# Gary Payton for a price?..... Blazers say NO



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Swoosh recapped the 910 the fan interview with Steve Patterson.. so I am just going to quote him.



> _Steve Patterson just stated on 910thefan that they were in discussions with Gary and his agent, but that he wanted too much from Portland ($10M/yr for four years) and that we weren't willing to go that high. It sounded like the number of years was the big issue, so Payton will sign a one year deal at the MLE with LA. It all came down to money, only it was the Blazers who balked at the idea of four years at $10M per. As much as I would've liked to see what GP could've done here, $40M is too much (really $80M with the luxury tax...$20M/year).
> 
> He also alluded to the GM position and that they may have someone in place "by the end of the week or the beginning of next week". I wonder who that will be...the only name we're really hearing in the last week or so is John Nash. Is there another candidate out there we haven't heard about???_





I agree, from what I heard, the Blazers said no to Payton.... not Gary, Not Milwaukee.. the Blazers actually did... so with the $10 mill target salary.. McInnis and Sabonis would have been right around there for the Sign and Trade to work... (if indeed it would have been offered) :whoknows:


Would you have paid $40 mill over 10 years for Payton? and more than likely another $40 mill in luxury taxes?



:nonono: I sure hope they have contingency plans.... and I sure hope Pippen resigns.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

Hell yes I would...

I don't know why the Blazers didn't...Since when did Paul Allen become worried about paying money for a player...:no:


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I would in a heartbeat, ESPECIALLY to keep him away from the Lakers.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

No question. Damon and Kemp come off the books relatively soon, and Payton will still be quite capable of being a quality player in 4 years.

In the mean time, we've got the core of our team in its prime (Rasheed, Bonzi, DA) and by the time we get a good point guard they'll all be Payton's current age and too old to form a group to feature.

It's easy for ME to say, though, since announcing a massive contract the same day of a big layoff would be difficult at some level.

Ed O.
edited for brain cramps


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Where is Trader Bob when you need him?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

this is actually really interesting. you know, no papers have been signed, nor will be signed for several days. 

what if Payton is trying to play hard ball with Portland? Payton strikes me as the kind of guy who doesn't give a crap about jerking teams around. maybe he's made a verbal commitment to LA just to try to gain more leverage. 

it is possible that in his (and his agent's) mind, he's already mentally committed to Portland, but just wants to try to squeeze as much as possible. he has absolutely nothing to lose, other than to piss off Laker fans and management. 

if I were in his shoes and wanted to be in Portland for the most money possible, it's what I'd do.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> it is possible that in his (and his agent's) mind, he's already mentally committed to Portland, but just wants to try to squeeze as much as possible. he has absolutely nothing to lose, other than to piss off Laker fans and management.
> 
> if I were in his shoes and wanted to be in Portland for the most money possible, it's what I'd do.


Totally possible. Maybe we should stage a call-in to Portland's HQ and implore them to give Payton his 4th year! Bring him back to Oregon!

Blah! Blah! Blah!

It doesn't SEEM like the matter is closed, but he'd look pretty greedy to go back on his agent's statements now...

Ed O.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> this is actually really interesting. you know, no papers have been signed, nor will be signed for several days.
> 
> what if Payton is trying to play hard ball with Portland? Payton strikes me as the kind of guy who doesn't give a crap about jerking teams around. maybe he's made a verbal commitment to LA just to try to gain more leverage.
> ...


Nah, this is another one of those conspiracy theories...('cept this one isn't from Ed O. for a change  ).

He wants the ring....

Although, maybe he would have taken the 40M from PDX...Why did Paul Allen turn into Donald T. Sterling ???


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

yeah, he'd look greedy. but he's GARY FREAKIN' PAYTON. if he gave a crap about what you or I thought of him, he probably wouldn't be the second best point in the game. 




ehhh. you may say i'm a dreamer, but i'm not the only one. 






am i?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

It sure sounded like it was a closed topic in Patterson's mind to me...

He flat out said what he was asking for after being directly asked.... and he replied "It was not in Portland's best interest to do so." He said they had several conversations with Payton, Aaron Goodwin, and Mo and Patterson...

 I just could not believe my ears.... a future hall of famer, wanting to come to Portland, and for a reduced salary of $10 mill.... and we say NO

Its really going to be a treat to see what kind of a roster we have next year..... when we have to play against:

LA Lakers, San Antonio, Minnesota?


