# Did Nash Screw Up?



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Since I can see this one being debated for a long, long time, I just want to know who here thinks Nash screwed up by sticking to his demands WRT Shareef and the Nets.

PBF


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

First, I think it is too early to tell. But, assuming Reef signs for the MLE . . .

I think Nash did just fine. What is the value of late second round pick and a TE we don't need? Almost nothing. If the Nets want to get Reef locked in a low pay for an extra year and save their MLE for someone else, then they need to pay a price that is more than a very late second round pick. *That second rounder is just a couple of players ahead of undrafted free agents.* If Reef signs for the MLE fine, but I hope Nash doesn't fold on this one. NJ is offering nothing of value unless it includes a future (late) first rounder or Ilec.

Hold on Nash.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Since we dont know for sure if SAR is going to the Nets via a S&T or signing for the MLE, its too early to say. But IMO, if Shareef does indeed go to the Nets for the MLE, than I applaud Nash for sticking to his guns and not giving in to the Nets. Nash wants a first round pick, and most of us know that SAR is without a doubt worth it. Nash has said that he has no use for the trade exception, so why would he want it? If anyone should be upset, it should be SAR. Why does he want to play for a team that doesnt think he's worth a 1st round pick? They are already getting him for a bargain $$$, so throwing in the 1st round pick seems like an easy choice to me. SAR will make the Nets a contender in the East. Nash knows that.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Reep said:


> First, I think it is too early to tell. But, assuming Reef signs for the MLE . . .



There seem to be lots of variuous reports of what will happen. Way too early to tell yet.

I think NJ wants Keyon Dooling as well, so they will cave in and give up a 1st round pick because they will sign him to the MLE


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Trader Bob said:


> NJ wants Keyon Dooling as well, so they will cave in and give up a 1st round pick because they will sign him to the MLE


good point.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Too early to tell.

Via email, Nash said that a deal has not been signed yet and cannot be until possibly Friday.

Should we try to sign Kenyon Dooling?? (for spite)


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't think Nash screwed up. He has made it clear that getting something back for Shareef was not a priority, let alone in their master plan. AS someone pointed put we don't know the full details yet.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

It's too early to tell. We simply don't know whether Portland's going to walk away with something here or not.

I find it almost impossible to believe that the Nets would cave in NOW and give the Blazers what they want if they weren't willing to do it before SAR would join them for the MLE.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> I don't think Nash screwed up. He has made it clear that getting something back for Shareef was not a priority, let alone in their master plan.


Well, I think that's a screwed up plan. Letting assets walk away with no compensation is a ridiculous way to rebuild a team.

The only MORE ridiculous way is, of course, sign injury-prone players on the wrong side of 30 to massive contract extensions. But Nash has covered his bases there, so he's evidently shifting gears a bit.

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> It's too early to tell. We simply don't know whether Portland's going to walk away with something here or not.
> 
> I find it almost impossible to believe that the Nets would cave in NOW and give the Blazers what they want if they weren't willing to do it before SAR would join them for the MLE.
> 
> Ed O.


From what I've read, the agreement between the Nets and Shareef is that the Nets have to offer the Blazers a future 1st rounder in the S&T deal. Only if that's turned down by the Blazers does Shareef agree to sign a MLE deal.

All of this is premature speculation.

Of course, that's what this board is for. :biggrin:


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Well, I think that's a screwed up plan. Letting assets walk away with no compensation is a ridiculous way to rebuild a team.
> 
> The only MORE ridiculous way is, of course, sign injury-prone players on the wrong side of 30 to massive contract extensions. But Nash has covered his bases there, so he's evidently shifting gears a bit.
> 
> Ed O.


JUst like the allowing Shareef to walk apsect we really don't know what his master plan is.

One thing to keep in mind is that if you continually get assests in return you never get to shave financial obligations.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Should we try to sign Kenyon Dooling?? (for spite)


I don't know if you are being serious or joking here, however I will respond as if you are being serious.

