an even dimmer outlook for 2006-7. I guess I have hope that the lotto and possibly time passing will eventually land the club the talented pieces they so clearly lack. 

Capped out and well outside a contender status for the foreseeable future is not what I was hoping that I was being patient for. Coming to this conclusion doesn't give me much optimism that management will correctly evaluate future scenarios or what they currently have. 

On the positive side, I did like the hiring of Nate. I like that he focuses on defense and his experience as a player and a coach. Unlike most here, I don't think that coaching makes that big of a difference in the NBA though... I think the quality of the ingredients are vastly more important then the chef. Good luck to the new guy.

STOMP


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

Anyone else think Mixum's mom is proof reading his posts lately. No mis spelled words. Proper punctuation. Capitals to start sentences. I kind of miss the Carlito days. :biggrin: 

Actually, this was a very good and fair post. I actually agree with a lot of points. I do like the drafting of Jarret Jack. Nash was smart to bring in someone to push Bassy. I also like the signing of Dixon. Solid character and a proven winner.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Hap said:


> funny way of bringing it up..if you're a pessimist, it's horrible. if you're an optimist, it might be a good one.
> 
> the difference between the two opinions is one is a little unrealistic, and the other is a little more realistic.


depending if your positive or negative person :rofl: or one of those internet analyst :wink: or ?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Ruben Patterson and Theo Ratliff are still Blazers, *and this summer's dearth of moves makes it all the more likely that Joel will be playing with another team next year.*
> 
> Ed O.


Well I am hoping to drink some kool aid that makes me believe Joel will subscribe to published reports that he and his wife do indeed love the city of Portland as much as they say they do, and that he will be encouraged by the team and want to sign a 1 year deal (or something ?) to make him a Bird righted player with us later on. Thus letting us sign him longer term.

Having said that... he must earn it in this year or this year + the next short contract to get a long term one. Lets not have Nash or his successor sign Joel to a max contract just after 1 decent year of emerging play. Last year was good. Lets hope he keeps it up.

I do not want to see any more long term big $ contract signed liked Zach, Theo or (maybe) Darius... (I think Darius is slightly over paid... slightly)


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

SheedSoNasty said:


> I think Ed's point is that we actually have made our chances worse. Although we got rid of some big contracts (for nothing), we added Juan Dixon and got rid of Derek Anderson in a way that makes it impossible for us to cut his salary. I'm usually optimistic about our franchise, but I don't see how we're going to be able to resign Joel unless we make a big trade to get rid of some big contracts.
> 
> Our next best option is to just hope that Joel has a bad year and his contract status becomes one less burden for this team.


Storyteller's salary site

Yes I agree with it too. We are at $57.5 mil roughly $8 mil over the soft cap right now. If the roster stays the same it will have the following results:

According to Storytellers site we will still be at about $57 with Joel and Charles not on the roster. If Ruben opts out for greener pastures it will still only drop us down to about $50. Not enough room to sign Joel to a large contract.

With Nash's history of trades right now I am not going to put any stock into trading away players to make room. IMHO he had plenty of opprtunity in the lat 2 years to move dead weight and he failed to come up with anything worth beans.

I think right now Theo, Zach?, DA, Ruben and Darius contracts will hamper us for at least 2 years. Meaning if Joel is worth keeping long term, our only hope of retaining him next year is his desire to stay here and signing an interim contract making him a Bird righted player. Then following up with a another contract.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I am flat out amazed anybody posting here thinks we could have actually got something for Damon, DA or Van Exel. The only one of them that is worth a damn as a player is Van Exel, and if I remember right halfway through last season he was talking about retiring rather then come back to play here. 

If any GM managed to get ANYTHING of value for Damon or DA in return for a trade, I would immediately hand them the GM of the year award, and immediately move the GM who actually traded for them to the top of the most likely to get fired list. 

Shareef we should have got something for, but NJ screwed the pooch. 

The Blazers are committed to building for the future, and playing their young players. Chances are that one of the young SG coming in will turn out to be better then DA, and Sebastien will probably be better then Damon ever was during his career within a year or two. There is no place for short whiners who can't play D, or players who act like their injured every time the coach call into question how hard they are playing. There is no place on this team for that attitude, and none of the players mentioned above were good enough to put up with BS like that in the first place. 

There were no SG available in the draft better then the one we got. If there would have been one, we would have taken them at #3 and been done with it. But Portland if you remember, was able to get the player they wanted, and trade DOWN, which is a highly exceptional move. Remember, the important thing in the draft is to get the player you want, or to get the player that allows you to make a trade for the player you want. I think Portland got what they wanted, and got it at a lower draft pick then having to burn a #3 on it. Seems to me like you have a short memory as to how events really went down....


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Well put Hasoos, and I agree....


Damon & DA were both pretty worthless as trade value goes, so faulting Nash for not getting anything for them seems pretty ridiculous to me....Like geting Clarence Weatherspoon or Maurice Taylor would have been desirable for this team at where they currrently are at?....please....

I do think Nash screwed up by not dealing SAR last year...we almost got Carter, and would have had another 1st rounder if it were not for Thorn's odd behavior...bottom line though is....not getting SOMETHING for SAR is not acceptible in my book.....

How can you fault POR for drafting Webster at this point? Seriously....who else should they have taken? They needed a SG...they obviously REALLY liked him and contrary to some "experts" here they DO indeed consider him a SG....and Jack was a very good choice...the notion that drafting another PG is somehow a dumb move worth Telfair on the team defies sensible logic to me...I guess I missed telfair's All-Star\franchise coronation last year....and I like him A LOT....but to NOT draft another PG b\c you have Telfair is beyond stupid IMO....

Jack has the potential to be a very good player...maybe as good or better than Telfair...personally I think POR was very astute in picking him up...as insurance against Telfair (injury or otherwise) and as possibly a more "defensive" presence...