Lord have mercy...


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Entirely possible.

Kendall Gill did it to us three years ago — he committed to the Lakers orally; the next day, he signed with New York.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> It's easy for ME to say, though, since announcing a massive contract the same day of a big layoff would be difficult at some level.


A good point, but there was no particular reason they needed to lay off the hired help today. That could have waited a month or three. 

But now they've done it! :upset: 

The logical next step, it seems to me, is to let Pippen walk. Not that I'm in favor of that, but it appears they truly do intend to cut costs severely. 

barfo

(Yes, I'd prefer Paul spend $40 mill on my further entertainment. But given that his net worth is dropping like a rock, I can't blame him for trying to lose less money.)


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> Hell yes I would...
> 
> I don't know why the Blazers didn't...Since when did Paul Allen become worried about paying money for a player...:no:


Since he began to feel the effects of the luxery tax. Paul Allen wants the team to be much more judicious with it's payroll, not signing average players to whopping contracts just because we can.

You wanna be paying Payton 10 mil when he's 39?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yega1979</b>!
> 
> You wanna be paying Payton 10 mil when he's 39?


Sure, why not? The team won't be over the tax in four years, with Kemp, Damon and others gone and Rasheed's salary at least reduced. The Jazz paid Malone almost twice that this season... the Blazers will pay Rasheed almost twice that this upcoming season, and paid Kemp MORE than that even though he was playing for the Magic.

Payton could have maybe stepped in and been our best player right off the bat, and he might have remained our best player through 3 or even 4 seasons. Now, we have a hole at the 1 that will probably be the single biggest reason we crash and burn this season.

Ed O.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yega1979</b>!
> Since he began to feel the effects of the luxery tax. Paul Allen wants the team to be much more judicious with it's payroll, not signing average players to whopping contracts just because we can.
> 
> You wanna be paying Payton 10 mil when he's 39?


Yeah, I get your point of the luxury tax....But, GP isn't just an average player....:no:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

yes, but its not my money...

besides high tech stocks have been up lately... he probably made $40 million each day this week.

I would have much preffered to pay a future hall of famer that much money... and another shot at the title...

its been 26 years since we won a title.... my memory is getting old and needs a new memory to hold onto...



I am just stumped on who we are going to have lead the charge at PG next year...

Damon is suspended, Pippen is hurt or going elsewhere (maybe?), Daniels may go to Orlando, and McInnis is ....... well... ho hum....

I do not see DA or Woods being a PG... or that there is any interest in getting a MLE FA PG or that they want to come here...

:whoknows:

but we need a PG....


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Good poll.

Yeah, I probably would have done it.

1) Solves the problem at PG for 4 years

2) If he were to get $10 million each year, that would solve the over-36 problem 

3) Gives the Blazers a strong-willed leader, both on the court and in the locker room

4) Keeps him out of LA (I hate to say it, but it would be part of the equation)


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

No, I think the Blazers got it right. I don't think GP has more than 2 years left in him, and he's already lost quite a bit. He's not the 2nd best pg in the NBA and hasn' been for at least a year or two. He's one of my favorite players and I've gone to KeyArena many times over the years just to see him, so I'm not hatin'. He doesn't/can't play defense at a high level anymore and is still a shaky outside shooter. He brings a lot to the game, but I just don't think it will be much longer, and 1 good year plus 3 awful ones that make him untradeable would be Damon redux.

It would be nice to see if he'd take something like 2 years at 25 mil, but I doubt he'd do it. Since the budget writing is on the wall, the team is probably better off trying to throw money at Andre Miller or one of the near-rookies that might pan out, like Tinsley, Crawford, or Parker. I think they all have deals that expire in 2 years.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

as much as I love GP, I am glad the Blazers are not chasing players with money right now. I want them to clean house and start over, not keep trying to buy a championship. we've been trying to buy a championship since 1998. It aint' happening. Furthermore, our owner is now paying double salary due to the luxury tax. Paul Allen doesn't owe me that, he should be able to own the team yet not lose $50 -100 Million just to make us fans happy, I don't wish that on him or any owner.


cut the costs, cut the roster, cut the fat, get crappy for a few years bring in some young studs ie lottery picks in 3-4 years we will have a team we can enjoy again, rather than this dysfunctional group of potheads and wife beating underachievers we're stuck with currently.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I would have, if I were as rich as I randomly guess Paul Allen is.