Absolutely not. Not only is it a poor idea in that we have no real use for him here (he's not really a vet yet, and we have 2 more talented young pgs as is), but NJ really has done nothing deserving of our scorn. They tried offering us _something_ for SAR, we rejected it and asked for more. That is our right, but NJ can't be faulted. SAR is unrestricted, we have no real right to expect _anything_ from him. 

As to the initial post, I think it's too early to say. I will not however be dissapointed if NJ's best offer was the TE and this years 2nd rounder. That's so minor in the scheme of things that I think it was a resonable gamble to hold out for more.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Schilly said:


> JUst like the allowing Shareef to walk apsect we really don't know what his master plan is.
> 
> One thing to keep in mind is that if you continually get assests in return you never get to shave financial obligations.




Yes, but I agree with Ed O's posts... getting a TE and a draft pick at least gives you the flexibility later on. Plus you do not necessarily have to use them... i.e. the TE. They can also be packaged for upgrades (The reverse of what we did at draft time this year).... possibilities.. all possibilities.... better than getting nothing IMHO


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Well, I think that's a screwed up plan. Letting assets walk away with no compensation is a ridiculous way to rebuild a team.
> 
> The only MORE ridiculous way is, of course, sign injury-prone players on the wrong side of 30 to massive contract extensions. But Nash has covered his bases there, so he's evidently shifting gears a bit.
> 
> Ed O.


The fact that SAR wants to go to NJ limits Nash's options, and if NJ isnt offering anything we want in return, what do you really expect Nash to do? Take back garbage we have no use for?


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Trader Bob said:


> Yes, but I agree with Ed O's posts... getting a TE and a draft pick at least gives you the flexibility later on. Plus you do not necessarily have to use them... i.e. the TE. They can also be packaged for upgrades (The reverse of what we did at draft time this year).... possibilities.. all possibilities.... better than getting nothing IMHO


The trade exception isn't a commodity that can be traded. It's just a credit that the Blazers would hold for one year that they could use to acquire a player. Since there's little likelihood that we'd want to use it, the value is in the pick.


----------



## PetroToZoran (Jul 2, 2003)

An angle that you may you not have thought about is what this does to future free agents and Portland players. Shareef Abdur-Rahim was a pretty good camper considering he came to the team as a 20/10 guy and played on the bench. His contract is now expiring and Portland is basically going to short change Shareef of $9 million. 

Free agents are likely to take notice of how Portland treated it's own players and may be hesitate to sign with Portland.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> JUst like the allowing Shareef to walk apsect we really don't know what his master plan is.


We didn't know what his master plan was when he extended Theo, but many of us knew it was a mistake then, too.

Was that part of the same master plan? Was Trenton Hassell part of the same master plan?

If so: what the hell kind of plan is it?

If not: why are we convinced (a) that Nash is going to be more successful in executing the new master plan than he was the old one, and (b) that Nash would be more dedicated to the new master plan than he was to the old.



> One thing to keep in mind is that if you continually get assests in return you never get to shave financial obligations.


With a trade exeption you can. You can use all of it if the right deal comes along (which would not save you any money), you can use some of it (which saves you some money), or none of it.

Portland was willing to offer a decent chunk of money--I think Nash said more money than had ever been offered--for a second round pick, but now we're seemingly uninterested in a second rounder in the future from NJ.

It just all is very weird to me, and I get the sense that Nash is upset that SAR and his agent threatened to hold out last year and then wanted twice the MLE as an extension amount... and that he's willing to stick it to them even if it means taking nothing back for SAR.

Ed O.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

I can't vote until I know what happened...


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Trader Bob said:


> Yes, but I agree with Ed O's posts... getting a TE and a draft pick at least gives you the flexibility later on. Plus you do not necessarily have to use them... i.e. the TE. They can also be packaged for upgrades (The reverse of what we did at draft time this year).... possibilities.. all possibilities.... better than getting nothing IMHO


True, but Nash also has to consider his reputation with other GM's. If he caves, and takes a 2nd round pick and the TE, which is well known that Nash wants a 1st rounder, other GM's will think they too can play hardball with Nash in the future and he'll cave in to their demands.