As for Juan Dixon, what is the problem here? Seriously...they signed him for relatively cheap...the move practically screams "Moneyball" and time will tell if they were right...he is young...a hard worker and good role model...who...when given minutes produced...I don't see the issue here...if you were expecting POR to sign a top tier FA with the team assembled, then it is you who are cleary not accepting reality...

I am actually more excited to se this team play than I have been in quite some time...and it aint "kool aid" talking either.....I expect POR to struggle ...but am hopeful that the youth of this team will start to deliver on their tantalizing talent sooner rather than later...at this point no matter what you think of POR offseason moves...we should all be rooting for that...


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Victory thru Synergy said:


> Mix (and other negative thinking responders): I am quite simply awed and nearly rendered speechless by your optimism towards the Trailblazers. Has the off-season been a disappointment? I would be more inclined to describe it, in terms as being ... terrible + ly exciting. I agree with you that getting the # 3 draft pick and Nate McMillan as Coach were solid moves. As for the other actions listed, they all happened (pretty much) as detailed. And they all made the Blazers a better team. Last year, Portland only won 27 games. This is not news! But the Blazers lost 23 games by 6 points or less. This was done primarily as a result of Portland (1) not having a good coach, (2) not having good perimeter defense, (3) having a small starting backcourt, (4) not having a good, solid shooting guard option, and (5) having 3 of their main (and at times, starting) players be extremely poor defenders. Namely, SAR, NVE, and Damon. All of these weaknesses were addressed, dispatched and the team has improved. Just because the results have not been manifested in team wins yet, does not mean good moves were not made. It only means the season has not started yet. How has the team gotten better? The poorest defenders on the team were all released. But they walked free and clear; Portland made no trades. That is correct. Portland is rebuilding essentially from the ground up. By not making any trades, it was addition by subtraction, resulting in cut salary and open roster spots to add youthful talent. The backcourt weaknesses and poor perimeter defense were addressed with the additions of 6' 3" Jarret Jack, 6' 3" Juan Dixon, 6' 4" Charles Smith, 6' 7" Martel Webster, and 6' 8" Sergei Monia who all bring much better defensive play and scoring compared with what was lost. It is true that this team lacks NBA experience. But this team has heart and soul. For the first time, in a long time, I see the Blazer team as having life. They will be a big breath of fresh air for Portland and the fans. Yes, they will lose games this next year. But I don't think it will be anything like or near last year. If it is, I will lament. Instead, I think it is going to be fun and exciting to watch this team grow together and develop. Develop as players and develop the chemistry needed to take the team back to the playoffs. Will this happen by the end of the season? Speculatory, to say the least, but for sure the lads will be competitive. This is a team of and for the future. If so-called, proclaimed Blazer fans can't see this, then, IMO, they fall into the category of being somewhat south of fair weather fans. Indeed, thanks to John Nash, Paul Allen and others in the Blazer organization, it has been a most productive and exciting off-season. Like many of you, I am quite anxious for the season to start. Unfortunately, it is still weeks away so we have to be patient and wait and see what happens.
> 
> :cheers: :cheers:


Great post! Now I do not have to type it out. The team is better.

gatorpops


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Besides, as long as the Blazers whoop on the Lakers a few times next season, it sounds like a good year to me. :banana:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

KMurph, Hasoos, Victory through Synergy

:allhail:


you guys need to post more often  nice posts...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> As for Juan Dixon, what is the problem here? Seriously...they signed him for relatively cheap...the move practically screams "Moneyball" and time will tell if they were right...he is young...a hard worker and good role model...who...when given minutes produced...I don't see the issue here...


I'm just curious... have you read Moneyball?

Because I don't see anything about the signing of Dixon that has anything to do with a move that the Athletics would make. They look for undervalued players, and they're not willing to pay for mediocre veterans. They don't pay for "leadership" or for "role models". 

It seems that people have latched onto the Billy Beane system to explain anything that doesn't make sense. Which of course is not a logical application by any stretch of the imagination.

If you've read it and can explain how it's at all similar to Beane's pursuit of OBP monsters or avoidance of high school pitching in the draft I'd be interested to hear it.

Dixon is NOT young, either. He's going to be 27 on opening night. Over half of the Wizards who appeared in more than 14 games were younger, and obviously he'll be one of the older guys on the Blazers, too. He's in his prime, but considering what he's showed to date that prime isn't very promising.

Ed O.


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

I'd say the Sonics are moneyball---not only are both uni's green & gold, but they both don't spend huge money, they sign players for cheap except for one or 2 all-stars, & then other players go elsewhere & get large contracts(ie AD, Brent Barry, Jerome James, Nate McMillan as far as coaching goes). They somehow make it to the playoffs but never go all the way, & neither team makes the big move to put either team over the top.

Portland is more like Seattle Mariners, only w/ a better outlook. They maintain a fairly high payroll while testing out the young players & seeing how they perform. In a somewhat 'rebuilding mode' but not going the cheap route a la Tampa Bay, Kansas City/Charlotte, New Orleans.


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

IMO Nash did a great service to the payroll for just letting Damon, SAR, and NVE walk. It would have been great to get a first rounder for any of them. That would have been a plus, but I am glad he didn't pick up an players. Three years ago I wanted to dump DA and Damon. I wish we could have then before their market value went down, but just loosing their overblown contracts is not a bad thing.

As far as the draft goes, that can be debated all summer until we actually see the rookies perform. Webster seems to have solid character, and his relations with Nate McMillan's son may have something to do with Nash's moves. Picking up Jack was a better choice that getting Deron Williams, which would have caused a rift with our other lottery drafted PG. As a late pick, Jack shouldn't expect to start, but has a great chance to prove his worth as a backup.

I think it is great that we can work with a team under the terms of the new CBA. I didn't expect to have a playoff caliber team this season or next. I just want a team with chemistry that can at the least play defense and want to play hard. I think we have at least 6 players that will do that: Outlaw, Kryapa, Telfair, Patterson, and Pryzbilla. With a few rookies that will be trying to prove something. Not a bad combination. I think the entertainment value of the team will be triple what it was last year, which all that really counts in getting people in the stands and the franchise back in the green.