I guess, though, if he's laying people off, he's not in favour of throwing cash away like it was rice at a wedding.

So perhaps he needs the money...perhaps a child is getting married, or he's adding a guest room; for some reason, money may be tight for him.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> So perhaps he needs the money...perhaps a child is getting married, or he's adding a guest room; for some reason, money may be tight for him.


Maybe he's tired about having fans whining and complaining so often, and if he doesn't spend as much money, people will have one less thing to complain about. I doubt it, but ...

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Maybe the players that Portland would have had to give up to reach the 10 Mil figure were the sticking point? Maybe thats what Patterson meant by "It was not in Portland's best interest to do so."

STOMP


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Or, maby this is a sign that we are in a rebuilding mode and do not want to spend 40(Actually 80) million dollars on a guy that at best could lead us to a 2nd round defeat instead of 1st round exit.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed, what the hell does it matter if DA is in his prime or not if he's always on ice? Grant Hill is in his prime too! Should we grab him out of traction?

What does it matter if Bonzi is in his prime if he shows up only every three games?

Two of your three starting players are not reliable and Sheed will only be a star this year cause his wallet is being checked! Otherwise you could put him with the group above.

Your idea of a solid team makes me:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: !


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron</b>!
> Entirely possible.
> 
> Kendall Gill did it to us three years ago — he committed to the Lakers orally; the next day, he signed with New York.



ron...I think we both know the Lakers didn't get hurt by having Gill sign with the Knicks..


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*yeah,that's quite a team*

full of woulda/coulda/shoulda/maybe/forgetaboutit.
Outstanding !
Except you are giving Sheed waaaaay to much credit.
Does anybody think a guy who has never won a darn thing is
going to suddenly show up now??
playoffs didn't do it for him??
It's starting to become laughable.
And some folks here think we are doing just fine .
As that song said"we are solid,solid as a rock"
Big freefall ahead,but by gosh we have players with potential.

:laugh:


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Jackie, I think Sheed will show up this year cause he'll want a max contract the next. If this is the only year he works for his money better he do it for us, don't ya think?

I personally think he's a lazy punk, but that punk loves his money, so just watch how good he can become when his true passion is on the line!


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*oh terrible,i just can't see it*

He looks truly happy and energetic only when he is waving a towel on the sidelines.
:laugh:


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Any other year but this one Jackie and I'd agree with you but Sheed fancies himself a playa, he can't do that with a reduced salary next year. The rest of the guys in the league wouldn't let him live it down. 

What would he do? Take a pay cut and play for the Lakers?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: yeah,that's quite a team*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> It's starting to become laughable.
> And some folks here think we are doing just fine .


jackie- perhaps you missed hap's Everybody read part 2? Here's the link... 

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41399&forumid=14

...continuing to disrespectfully laugh and mock the opinions of others you disagree with is exactly why posters confront you IMO. And obviously you've some difficulty dealing with that...

STOMP


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*now we can't laugh at this mess ?*

You have to admit this has become a mess,and it surely is 
laughable to even consider Portland will be "just fine"
you have your nerve by the way..
thanks for your comments..
you have just done what you accused me of..:laugh:

Actually Stomped..
it's just a couple,and you know who you are.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Unfortunately you aren't drawing the distinction between laughing at the mess you percieve, and laughing at the opinions of those who don't see it as such a mess. I certainly do not see it as the mess you do. I happen to think Portland is in much better shape in the big picture then most of the rest of the NBA teams.

STOMP


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*but the rest of the teams*

are rising quickly,Portland is sinking.
Pippen would be a fool to pass on Bull's offer.
Sabas leaving will be a huge hole.
Those two players will be almost impossible to replace.

If you think for a minute that taking the two,the ONLY two "stars"
out of the lineup,and leaving the losers remaining.
wow!
I love D.A..but bless his heart he is fragile.
The others ?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: but the rest of the teams*

It's always sunrise for some and sunset for others when you only have a 15 (or so) year career window, so teams are constantly bailing water so to speak. Sabas averaged less then 20 minutes last season, and while he will surely be missed, his contract could very well land the next important player for Portland. I'm pleased as punch that Damon has pretty much taken himself out of the picture. Classic addition by subtraction IMO. PIP will be a fool to not accept the Bulls rumored offer? We'll see... the Sabas contract move may very well help determine his future

Sinking? Well they aren't competing for the championship if what is forshadowed with GP happens, but I'm of the belief that this team has a bright future barring a panicy dismantling.