The bottom line is that Nash is on target when it comes to SAR's value, especially to the Nets. He knows what SAR is worth, and wants to get that, nothing less.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

PetroToZoran said:


> An angle that you may you not have thought about is what this does to future free agents and Portland players. Shareef Abdur-Rahim was a pretty good camper considering he came to the team as a 20/10 guy and played on the bench. His contract is now expiring and Portland is basically going to short change Shareef of $9 million.
> 
> Free agents are likely to take notice of how Portland treated it's own players and may be hesitate to sign with Portland.


Really? I would have assumed it was the Nets who cut Shareef out of his extra money by not ponying up at least reasonable compensation, instead they went the cheap road to hang onto a late 1st rounder.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

> The Nets got their man yesterday, and it was only because Shareef Abdur-Rahim is less greedy than his former employer.
> 
> The free-agent forward agreed to accept the lesser of two contract offers yesterday -- a five-year deal that will total $27 million to $30 million -- after the Nets failed to negotiate a better contract in a sign-and-trade scenario with the Portland Trail Blazers.
> 
> ...


LINK 

So we were really going for Mile Ilic instead of the 1st. It makes sense since Ilic is a PF. I think it was a good move that Nash stuck to his guns. I mean, I knew coming into FA that there was a pretty low chance we would get anything from SAR, Damon, and NVE. If we had gotten Ilic, I woulda been happier, but I think Nash did a good job.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

PetroToZoran said:


> An angle that you may you not have thought about is what this does to future free agents and Portland players. Shareef Abdur-Rahim was a pretty good camper considering he came to the team as a 20/10 guy and played on the bench. His contract is now expiring and Portland is basically going to short change Shareef of $9 million.
> 
> Free agents are likely to take notice of how Portland treated it's own players and may be hesitate to sign with Portland.


This deal isn't done. All of this is just maneuvering and posturing by the three parties involved to try and get the best deal for themselves. In the end, I'd put money on the S&T going down as soon as the new CBA is signed. It's really in everyone's best interest. Two weeks later, this will all blow away.

The Blazers have a history of treating their players very well. No future deals are going to be affected by this little tempest in a tea pot.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> We didn't know what his master plan was when he extended Theo, but many of us knew it was a mistake then, too.
> 
> Was that part of the same master plan? Was Trenton Hassell part of the same master plan?
> 
> ...


BTW we are assuming based off of a report that leaves both options still available.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> The fact that SAR wants to go to NJ limits Nash's options, and if NJ isnt offering anything we want in return, what do you really expect Nash to do? Take back garbage we have no use for?


Our team is B-A-D.

How on earth can Nash be so sure that the "garbage" that NJ is offering won't help us?

I can understand, say, the Spurs not being willing to take scraps (although they'd probably be smart enough to do so). But Portland? 

What do we have to gain by taking nothing over something?

Ed O.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

I question how much value the TE has for the Blazers. I would not be upset, however, if Nash compromised on multiple 2nd rounders.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

PetroToZoran said:


> An angle that you may you not have thought about is what this does to future free agents and Portland players. Shareef Abdur-Rahim was a pretty good camper considering he came to the team as a 20/10 guy and played on the bench. His contract is now expiring and Portland is basically going to short change Shareef of $9 million.
> 
> Free agents are likely to take notice of how Portland treated it's own players and may be hesitate to sign with Portland.



HA HA!! Thats hilarious! If anyone is "short changing" SAR, its your Nets. Their GM is the fool who is disrespecting SAR by showing that he thinks SAR isnt worth a late 1st round pick.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Tince said:


> I can't vote until I know what happened...


Best post in this thread.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Another report from the NY Post. This one saying we want Ilic in the deal, and NJ upped their offer to 2 2nd rounders with the TE.



> []"July 19, 2005 -- The Nets are going to get Shareef Abdur-Rahim.
> 
> The only question is how.
> 
> ...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed what if we had taken the TE, without addition compensation, but then rennounced it? It does count as a cap hold and factors as part of the Luxury tax aspect.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> BTW we are assuming based off of a report that leaves both options still available.