No body is going to jump to the top with SA, Detroit, and Miami in the way right now. Plan for the future.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

Ed O said:


> I'm just curious... have you read Moneyball?
> 
> Because I don't see anything about the signing of Dixon that has anything to do with a move that the Athletics would make. They look for undervalued players, and they're not willing to pay for mediocre veterans. They don't pay for "leadership" or for "role models".
> 
> ...


I have Ed

You can't try to make a direct comparison (high school pitching reference) because its clearly two different sports. The bottom line to both strategies though is to not overpay for vets and find value players.

The Joel signing last year is a great example of this. We're hoping the Juan Dixon signing follows the same path. If it is or not....well.....we'll see.

There was a reason Nash went after Joel instead of Hunter last offseason. Hunter was the more attractive option, much more athletic, has shown more potential, ect.....but he went with Joel based on things he saw the, you'd suppose, other GM's didn't. Thats what makes it like moneyball. Its the scouting system.

You've read, I'm sure, about Nash and Pritch's scouting system they used in selecting who they will draft....well I propose to you that that system is not limited to amateur players, and they use it in evaluating potential free agent signings as well. Much like Billy Beane was a pioneer in using sabermetrics in the front office, or like Theo Epstein used it in signing David Ortiz (waived by the Twins), our front office is using their own method of statistical analysis in pursuing undervalued free agents.

You seem to be trying to apply your own biases in your analysis of the comparison between us and Moneyball. It can be easy to do.....and you show it when you say that the A's don't pay for "mediocre veterans"....which I can only assume is your partially hidden reference to Dixon. But if I recall correctly, wasn't there a whole chapter in the book written about a sub-marining relief pitcher who was often considered mediocre before he was brought to Oakland? Or what about the rookies he choses to draft? With the exception of Swisher, you wouldn't be able to find a single GM who would consider ANY of those prospects even decent....much less mediocre. 

The whole basis is finding players who are looked at as being mediocre, but who are shown by a statistical, unbiased analysis to be very much more than that.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I myself will wait till the Trade Deadline passes this coming season. I think that the Blazers know they need to move a contract and hopefully they will have an idea sometime near the dealline. Everyone on the board knows we have a few too many swingmen, might be time to move one. :whoknows:


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

myELFboy said:


> I'd say the Sonics are moneyball---not only are both uni's green & gold, but they both don't spend huge money, they sign players for cheap except for one or 2 all-stars, & then other players go elsewhere & get large contracts(ie AD, Brent Barry, Jerome James, Nate McMillan as far as coaching goes). They somehow make it to the playoffs but never go all the way, & neither team makes the big move to put either team over the top.
> 
> Portland is more like Seattle Mariners, only w/ a better outlook. They maintain a fairly high payroll while testing out the young players & seeing how they perform. In a somewhat 'rebuilding mode' but not going the cheap route a la Tampa Bay, Kansas City/Charlotte, New Orleans.


I know you're a Sonics fan....and I'm going to try and respond to this without sounding like I'm blasting you or your team. I dont know that I'll be able to do that though. So I'm just giving you fair warning in advance.

The Sonics are not moneyball. The Sonics are cheap. The key in Moneyball is scouting.....and personally, I don't really have a very high value on the Sonics scouting department....not after your draft this year and last year. 

Besides....any team willing to give THAT huge of a contract to Calvin Booth.....that ain' moneyball. Maybe you've changed in the past few years.....but I just see it as cost management, not moneyball.

And the Blazers were like the Ms in the Whitsitt regime. But now things have changed a lot. Our payroll is not particularly high anymore...though still above the cap. We may both be in the same developmental phase currently....but from an economic standpoint our positions are different.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Victory thru Synergy said:


> If so-called, proclaimed Blazer fans can't see this, then, IMO, they fall into the category of being somewhat south of fair weather fans.


Nothing like the new guy tactic of questioning whether if those who they happen to disagree with are real fans... pretty lame baiting job IMO

Sorry that I (and others) don't want to join you on Mr Rogers little train ride in accessing Portland's chances this year and trying to objectively evalute the direction of the club, but that takes nothing away from our level of fandom. I think it's safe to say that those who post regularly on a message board in the offseason are plenty passionate about their favorite team.

I hope you can aim higher then this sort of dreck in the future.

STOMP


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

This does get a little dreary.
WE DON'T KNOW.
That is the bottom line. There are too many quesion marks for this team. So Whitsitt lovers can say everything done by Nash is/was terrible and Whitsitt haters can say everything was great and those of us in the middle can say some things were good but the bottom line is we don't know. There are a lot of new players and a new coach. This team could be surprisingly good, mediocre or awful. 
But those who say this off season was disappointing to terrible have to give an alternative. What players could the Blazers have gotten, realistically, for Van Exel, Stoudamire, Anderson or Abdur-Rahim that would help the team short or long term? Who could the Blazers have drafted that would do a better job than Webster or Jack? That question is impossible since there are very very few sure things in the draft; unless you have the #1 pick in a year when Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan or LeBron James are up you are going by best guess. What sterling shooting guards were reasonably available? What solid backup power forwards were reasonably available? Especially considering that this team is not going to take on long term contracts for aging and/or oft-injured players. Did the Knicks, for example, who do take on such contracts, really do better than the Blazers this summer?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

RPCity said:


> I have Ed
> 
> You can't try to make a direct comparison (high school pitching reference) because its clearly two different sports.


I KINDA knew that. I didn't plan on anyone making the comparison directly any more than I had planned on someone arguing that Nash is ignoring OBP.



> The bottom line to both strategies though is to not overpay for vets and find value players.


Agreed.



> The Joel signing last year is a great example of this. We're hoping the Juan Dixon signing follows the same path. If it is or not....well.....we'll see.
> 
> There was a reason Nash went after Joel instead of Hunter last offseason. Hunter was the more attractive option, much more athletic, has shown more potential, ect.....but he went with Joel based on things he saw the, you'd suppose, other GM's didn't.