STOMP


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

I keep hearing the same thing from people about other teams improving and Portland is not. What facts do you have to prove that theory? Portland has been a very good team for awhile now and I don't see much changing next year. Removing Damon and Ruben would be a very good thing to start with.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*WELL FOR STARTERS*

Compare the entire Western Conference and then look at Portland's lineup.
And you must include the ENTIRE picture,not just the lineup..
no pun intended.
The attitude in the locker room for starters.

Fine,if you don't think that Portland has sunk a notch or two,by
the OTHER TEAM'S IMPROVING,so be it.
Your opinion is as good as mine.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

It's a bit early to call, seeing how it isn't even July 16th yet...

But in essence, so far all that has happened is that a few teams that already finished ahead of the Blazers added or are in the process of adding some nice pieces that make them look better on paper. 

None of the teams below Portland have really done anything much to improve themselves so I don't see them as having slipped yet... the Blazers as they stand are still in the upper quarter of the league and could very well improve themselves in the next 3 months.

There's still a week before anyone can even sign free agents, it's early... take a deep breath for chrissakes.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Minnesota upgraded minorly, Lakers upgraded significantly, San Antonio, Dallas and Sacramento haven't upgraded at all.

This picture being painted of the entire Western Conference becoming five times better while Portland stays the same seems untrue.

And perhaps Portland will improve. Might want to give them their entire off-season before you decide the Blazers haven't changed a bit.

Besides, those people who believe Wallace will increase his quality of play due to a contract year are basically saying Portland will upgrade due to a better Rasheed Wallace.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

There are big if's involved here.

If Minnesota also signs Juwaan Howard, then IMO they have improved significantly. Cassell is the type of player KG has been asking for, another outspoken player that despises losing, plus he has also won a ring or two. Howard is the poerfect compliment at the SF to KG, Wally and Sam. Howard is a significant upgrade from Joe Smoith. They also added a decent defensive role playing center in Ervin Johnson, to back up Rasho should he stay.

San Antonio will improve, it's just a matter of time. Jason Kidd? maybe matbe not, but Olowakandi and Maggete, motre likely. Kandi is not an improvement over Robinson, but Maggette is significant over steven Jackson.

Sactown hasn't improved, neither has Dallas, and likely neither will, but Portland was behind them last year, and I seriously doubt that will change for this year.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: WELL FOR STARTERS*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Compare the entire Western Conference and then look at Portland's lineup.
> And you must include the ENTIRE picture,not just the lineup..
> no pun intended.
> ...


Well I've never been inside an NBA locker room and observed the guys interact. I don't know whats the norm by any means, so how can I judge? Have you? The guys publicly claim to like each other though, Zack has even said nice things about Rube post fight calling him "my guy." Guys in the league have always had some infighting, and most incidents go unreported. It seems to me though that on court indiscretions like techs, ejections, and total fouls point to Portland's club being pretty decently in line behind their coach's even keel. Do you realize that they had the 2nd least games lost to ejections and 2nd least total fouls in the whole league?

The Lakers improved obviously, the Wolves minimally, but who else are you pointing too? I don't expect the guys who've just been drafted to make a major impact this year. Some teams should improve as their talent is maturing, but the same is true of this Portland team. They've got guys in their prime, and some good looking up and comers that I'm sure you're aware of. 

Anyhoo, like you said, your opinion is as good as mine.

STOMP


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

You are right Minstrel, I'm saying Sheed will finally earn his paycheck this year! That's why I'm not so into trading him, he owes Portland one real year. Hell of a work ethic huh? Get payed for many years, play one. After this year he can be some other teams nightmare, so let's get the most out of him now.

As for your thoughts that other teams are not getting better I totally disagree. 

Howard with KG makes them a real threat to be a three seed. Hell Howard outplayed Sheed almost every time they met last year,

If ZO goes to Dallas, they have their defensive player and rebounder to go after all the ones that Dirk, Nash and Van don't make. That makes them better than us.

The Spurs will pick up Kidd and that's an upgrade.

Sac was and is better than us and I'll bet they'll upgrade a little.

The Suns beat us three times last year and Amare was a rookie. 

Van Gundy will make the Rockets a tougher team.

Teams that will be worse are UTAH and the Clipps.