Absolutely. All three parties want a S&T to happen. It's just a question of NJ and Portland agreeing. But the Nets definitely appear to be in the driver's seat now.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Ed what if we had taken the TE, without addition compensation, but then rennounced it? It does count as a cap hold and factors as part of the Luxury tax aspect.


Is it possible to rennounce a TE?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Absolutely. All three parties want a S&T to happen. It's just a question of NJ and Portland agreeing. But the Nets definitely appear to be in the driver's seat now.
> 
> Ed O.


Especially ofter Shareef has supposedly conceded to take teh MLE if all else fails....WHat's NJ's incentive now when they can get Shraeef for the MLE without negotiating a S&T?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Ed what if we had taken the TE, without addition compensation, but then rennounced it? It does count as a cap hold and factors as part of the Luxury tax aspect.


Thanks Schilly!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> It does count as a cap hold and factors as part of the Luxury tax aspect.


What's your source for this? It's entirely possible that this is the case, but I haven't heard this before.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Freak said:


> Is it possible to rennounce a TE?


Coonage 



> Teams have the option of renouncing their exceptions in order to claim the cap room. So in the example above, if the team renounced their traded player and mid-level exceptions, then the $9.5 million is taken off their team salary, which then totals $36 million, leaving them with $6.5 million of cap room which can then be used to sign free agent(s).


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Especially ofter Shareef has supposedly conceded to take teh MLE if all else fails....WHat's NJ's incentive now when they can get Shraeef for the MLE without negotiating a S&T?


Their incentive would be to get SAR for an extra year, and to still have their MLE to use on Dooling. They need a back up PG to help limit Kidds minutes.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Their incentive would be to get SAR for an extra year, and to still have their MLE to use on Dooling. They need a back up PG to help limit Kidds minutes.


And they'd only have until the 29th to use the TE.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Coonage


That section speaks to exceptions for teams below the salary cap. From the beginning of the same section:



> If a team has Disabled Player, $1 Million, Mid-Level and/or Traded Player Exceptions, *and they are below the cap*, then these exceptions are added to the team's team salary, and the league treats the team as though they are over the cap.


 (emphasis added)

This would seem to me to indicate that the TE does NOT count against the luxury tax... just like the MLE and "million dollar" exception do not.

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

From Larry ****'s CBA FAQ page:



> 13. Exactly what is included when computing total team salaries?
> When determining team salaries (for example, to determine whether a team is over the salary cap), the following are included:
> 
> Salaries of all active players and players on injured reserve, including likely bonuses.
> ...


Yeah, it's from the previous CBA, but I haven't heard that there'd be any changes to the team salary provisions.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Especially ofter Shareef has supposedly conceded to take teh MLE if all else fails....WHat's NJ's incentive now when they can get Shraeef for the MLE without negotiating a S&T?



but it has to be Nash's fault that no one wanted to trade anything comparable (or reasonable) for Shareef..and it also is his fault that Shareef cut out any leverage the Blazers had by agreeing to sign for the MLE no matter what.

I don't like how they've (apparently) lost Shareef for nothing, but at the same time, I don't blame them for not taking something that'll (iirc) add onto their cap # (if they trade it) and 2nd round picks.

I just don't get how Portland is being greedy, when they'd be willing to only take a 1st round pick and a TE (which is basically useless for them) for someone who'd help New Jersey a WHOLE lot.

but whatever. just heep on Nash.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Trader Bob said:


> I think NJ wants Keyon Dooling as well, so they will cave in and give up a 1st round pick because they will sign him to the MLE


Why couldn't they just use their TE + 2nd rounder to pick him up?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Come on...That TE and draft pick are flipping worthless, and we have people here acting like they have value....

A TE that will NOT be used is nothing....A 2nd round pick at the tail end of a weak draft is NOTHING....