I don't know why you're comparing Joel and Hunter here.



> Thats what makes it like moneyball. Its the scouting system.


The "Moneyball" philosophy goes BEYOND scouting. In fact, Beane disregarded scouting to a large extent, as you (and Grady Fuson) know. Beane and Podesta established a different paradigm for the scouts to operate under... look less at tools and more at production. Worry less about speed and more about OBP. Look less at body type and focus on production.

Why did they do these things? Was it because they loved to watch players walk, or because they thought that the best way to win a title was to avoid having good athletes? Of course not. It was because the market had undervalued certain types of production.

So it's not that the A's scouts were better than the other teams'. They were just looking for different things.



> You've read, I'm sure, about Nash and Pritch's scouting system they used in selecting who they will draft....well I propose to you that that system is not limited to amateur players, and they use it in evaluating potential free agent signings as well. Much like Billy Beane was a pioneer in using sabermetrics in the front office, or like Theo Epstein used it in signing David Ortiz (waived by the Twins), our front office is using their own method of statistical analysis in pursuing undervalued free agents.


That is a definite possibility. But we don't know that, because the team hasn't said anything of the sort. And, based on its lack of successes in keeping the team competitive, I'm not going to bend over backwards to give them the benefit of the doubt.

It's _possible_ that the new system of the Blazers (assuming there is one) looks at short shooting guards and thinks that they're undervalued. This would be consistent with their pursuit of Antonio Daniels and their ultimate signing of Dixon.

That's really the only way that I can see a "Moneyball" parallel here, and it's not only a supposition based on a hypothetical, but it also seems like a concept that runs contrary to what I've seen. Of course, that's what many of Beane's detractors have said of his methods, so I'm not dismissing it altogether, but I'll believe it when I see it.



> You seem to be trying to apply your own biases in your analysis of the comparison between us and Moneyball. It can be easy to do.....and you show it when you say that the A's don't pay for "mediocre veterans"....which I can only assume is your partially hidden reference to Dixon.


I of course apply my own biases. Real objectivity here is impossible since we don't have all of the facts and we're making predictions.

Also, of course I was talking about Dixon. The original line I responded to was "As for Juan Dixon, what is the problem here? Seriously...they signed him for relatively cheap...the move practically screams "Moneyball" ..."



> But if I recall correctly, wasn't there a whole chapter in the book written about a sub-marining relief pitcher who was often considered mediocre before he was brought to Oakland?


(Bradford is not, really, a submariner. His arm angle relative to his torso is just about normal... he just adjusts his body in a unique way. But that's trivia on a tangent.)

Remind me how much the A's paid for Bradford relative to the MLB minimum. Then compare that amount to Juan Dixon relative to the NBA minimum.



> Or what about the rookies he choses to draft? With the exception of Swisher, you wouldn't be able to find a single GM who would consider ANY of those prospects even decent....much less mediocre.


That's bull. Blanton was ranked the 18th best player in the 2002 draft by _Baseball America_. John McCurdy was ranked at 45. Ben Fritz was ranked at #53.

Teahan (#134), Obenchain (#170), and of course Brown (not rated) were all huge "reaches" by conventional thinking. Swisher (#34) and Blanton were drafted right around their rankings and McCurdy and Fritz were a bit higher than expected but not terribly so.



> The whole basis is finding players who are looked at as being mediocre, but who are shown by a statistical, unbiased analysis to be very much more than that.


With the caveat that it's more about getting more than you pay for than targeting perceivedly mediocre players, I tend to agree with you here. 

I don't see Dixon as that kind of player, though.

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> Nothing like the new guy tactic of questioning whether if those who they happen to disagree with are real fans... pretty lame baiting job IMO


Get of your pedestal, this "new guy" stuff is silly. So you have posted longer here. Who cares? Everyone is entitled to a oppinion whether it's their first post of their hundred thousandth. Clap yourself on the back all you want for your seniority but the point of a forum is to allow everyone to speak. 

Yes he may have baited you and others but as a old member of this forum you should be used to it by now and just ignore it.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

sa1177 said:


> Get of your pedestal, this "new guy" stuff is silly. So you have posted longer here. Who cares? Everyone is entitled to a oppinion whether it's their first post of their hundred thousandth. Clap yourself on the back all you want for your seniority but the point of a forum is to allow everyone to speak.
> 
> Yes he may have baited you and others but as a old member of this forum you should be used to it by now and just ignore it.


While he may not have needed to use the term "new guy" the rest of his post was absolutely valid. Anyone who tried to call others "fake fans" or "bandwagon fans" or whatever else that implies they aren't really a fan of the team is the one who needs to get off their pedestal. It's unfounded and flat out ridiculous.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> While he may not have needed to use the term "new guy" the rest of his post was absolutely valid. Anyone who tried to call others "fake fans" or "bandwagon fans" or whatever else that implies they aren't really a fan of the team is the one who needs to get off their pedestal. It's unfounded and flat out ridiculous.


Agreed, as noted in the last line of my previous post. I was once one of those who complained and whined about "fake fans" "bandwagon fans" etc. Although they still frustrate me sometimes I learned it's better just to ignore those that do so. All I pointed out is that criticism and baiting go both ways and that IMO those of us who have been here awhile should know better then to fling pointless digs and insults.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Get of your pedestal, this "new guy" stuff is silly. So you have posted longer here. Who cares? Everyone is entitled to a oppinion whether it's their first post of their hundred thousandth. Clap yourself on the back all you want for your seniority but the point of a forum is to allow everyone to speak.
> 
> Yes he may have baited you and others but as a old member of this forum you should be used to it by now and just ignore it.


Very strange... remember when you started a thread whining about fans who weren't fully on board with the direction of the club? Remember how you told those fans to go somewhere else to post? Remember how you were clued in by the mods and others and then how you appologized for being offensive and then requested the thread be deleated? Seems that none of that stuck with you.