Teams on the bubble are Portland, Golden State and the Sonics.

Portland has a history of blowing up after the all star break and without leaders like Pip and Sabas this team will most likely implode. I hope not, but history should not be ignored.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*Western Conference Upgrade*

Well I think one of the best upgrades has been the Wolves.
Van Exel was terrific for Dallas and will be for the Wolves.

Not much as been made of this on the web sites,but he would
have been a great pick up here.

But,with the "chemistry" problems,who knows.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Well, *if* you're going to use "if" for every team regarding their improvement, then the same can be done for Portland.

"If" Portland signs Alonzo Mourning, they can improve. "If" they sign Andre Miller, they'll have an elite play-maker. Etc.

High chances? Probably not. But neither are the "if"s you pose. Kidd is a lock to San Antonio? Hardly...in fact, a lot of people expect him to remain in New Jersey. Mourning to Dallas? Maybe, though I don't think that improves them hugely. I don't think Sacramento is likely to improve at all. They have a complete team, in its prime.

I think Lakers and Timberwolves have improved and everyone else is "on the bubble" in terms of improving. Portland, Sacramento and Dallas are unlikely to get worse, but also not very likely to get better. San Antonio has a pretty good chance, but unless Kidd goes there, they probably won't improve enormously.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Van is a Twolve? WTF? If they got Van we are in trouble! That means they have Sam, KG, Van and Howard? They can beat us easy! Hell, Van kept Dallas in the series against us!


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*stomp..you do listen to 5th quarter???*

Rasheed was laughing so loud after one of their losses,they 
could hardly hear the interviews in the locker room.

Wheels and Rice commented on it so did Pip in the newspaper.

They were playing with their toys and didn't seem to bother them
they got their asses kicked.
That got reported on both our radio stations several times,or
isn't that abit disturbing to you??

And both times,Bonzi and Rasheed were the ringleaders.


That's just as bad as fighting/bickering/whatever.

Maybe even worse.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Minstrel , The Spurs are the world champs, do they need to improve that much? They are the one team that has the money and the rep to do anything they want. Them getting worse, I just don't see.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Western Conference Upgrade*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Well I think one of the best upgrades has been the Wolves.
> Van Exel was terrific for Dallas and will be for the Wolves.


When did Van Exel go to the Wolves?



> Not much as been made of this on the web sites


I think that's because it never happened.

Minnesota got Sam Cassell, but Van Exel is still very much a Maverick.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Minstrel , The Spurs are the world champs, do they need to improve that much? They are the one team that has the money and the rep to do anything they want. Them getting worse, I just don't see.


I didn't say they'd get worse. Do they need to improve much? I think so. They weren't very much better than the field and came within an Horry three of probably flaming out in the second round.

They got all they could handle from a Nowitski-less Mavericks team (and Dallas, at full strength and with home court advantage, could barely beat Portland who had multiple key injuries).

Last year, the top six Western teams were pretty tightly clumped. Maybe San Antonio doesn't even with it all if Webber doesn't get injured. San Antonio assuming they are the best because they are defending champions would be a good way for them to get knocked down. I think it's quite imperative for them to get better.

And, regarding Portland improving, there's one factor you overlook. Zach Randolph. He played a sparing role last year and he'll likely play a big role this year. If his playoffs weren't a fluke (and I don't think they were, considering he did great in the regular season when Wallace was suspended), he'll be a big upgrade to the team over last year. And that's even if Portland doesn't add a thing.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Do we agree that the Spurs have the most money to spend in the FA market? The Spurs will get better this offseason, I just don't see how they wont! Money and a great team with a positive attitude is very attractive.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Jackie- as it says in my on-screen profile, I live in California which is obviously outside of Blazer broadcasts and the 5th quarter... as far as Sheed and Bonzi yucking it up after a early season loss, I did read a report on it. Reports continued that afterthat incident where PIP got a bit upset over that and put his foot down, things changed. Shortly thereafter, with a PIP leading the way enjoying an amazing indian summer run of health, Portland went on their 22-5 stretch. Reading into things, I thought they straitened the locker room issue out somewhat. But again what do I know based on such little evidence as this as to whats normal for an NBA locker room? Again, what access do you have that allows you the insight to judge the state of their locker room, especially compared to whats the norm in the NBA?

Could someone help me with info on how to post a photo? I've some pretty good digital shots from my work in the mountains.