Yes, I think Nash screwed up, but he screwed up A LONG TIME AGO...He should have dealt SAR LAST YEAR....THAT was when he was going to get value.....

But in terms of THIS little tug of war b\t NJ & POR that is going on RIGHT NOW.....NO Nash did not screw up....NJ is offering garbage, and they know it, so does Nash...he should continue to hold to his demands.....Let NJ sign SAR to their MLE, and they can kiss Keyon Dooling goodbye.....Maybe they can peddle that TE to another team and get the best of both worlds...If so, you tip your hat to Thorn for getting SAR at a bottom basement price (and what an idiot SAR & his agent are BTW) and being able to add another player, but it took some luck for the pieces to fall in place, if that occurs, and the odds are usually against every working out perfectly...We will see

But certainly POR shouldn't make it easier for NJ by helping them out here....

Any of you pining for this deal as a last resort to nothing are being ridiculous....

And quit hoping that Nash will use the TE, he flat out said he won't...thru the media and thru email correspondence...POR WILL be under the luxury tax this year...it is a MAJOR directive.

NAsh pissed away ANY meaningful value for SAR a long time ago, so don't start crying about it now.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> What's your source for this? It's entirely possible that this is the case, but I haven't heard this before.
> 
> Ed O.


I was wrong it only counts as cap space if the team is under the cap.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

GOOD POST Kmurph, but dont forget that Nash tried to deal SAR last year, but couldnt get anything to help our situation in return, so the situation now is better than getting large/long contracts that were offered last season. We almost got Vince, but Toronto backed out at the last minute, not Nash's fault.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> I was wrong it only counts as cap space if the team is under the cap.


No worries. I thought that you had access to more info about the new CBA...

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

as far as GM's thinking badly about Nash... I seriously doubt it, he enabled the Nets to put the screws to an agent.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Our team is B-A-D.
> 
> How on earth can Nash be so sure that the "garbage" that NJ is offering won't help us?
> 
> ...



what do we have to gain by taking a TE they probably wouldn't use?

because obviously difference between the team doing the trade is a the TE AND a pick vs just the TE.

what do we gain by taking a TE? Maybe the team can trade it for someone, but what if the chances of that trade end up costing up getting a long contract? That makes it even more difficult to re-sign Joel (if they do other trades).

Not only that, WHO is available for the dollar amount of the TE, that's worth bean dip?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Actually B&B...Nash (allegedly) turned down a deal of Kittles, Aaron Williams and a 1st round pick

Nothing great, but better than what POR is going to end up with now.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> Actually B&B...Nash (allegedly) turned down a deal of Kittles, Aaron Williams and a 1st round pick
> 
> Nothing great, but better than what POR is going to end up with now.


Kittles? The guy barely even played last season due to injurys... we already have a DA. What are Kittles and Williams contracts like?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> what do we have to gain by taking a TE they probably wouldn't use?


Maybe nothing, but maybe something. The Nets didn't plan on using the trade exception they got, either, remember.

And, while it's possible that the Nets aren't offering any picks to go with the TE, every report I've seen says that they're offering at least a second round pick.

Ed O.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

PetroToZoran said:


> An angle that you may you not have thought about is what this does to future free agents and Portland players. Shareef Abdur-Rahim was a pretty good camper considering he came to the team as a 20/10 guy and played on the bench. His contract is now expiring and Portland is basically going to short change Shareef of $9 million.


Well, if you can ignore the fact hat he threatened not to play for us at the beginning of last year if we didn't trade him. He did relent, but that's hardly a "good camper". However, he definately could have been worse I agree.



PetroToZoran said:


> Free agents are likely to take notice of how Portland treated it's own players and may be hesitate to sign with Portland.


Double-edged sword here. They also could look at the Nets being unwilling to give up a late first round pick in exchange for a significant amount of extra money to a free agent who is taking a massive pay cut to play for their team as is. 