It's against the site rules to bait and to characterize those that you disagree with as fake fans...often those new to the forum need to have the rules explained to them (just like you did). I'm not sure how calling a new poster a new guy is offensive let alone me patting myself on the back or propping myself up on a pedistal. It seems to me that mostly you still aren't cool with the fact that this is a place where it's OK to disagree with the direction of the club. 

Sorry but I won't be ignoring it when others break the rules and degrade my views as those coming from a fake fan. If you can't handle that maybe you should put me on your ignore list... or maybe you could just chill out. 

STOMP


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Yes the offseason was a disappointment, but I'm afraid the actual season is going to be even more disappointing.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> Very strange... remember when you started a thread whining about fans who weren't fully on board with the direction of the club? Remember how you told those fans to go somewhere else to post? Remember how you were clued in by the mods and others and then how you appologized for being offensive and then requested the thread be deleated? Seems that none of that stuck with you.
> 
> It's against the site rules to bait and to characterize those that you disagree with as fake fans...often those new to the forum need to have the rules explained to them (just like you did). I'm not sure how calling a new poster a new guy is offensive let alone me patting myself on the back or propping myself up on a pedistal. It seems to me that mostly you still aren't cool with the fact that this is a place where it's OK to disagree with the direction of the club.
> 
> ...


The thing is I fully agreed with your entire post, minus you specifically sighting someone as being new and immediately attaching a stereotype to it. Yes it may be a true stereotype it sure was for me but I am sure it is not true for everyone. By making a distinction between new / old you imply that somehow being a older poster is better. That's just not the case.

And you surely don't need to remind me of my posts, apparently you didn't read the previous ones in this thread. If you would have you would see that I admitted my mistakes. 



> Agreed, as noted in the last line of my previous post. I was once one of those who complained and whined about "fake fans" "bandwagon fans" etc. Although they still frustrate me sometimes I learned it's better just to ignore those that do so. All I pointed out is that criticism and baiting go both ways and that IMO those of us who have been here awhile should know better then to fling pointless digs and insults.


As for the thread that I posted that you are referring to, yes I did ask for it to be closed and yes I did apologize for not accepting others views. Frankly though I think alot of good came out of it, folks here are now much more concious of how and what they post which is a good thing IMO.

As for baiting...which you say is against the rules. Do you not consider this baiting as well?



> Nothing like the new guy tactic of questioning whether if those who they happen to disagree with are real fans... pretty lame baiting job IMO


or this...



> Sorry that I (and others) don't want to join you on Mr Rogers little train ride in accessing Portland's chances this year


Seems like the good ole' eye for a eye paradigm at work to me.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

Ed O said:


> I KINDA knew that. I didn't plan on anyone making the comparison directly any more than I had planned on someone arguing that Nash is ignoring OBP.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think our thinking is along the same lines, but we see different things when looking at the players.

I was comparing Joel and Hunter as an example of Nash's Free Agency strategies. Joel was the "moneyball" pick, while Hunter would have been the "tools" or the "scouts" pick based on body type, athleticism, and upside. Which player would the "old, fat scouts" (as the Moneyball author loved to describe them) have chosen had they been interested in hoops? Clearly, it would seem to me, they would have chosen Hunter. Nash went a different direction and it paid off.

My point about scouting when I say it is all about scouting......you started to disagree, but then you backed me up. Its what you look for. Moneyball, at its core, is a new way of ranking and identifying players. They DO look for different things.....and that is I think what Nash is attempting to do. 

Of course the team hasn't said that about their system. But Billy Beane wasn't going around bragging about his until Michael Lewis came along. No one from the Blazers front office has used the term "Moneyball" either. All of this stems from John Canzano. He identified the new scouting system and described it as a form of Moneyball. If you want I can go and look for that again, but I assume you know the blog/articles I'm referring to. 

I've got no idea how much the A's paid for Bradford, but I can tell you that Dixon's 2-3 million dollar a year contract is not very far from the million dollar vets minimum. While not an expert on baseball, I think it is fair to accredit any discrepancy in contract to minimum ratio to the demand for their services, which stems from a larger talent base in baseball (with the minor league system and all.....with a dilluited -sorry, can't spell well - talent pool, it would only make sense that each player - particularly undervalued ones - would have less teams demanding their services). While Dixon was not a "hot free agent"....we were not the only ones after his services this year. If we attempted to get him for the vets minimum, he surely would have ended up in Seattle or somewhere else.

In regards to the A's draft choices....I'm going to claim ignorance on this. I was getting my information from Lewis' descriptions. From how he described the players, it appeared that the As were picking players in the first round who would be lucky to be signed as an off the street free agent. I apologize....but I think you got the gest of my comparison.



> With the caveat that it's more about getting more than you pay for than targeting perceivedly mediocre players, I tend to agree with you here.
> 
> I don't see Dixon as that kind of player, though.


Well isn't that just the point? Nash (or a Moneyball GM if you dont think thats Nash) would see his signing as getting more than you pay for.....while everyone else (or Moneyball or Nash's critics) see it as signing a mediocre player.

Its all in perception.


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

I think the new CBA really changed our chances to move our high priced players. Not only did it prolong the wait to sign free agents, it created amnesty victims and rearranged the tax rules. This made all of the GM's wait on their decisions for the summer. Opening up more options to get under the cap. Had we not have been able to waive DA and get under the tax threshold, Nash probably would have tried harded to get something in return for Damon or SAR. NVE also may have been held longer. IMO the CBA was the deciding factor that turned our offseason bargaining chips into financial gains by letting them walk.

I agree that we should have got something for those guys, but really, who would fit. It was hard enough to get a FA to want to come here. Had we have traded for a player it may have caused more problems getting someone that didn't want to be here. Right now we have a full roster of players that either are comfortable(Zach, Bass, Joel, Travis, Theo, Ha, Maybe Miles), wanted to return(Ruben), were glad to be drafted(Webster,Jack), or wanted to sign a FA contract with us(Dixon, Smith). IMO that is the biggest positive and a sign the there will be more team chemistry than we have had in years. The last few seasons the veterans have been whining so much that they were killing the team.