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> Could someone help me with info on how to post a photo? I've some pretty good digital shots from my work in the mountains.
> 
> STOMP


when you post a picture (as long as it's on your computer) you go to the "browse"button under the box where you type.

You then browse in your computer for the picture, and click "open". Then submit reply. (if you try to preview the reply, it doesn't show the picture, and it also means you have to re-do the picture).

If this makes absolutely no sense, PM one of the Mods (who make more sense) and see what they do. Or just wait 5 more minutes and you'll have 15 responses telling you 18 different ways to do it.

btw, the picture is to tease ABM...he knows what I'm talking about...


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*sam the man..not Nick*

Wow,that is just as bad tho,
Nick Van Excel vs Sam Cassell.

Yes,Nick is still in Dallas.
I was picturing that little bald head and I pictured the wrong one.

Sam is every bit as good as Nick.
That doesn't change the direction I was heading tho.

My initial comment was that Wolves got better,a whole lot better.

Sam will be the new player,not Nick.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*I will try to give a response here.*

"Again, what access do you have that allows you the insight to judge the state of their locker room, especially compared to whats the norm in the NBA?"


The radio guys here in Portland have said it many times,but
I can hear it myself..the frivolity is so high after many terrible
losses,it seems strange. I am speaking about after game interviews in the locker room.

I was glad when that article came out about Scottie being upset
and saying something to the effect of it really bothered him.

What do you object to in that post??

Do you think that yuking it up after big losses is that common??
Now that,I don't know.
But I pay my money here in Portland,not to another team.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: I will try to give a response here.*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Do you think that yuking it up after big losses is that common??
> Now that,I don't know.
> But I pay my money here in Portland,not to another team.


I have no idea if yuking after a loss is common behavior in NBA locker rooms. I've never been in one, let alone been in enough of them with the guys interacting to tell you whats normal. But you said Portland's is a problem, which I took to mean that their behavior was worse then the behavior of their peers. Apparently it isn't acceptable behavior for you, but I'd suspect that a whole lot of what goes on in the dynamics of NBA comradery isn't what us mere fans might expect. The occational glimpses into the inner workings sometimes reveals a world the general public wouldn't be comfortable with. From groupies to a constant stream of brutal smack, their culture isn't PG-13. 

I try not to cast judgement on the off the court stuff because of my limited perspective of what goes on, but I'm interested to here from people who are around it daily (like players and coach's). They rarely speak candidly about such matters, probably for good reason. Often the ex-players are the ones that spill the beans on stuff, which doesn't directly cast a light on whats happening now, but does lend some perspective. 

BTW, I objected to nothing in your last post.

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Do we agree that the Spurs have the most money to spend in the FA market?


I think the Clippers technically will have the most, once they renounce the rights to their free agents....

But, yes, other than the Clippers, I agree. 



> The Spurs will get better this offseason, I just don't see how they wont!


I do. If the players they want don't want to leave their teams. JermO'Neal seems off the market. Kidd may well elect to stay in the swamp. No other point guard would likely be a target, since they have Parker. So...Olowakandi and Maggette? Okay. I don't know that Kandi will be much of an upgrade on retiring David Robinson and Maggette is a nice young swingman, but will he add much value over Stephen Jackson and Manu Ginobli. The opinion here is no.



> Money and a great team with a positive attitude is very attractive.


I agree. But that doesn't necessarily mean you'll get free agents. San Antonio hasn't improved until they do.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: sam the man..not Nick*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> My initial comment was that Wolves got better,a whole lot better.


I'd disagree with this though for the same reasons others have. The Wolves aren't going to be able to match up Sam and Troy Hudson very often, as neither is big enough to guard a two. Sam is an upgrade over Troy scoring 6 more points a game, but the rest of their stats from last season are pretty much a wash. Though they haven't signed Howard yet, and time will tell on if that even happens, they gave up their starting 4 in Joe Smith to land Sam. Personally I'd rather have Joe then Jawan because of his superior D. 

So look who the Wolves potencially have. On Offense it seems good and they'll get their share of boards, but I see terrible D outside of KG. Who do they have to match up on all of the great slashers of the league? Kendall Gill and Wally, or another way or putting it, nobody. Rasho, if he returns, is no great shakes on either side of the court either. I see no lock that they've significantly upgraded... yet.