I don't really see how anyone can place the blame here on solely one club or the other. Personally I don't think there is blame to be placed anyways, both clubs are doing what they can to help themselves best. Thats the GMs job.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Kittles? The guy barely even played last season due to injurys... we already have a DA. What are Kittles and Williams contracts like?



basically in the scenario kmurph said, the only benefit would be getting the 1st round draft pick. Aaron Williams has a contract for this year (about 4 million) and Kittles' contract is up.

So we would've basically traded Shareef for a player who didn't play (Kittles) and a 12th man, and a pick...and people would've *****ed that that's the best he could've done for Shareef. And on top of that, that Kittles would've been a wasted pick-up.

so, in other words, exactly what people are doing now, and what Nash wants now.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

I'm not sure if Nash screwed up in his handling of the SAR negotiations with Nets, as there's a lot of grey area yet to be revealed... but he sure as bleep screwed up trading for him in the first place. As I said when that move went down, what talents he has are redundant to Zach's and nearly a complete waste on this club. Losing him for apparently nothing is largely a result of him being placed in such a bad situation IMO. 

I don't know how/why Nash thought that he would work in Portland.

STOMP


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

STOMP said:


> I'm not sure if Nash screwed up in his handling of the SAR negotiations with Nets, as there's a lot of grey area yet to be revealed... but he sure as bleep screwed up trading for him in the first place. As I said when that move went down, what talents he has are redundant to Zach's and nearly a complete waste on this club. Losing him for apparently nothing is largely a result of him being placed in such a bad situation IMO.
> 
> I don't know how/why Nash thought that he would work in Portland.
> 
> STOMP


I'm not sure I see how that was a mistake. We got 1 1/2 seasons of pretty good play from Shareef and Sheed had said he was going to walk at the end of the season anyway.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

It's a screw up if SAR does sign for the MLE and Nash gets nothing for him...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> As I said when that move went down, what talents he has are redundant to Zach's and nearly a complete waste on this club. Losing him for apparently nothing is largely a result of him being placed in such a bad situation IMO.
> 
> I don't know how/why Nash thought that he would work in Portland.


I remember you being against the move, and I remember disagreeing with you. I was wrong--it WAS a bad move--for at least four reasons:

1. I thought that we would be able to get some value for SAR. Even the best case at this point (a first rounder) isn't what I had in mind when I was looking towards getting value for him at the time.

2. I didn't anticipate the Blazers extending Zach before moving SAR. I thought that we would be able to look to trade Zach OR SAR when we had both with reasonable contracts. 

3. I didn't know that Theo was going to get a massive extension. That extension alone soured the whole Rasheed deal for me.

4. I believed the team was committed to remaining competitive as it sought financial responsibility and improved character.

As it turns out, Portland should have made a deal directly with Detroit, or they should have done something with Dallas for Antawn Jamison (who was later flipped for the #5 pick in the draft). Or Portland should have done things differently since the Rasheed trade.

Either way, the Atlanta deal stands out as an impediment more than a boon to the current direction Portland has decided to go.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> I'm not sure I see how that was a mistake. We got 1 1/2 seasons of pretty good play from Shareef and Sheed had said he was going to walk at the end of the season anyway.


Actually Nash claimed thats what Sheed said privately... Sheed repeatedly publically claimed he wanted to stay. After he was moved he ammended that to say management didn't want him... but lets not derail this thread with Wallace bleepola.

SAR's time in Portland was the worst year and a half of Blazer ball I've seen in my 30 years of following the club. As I said at the time he was dealt for, he is/was a terrible fit on this club and I'd have much rather have accepted Detroit's package of picks and expiring deals (which Atlanta quickly accepted) or the flat cap relief at the end of the year. Either option would have started the rebuilding process in earnest, instead us fans were treated to a horrible ballclub still well over the cap.

My opinion at the time was that it was a terrible trade for Portland... in retrospect it looks worse.

STOMP


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> The trade exception isn't a commodity that can be traded. It's just a credit that the Blazers would hold for one year that they could use to acquire a player. Since there's little likelihood that we'd want to use it, the value is in the pick.