If anyone has season tickets and doesn't like how the season is going, I would love to fill in for you at the arena. These guys will be fun to watch and I will be screaming my head off. :clap:


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

mixum said:


> Now I understand we didnt have much money to spend but i remember listening to Jason Quicks season ending chat in which he said this past summer would define the Blazers future for a long time in which I agreed. Going into this summer the Blazers had alot of desicions to make like coach, gm, sign+trades, drfats etc and the only one I thought was solid....was hiring Nate....otehrwise it was a bust to me. Lets recap shall we....


Sure. Let's.



> 1. Blazers IMO make their gravest mistake and sign Nash to a 1 year deal. (dissapointment)


This doesn't disappoint me too much. The Blazers make their player/coach personnel decisions by committee. Nash is only a figurehead. I think you (and many others here) attribute much more of the decision-making to Nash than he is actually responsible for. And it wouldn't be any different for any other GM in his shoes. Allen is a very hands-on owner and he brings Patterson and Pritchard (and now Nate) into the decisions, too.



> 2. Blazers actually catch a break and land the #3 pick in the 2005 draft.(solid)


I think that if you want to heap the negatives on Nash, you need to give him credit for his successes, too. And that means this one wasn't "catching a break". It took a lot of hard work and research to figure out what the other teams at 1-5 were going to do to know that it would be safe to drop to #6 and still land Webster. And don't forget that they picked up Jack and another 1st rounder next year - a lot better than they would have gotten if they had stuck with their default 1st and 2nd round picks.



> 3. We basically trade the pick for peanuts and draft a guy who cant contribute to our biggest hole..SG. Then we draft another PG which sends mixed signals about Telfair. (dissapointment)


Assuming you're talking about Webster in the first part of this statement, how do you know he can't contribute this season? That is your opinion and, frankly, I think it's a gut-level reaction with little/no basis in fact. And even if he's not be ready to contribute NOW, he's definately going to contribute in the very near future. As easily as you can say he can't contribute at SG this season, I can say he's going to be one of the premier SG's in the league in a couple short years. How many rookies are actually ready to contribute during their rookie season, anyway?

As for Jack, I don't think it sends mixed signals to Telfair at all. It's called insurance. And competition. If you want Telfair to perform to his potential, you gotta have someone for him to practice against who's gonna push him.



> 4. We hire Nate McMillian which might be our only good move of the summer. (Solid)


Not good... GREAT. Nabbing Nate was a total Coup, and the Blazers are going to be benefitting from it for years to come.



> 5. We release Van Exel and DA. What happned to NAsh saying Van Exel was a great bargan as far as trade bait? So we lose 2 of our only shooters for nothing. nash continues to get upset saying and I quote "who do you want me to trade them for?" Geez Mr Nash, maybe a SG so we can compete at an NBA level. (dissapointment)


This is probably the only thing I'm disappointed about this off-season. Seems like we should have been able to get SOMETHING for SAR, Damon, Nick, and/or DA. But then again, I don't know which teams were interested in them, what those teams were offering for them, or what the Blazers (again, Nash doesn't make these decisions by himself) were asking for. Remember, they weren't going to take on fat/long contracts in return unless those contracts were attached to top-tier players - and I personally applaud them for sticking to their guns. We may not see the benefit of doing nothing over something (bad) right now, but I think we will in the long-run.



> 6. Damon+SAR walk for nothing.....see above thread. (Dissapointment)


See response above.



> 7.We sign Charles Smith....yes the same player that released 2 years ago.Nash says he was great in European leagues....and Nash would know since he spends most of teh NBA season in Europe "scouting/eating" at various Italion restaurants. (MAJOR DISSAPOINTMENT)


The Blazers needed to bolster their perimeter shooting. "Spider" is apparently a great perimeter shooter. The fact that we released him 2 years ago is irrelevant. Look who we had in the back-court at the time (Damon, Bonzi, and DA). And the jab at Nash there is feeble.



> 8. Finally we sign a NBA player in the summer of excitement as BLazer fans cause like Quick said....this summer was a big factor in the BLazers future. That player is Juan Dixon. I think the more disturbing part of the Dixon signing was on Courtside Monday night when Mike Rice was trying to get fans pumped up about Dixons arrival. What is more sickning is that 2 weeks before on the same show, Rice was actually trying to sell a DA comeback in 05/06. Low point of our offseason. (DISSAPOINTMENT)


Dixon and his limited past success may not get you all that excited, but he could turn out to be just what the Doctor ordered for this team. It's too early to fault or praise that particular signing, IMO.



> 9. Damon basically rips apart the Blazers organization basically calling Portland Utah which says more then I can continue to write here. (SAD)


How much stock to you put in the words of a disgruntled loud-mouth (remember, he was ticked the Blazers weren't willing to work out a S&T for him that would have done nothing for them but bring back bad salary) who's not smart enough to know that tin-foil registers on metal detectors? Come on. Damon is the epitome of the overpaid, pampered, egomaniacal NBA player. OF COURSE he's going to complain about cost-cutting!



> 10. Camp is around the corner and our starting roster looks like this..Telfair, Dixon, Miles, Zach(is he ready) Joel. Whats funny was the other day i told a fellow NBA fan our lineup and his first response was....shut up, for real who is it. After realizing I wasnt joking, he then said we will have the first pick in the draft. (LONG SEASON)


The other day I told a fellow NBA fan our starting lineup was going to be Telfair, Monia, Miles, Zach, and Joel, and he said, "Damn... you guys are LOADED!".