STOMP


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Minnesota upgraded minorly, Lakers upgraded significantly, San Antonio, Dallas and Sacramento haven't upgraded at all.


The addition of Sam Cassell for basically nothing is much more than a _minor_ improvement (IMO).

_Adding a top flight PG (and clutch performer) to a 50 win team without sacrificing any major contributors is a significant upgrade (IMO)._

I think that they just went from a 51-win team to a 56-60-win team.

---------------------

I really do not think that people (fans and broadcasters alike) give Sam credit for just how good he is. His _"I am the best player on the floor, give me the ball so I can win this game/ never back down/ not afraid to fail"_ attitude is exactly what the Wolves lack. 

*Random opinion:* I would rate him the second most clutch PG in the league (behind Van Exel).

---------------------

The Wolves will become even further strengthened if they sign Howard. 
That’s not even factoring in the possibility of them landing a good player (say a Tim Thomas) with their Terrell Brandon _meal card_.

_This team can go from good to very good to down right impressive in just one summer._


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I have respect for Cassell's offensive game. He's one of the best scoring point guards in the game.

That said, Hudson was starting to come into his own as a scoring point. The upgrade of Cassell over Hudson is significant, but not huge. I don't think they'll be able to work both together effectively.

They got themselves a top flight offensive point guard, cost themselves a lot of the use of a developing offensive point guard and the result, to me, is another 50-win season. I think they overachieved this last season...now I think they have the talent to legitimately win 50 games, even if no one overachieves.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Enigma,

They didn't lose Cassell for basically nothing, they traded their starting PF, one of the few guys on that squad who liked to mix it up inside. He was a huge part of their success last season, and there's definitely a hole they need to fill there...

Even if they get Howard, they're just adding another soft big guy to the bunch.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: sam the man..not Nick*



> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd disagree with this though for the same reasons others have. The Wolves aren't going to be able to match up Sam and Troy Hudson very often, as neither is big enough to guard a two. Sam is an upgrade over Troy scoring 6 more points a game, but the rest of their stats from last season are pretty much a wash. Though they haven't signed Howard yet, and time will tell on if that even happens, they gave up their starting 4 in Joe Smith to land Sam. Personally I'd rather have Joe then Jawan because of his superior D.
> ...


I disagree with this thought completely.

Cassell is vastly superior to Hudson (6 more points a game is an immense difference). His ability to draw fouls and his ability to shoot high percentages (in all aspects) will benefit the Wolves a great deal. His presence also allows Hudson to become a 6th man, which is a role much better suited for his particular talents (IMO). He would become instant offence off of the bench (_a role he excelled at in Orlando_), and would not have the burden of running the offence for 30 plus minutes per game.

I can easily see Cassell averaging 18-20 points with Hudson backing him up at around 11 points per game. 

------------------

Joe Smith was not a starter last season. He started a total of 21 games (out of 54), most of which came while Szczerbiak was injured.

The typical Minnesota starting lineup was:

Hudson
Peeler
Szczerbiak
Garnett
Nesterovic

That would make Smith a (somewhat) easily replaceable backup and Peeler an even more easily replaceable starting SG.

_I believe that the Wolves have improved much more than most do._


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> They got themselves a top flight offensive point guard, cost themselves a lot of the use of a developing offensive point guard and the result, to me, is another 50-win season. I think they overachieved this last season...now I think they have the talent to legitimately win 50 games, even if no one overachieves.


Being that the Wolves have consistently won 50 games for the past few seasons I definitely disagree with the notion that they overachieved. Conversely, I will argue that they probably would have won more games if Szczerbiak were healthy for the entire season. 

The notion that Hudson was starting to come into his own is a bit flawed (IMO). 

Playing with Garnett benefited him greatly and I suspect the same to be the case for Cassell. 
You guys probably did not see many Orlando game a few years back (I did) so I will tell you that Hudson was the same player he was last season, two seasons ago in Orlando (just with more minutes). He is an excellent player to have on the bench because he is the type of player capable of putting up points in bunches without an extended warm-up period. 

*In Fact:* His statistics improved minimally from his last season in Orlando to last year in Minnesota (even though he played 10 more minutes per game). 

He strikes me as the type of player that can do the same in 20 minutes off the bench (with a green light) as he could in 35-40 minutes running the offence (something he is not particularly good at).

The Wolves are a good deal better now then they were at the end of last season, _and I suspect that time will prove my point._


----------