> My point is, for a summer that was suppose to lay the foundation for the future....lets just say someone forgot to mix the cement. Other then Nate, we resigned Nash for another year and our lineup got worse if thats possible. :curse:


And my point is that you're jumping to overly-pessimistic conclusions WAY too early, mixum. Take my advice and see how the first half of the season plays out before jumping off the bridge.

PBF


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Great post, PBF. I don't view this offseason as a disappointment at all. I view it as a gardener would his garden...pruning away the dead wood so that we can have a great crop later. 



> This is probably the only thing I'm disappointed about this off-season. Seems like we should have been able to get SOMETHING for SAR, Damon, Nick, and/or DA. But then again, I don't know which teams were interested in them, what those teams were offering for them, or what the Blazers (again, Nash doesn't make these decisions by himself) were asking for. Remember, they weren't going to take on fat/long contracts in return unless those contracts were attached to top-tier players - and I personally applaud them for sticking to their guns. We may not see the benefit of doing nothing over something (bad) right now, but I think we will in the long-run.


Actually, I think that we did get SOMETHING for SAR, Damon, Nick, and/or DA: freedom from cap hell and the necessary playing time to develop our young players. Given that we weren't going to get a top tier player for any of these guys, it's far better, IMHO, to avoid simply adding mid-level vets who may have helped us win a couple more games but only at the cost of delaying the development of the young guys.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> The thing is I fully agreed with your entire post, minus you specifically sighting someone as being new and immediately attaching a stereotype to it. Yes it may be a true stereotype it sure was for me but I am sure it is not true for everyone. By making a distinction between new / old you imply that somehow being a older poster is better. That's just not the case.


Your old/new thing is a big stretch that I don't think applies here at all... you're reading into things far too much if thats what you're gathering that I'm implying. I couldn't care less how many posts posters have, I'd just rather not be insulted for holding whatever views I might express. That we can disagree civilly is part of the reason I participate here.



> And you surely don't need to remind me of my posts, apparently you didn't read the previous ones in this thread. If you would have you would see that I admitted my mistakes.


I noted that you apologized (admitted your mistake) in your deleated thread... I'm trying to understand where you're pulling this stuff out of. 



> As for the thread that I posted that you are referring to, yes I did ask for it to be closed and yes I did apologize for not accepting others views. Frankly though I think alot of good came out of it, folks here are now much more concious of how and what they post which is a good thing IMO.


I wish that thread hadn't been closed as Big Q and I were having a decent chat and finding middle ground after starting off pretty huffy. Basically the goal of my participation in that thread was the same as here... hoping that we can avoid that sort of namecalling/labeling stuff and stick to talking hoops.



> As for baiting...which you say is against the rules. Do you not consider this baiting as well?


The first quote not at all. The second one I thought I might get a response on for the Mr Roger's train comment... but thats a reference to him going to fantasy land. While thats sort of a counter to saying that those that hold views like I do are "negative," I also thought that VTS's post was full of examples of the viewing the glass much fuller then it actually is... fuller to the point of overflowing in some cases. For example... how can he claim that the team no longer starts an undersized backcourt when both of their projected starting guards are smaller then average sized at their respective positions? Or how about when he states that the poorest defenders on the club were all released when Zach is still on the club? He claims we now have a solid option at the 2 guard (?Juan Dixon?), lists the inflated/listed (not actual) heights of incoming players, and claims that all of the new players (no offense intended) are much better offensively and defensively then those that they're replacing... oh yeah... the new club has "_heart and soul_" before they've played one game. Just a few examples of taking an extremely rosey/fantasy land outlook IMO. 

So was that baiting? I don't think so, though certainly I could have dryly addressed his degrading characterizations if I'd cared to (instead I tried to be a little funny). Mostly I'm just ready to talk hoops and found his post to be full of rosey distortions of both the subjective and objective facts that we're privy to and thought I'd respond. If you, they, or someone else wants to argue that Portland's starting backcourt of 5'11.5 Telfair and JD (whose never been publically measured barefoot but is clearly dwarfed by other established 6'3 players and lists his weight under 170) isn't undersized, then please tell me of all the smaller starting tandems around the league... maybe I need another cup of coffee, but I can't think of one right now. Zach isn't a terrible defender anymore...really??? thats great... please tell me when this happened. Ect... 

I can appreciate that VTS (and others) has a lot of enthusiasm for the upcoming season, optimism always seems to bubble over in each offseason... but hopefully I'm going to be able to state my honest view and correct distortions without having to put up with hearing how I'm a fake fan.

STOMP


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

> From how he described the players, it appeared that the As were picking players in the first round who would be lucky to be signed as an off the street free agent


I don't want to go off the subject but that is not true at all. Some of the A's first round picks have been very highly rated (Mark Mulder, Barry Zito, Bobby Crosby, Eric Chavez among others). What makes them different is not the first round picks but the later picks, the way the've managed to stockpile a lot of picks, the minor league free agents and the occasional major league free agent signings, where the A's look for what others might have overlooked. 
I would add that chemistry is paramount. It is not by accident that for at least 5 or 6 years the A's have been known as one of the best clubhouses in baseball, despite all the personnel moves. If someone is disruptive he's not coming to Oakland (well, maybe to the Warriors or Raiders). And anyone who comes here and acts in any way other than team first is going to be out the door pronto. Now THAT's a lesson the Blazers can and should learn.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Wow...Nice posts RPCity, and much better said than I could have done...

I have only read parts of Moneyball...but was more or less speaking to the concept of it...

I think that what makes Dixon intriguing, is the fact that when he was given 25+ or more minutes his production generally went up appreciably...

Look for yourself

http://fantas.sportsline.com/nba/players/player/gamelogs/2004/307824

When given more minutes, Dixon generally produced...and isn't that what GM's should be looking for? Players who produce when given playing time? He "averaged" 8pts per game in 16 minutes...but in games where he played 25+ minutes he averaged 15.6 ppg and improved on that in the playoffs when given the time, where he averaged 19.0 ppg in such games (including a 35pt outburst)...and adding to this IMO, is that he missed some games (due to injury?) which seemed to derail him a bit as well in March.

As a FA, he was not as appealing or as heralded as many other players out there though, and yeah, in comparison, POR was able to pick him up for good value IMO. I consider that "potentially" a good value pick-up.

I don't know what POR "new" criteria are, and how or if they differ from other NBA teams, but I do think of Dixon as a "value" pickup, who could end up being of far more worth (Pryzbilla) than his contract or other teams thought he could be....

It will be interesting to watch how Dixon plays when given those minutes on a (hopefully) consistent basis...will he remind us of Pryzbilla by comparison? or Miles? whom has yet to fulfill the contract he was given....

although another series of question clouds Miles and Theo's contract IMO...was this before Pritchard or whomever installed such a philosophy? and was the big man (Allen) really behind such deals? I have no idea....


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

*Let's let the talk of baiting die down, okay?

If you could take it to PMs if you have any other issues with it, I, along with the rest of the mods, would appreciate it.

Thanks!*


----------



## Victory thru Synergy (Aug 21, 2005)

STOMP said:


> Nothing like the new guy tactic of questioning whether if those who they happen to disagree with are real fans... pretty lame baiting job IMO
> 
> Sorry that I (and others) don't want to join you on Mr Rogers little train ride in accessing Portland's chances this year and trying to objectively evalute the direction of the club, but that takes nothing away from our level of fandom. I think it's safe to say that those who post regularly on a message board in the offseason are plenty passionate about their favorite team.
> 
> ...


An open apology to Stomp and all other concerned posters who felt affronted by my post above, post # 26.

Originally, when I read Stomp's first criticism of my post, I was not going to respond because I felt that it was not worth it to get into any type of argument. Long before I registered to become a poster here, I accepted as a posting philosophy the line: "agree to disagree". However, today, with allegations made of insults flung and several posters commenting back and forth, it seems that I stirred up somewhat of a brouhaha. 

My apologies to all. It was not my intent to stir up such a controversy. Nor was it my intent to inflame or bait anyone. I just wanted to express my views on the Blazers and on what I perceive to be an off-season full of excitement. Furthermore, I think the entire matter got blown out of proportion because certain people mis-read or mis-interpreted my post. 

I recognize that there are many different types of individuals that come to this forum. Backgrounds are varied as are age levels. What really matters, though is not who a person is, it is that people can come together and engage in free discussion and exchange ideas.

Based upon our posts, I would say that I am at one end of the spectrum and that Stomp is at the other end of the spectrum. This is not a call to choose up sides, it is strictly an observation. If I am wrong on this Stomp, and we are not on opposite ends of the spectrum, please correct me. (see P.S. note below.)

Also, while I disagree with Stomp over certain things, I find myself in agreement over certain other things. It all depends on how things are written up. I do not have to agree with someone to respect their views or their right to express them.

I will agree with Stomp that I am a new poster on this site. That is nothing to be ashamed of or apologetic for. We all have to start somewhere. I do hope, though, that readers, whether they agree or disagree with me, find my posts insightful, logical, well thought out and acceptably well written and will therefore allow me the courtesy of posting my views. Jokes and sarcasm aside, I usually don't make statements, critiques or compliments that I honestly don't feel warranted.

I also agree with Stomp when he characterizes me as being optimistic towards the Blazers. I would go even further, though, and state that I am very positive and enthusiastic regarding the current Blazers and very pro team. To me, these descriptive terms are far superior to their antonyms when it comes to describing a fan. 

But it seems that it was the perception or mis-perception of the usage of this word (fan) that started everything. Which means that I am back at the beginning. So, I will close in the same way I opened this post and extend my apologies to all who were offended by my post.

P.S. Note: While I stated above that "based upon our posts, I would say that I am at one end of the spectrum and that Stomp is at the other end of the spectrum. And if I am wrong, please correct me. " Well, Stomp and I P.M.'d each other and I allowed him to read this (minus this P.S.) before I posted it and he did correct me. As things straightened out, it seems that our sentiments towards the team are actually very similar. Thanks Stomp!

VTS


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Wow...Nice posts RPCity, and much better said than I could have done...
> 
> I have only read parts of Moneyball...but was more or less speaking to the concept of it...
> 
> ...


I hadn't really looked at his game log from last year before, and I have to admit that from what it shows he's a little more promising than I've given him credit for, even at 28. I was especially pleased to notice that his FG% in the games where he got minutes and scored well was much higher than his season average. that means he wasn't just launching a bunch of bad shots whenever he got the chance. 

on the other hand, another way to look at his production is his +/-, and here it says that he was a -4.5. of course, when he was playing either Larry Hughs or Gilbert Arenas (or both) were sitting, so it ain't exactly a shock that there was a dropoff. I don't think anybody expects him to be on that level. 

anyway, I'm optimistic by nature, so I'll gladly pounce on the good stats and hope that we get a littlle more productivity this season than last. last year we had no better than the 27th best sg rotation in the league. if we could even move up to 20th it'd be a big deal for us.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Good draft as far as I can tell, addressing our needs.

Excellent choice for coach.

Good riddance to NVE, DA, SAR, and even Damon (his time had come).

Wise move keeping Ruben. This team will need him this year.

If that was all, I'd be happy, BUT...

*Horrible waste of money and focus * by bringing in Dixon, Smith (and hopefully not any more of these barely-hanging-in-the-league players). This could easily ruin everything if these guys actually play in games. I'd much rather go with the rookies than 2 guys who shoot 40% (barely).


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> If that was all, I'd be happy, BUT...
> 
> *Horrible waste of money and focus * by bringing in Dixon, Smith (and hopefully not any more of these barely-hanging-in-the-league players). This could easily ruin everything if these guys actually play in games.


I dunno, I think maybe that might be an overreaction. If signing a couple of scrubs is going to ruin everything, then things must have been dangerously unstable already. I don't think they'll ruin the party anymore than Richie Frahm and Gino Carlisle ruined everything last year.

barfo


----------