I meant the draft picks as being packaged. But I can see how you may of thought that the way I worded it. I understand the TE is a credit.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

The mistake was trading Rasheed for Theo.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Hap said:


> Not only that, WHO is available for the dollar amount of the TE, that's worth bean dip?



Gooden... if Cleveland is looking to clear more room to sign another FA of a different variety

but a lot of things would have to happen for that to work out


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

STOMP said:


> SAR's time in Portland was the worst year and a half of Blazer ball I've seen in my 30 years of following the club. As I said at the time he was dealt for, he is/was a terrible fit on this club and I'd have much rather have accepted Detroit's package of picks and expiring deals (which Atlanta quickly accepted) or the flat cap relief at the end of the year. Either option would have started the rebuilding process in earnest, instead us fans were treated to a horrible ballclub still well over the cap.
> 
> My opinion at the time was that it was a terrible trade for Portland... in retrospect it looks worse.
> 
> STOMP


It might be that if you got Nash aside for a little one-on-one talk, he'd agree that things didn't work out the way he had hoped in the SAR deal. I think he planned on trading him that first summer, but didn't get an offer he liked. I think he planned on trading him last year before the deadline, but didn't get an offer that made sense for the team. In the meantime, the direction of the team changed from re-tooling on the fly to a total rebuild. That changes the emphasis from trying to make deals for high-priced veteran players to one of avoiding taking on salary and developing young talent. 

Bottom line, I think you have to wait a couple of years to see if the rebuilding effort pans out before you can judge Nash's success or failure.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

I think :dead:


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

its too early to tell


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> Bottom line, I think you have to wait a couple of years to see if the rebuilding effort pans out before you can judge Nash's success or failure.


When the blazers dealt for SAR and I (and others) came out strongly against the trade for the same reasons I've listed today, I was told to wait and see how things pan out. It's been a year and a half since and I'm still not alloud to pass judgement on it??? Sorry e_blazer1, waiting time is over... that move was a terrible waste/miscalculation by Nash and horrifically bad with Theo's extention factored in. *F-* bad (IMO).

STOMP


----------



## angrypuppy (Jul 5, 2005)

Not at all, he's just sticking to his plan.

After some horrendous financial losses, the Blazers are trying to get their house into financial order. This means minimizing luxury tax effects, which means the Blazers won't exercise NVE's option in an attempt to trade him as an expiring salary, and refused to shop SAR for a player. Last, I doubt Nash will use the full MLE.

The other critical issue was re-signing Joel Pryzbilla. Pending the final wording of the New CBA, it isn't clear that the Blazers have his Bird rights. If they don't, then they'll need to further reduce salaries. Trading SAR for a player would have been a step in the wrong direction.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

STOMP said:


> When the blazers dealt for SAR and I (and others) came out strongly against the trade for the same reasons I've listed today, I was told to wait and see how things pan out. It's been a year and a half since and I'm still not alloud to pass judgement on it??? Sorry e_blazer1, waiting time is over... that move was a terrible waste/miscalculation by Nash and horrifically bad with Theo's extention factored in. *F-* bad (IMO).
> STOMP


I took a wait and see attitude at the time, but knew we were pretty screwed once Rahim pulled up lame before the trading deadline.

If 2 2nd rounders and a TE is all we can get right now, we should take it. They're not worth much, but it's something.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

angrypuppy said:


> Not at all, he's just sticking to his plan.
> 
> After some horrendous financial losses, the Blazers are trying to get their house into financial order. This means minimizing luxury tax effects, which means the Blazers won't exercise NVE's option in an attempt to trade him as an expiring salary, and refused to shop SAR for a player. Last, I doubt Nash will use the full MLE.
> 
> The other critical issue was re-signing Joel Pryzbilla. Pending the final wording of the New CBA, it isn't clear that the Blazers have his Bird rights. If they don't, then they'll need to further reduce salaries. Trading SAR for a player would have been a step in the wrong direction.


Hmmm. Angrypuppy and Spud show up from the ESPN board within a couple of days of each other. Interesting...

How've you been AP? Enjoying the Lakers' rebuilding program?


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

As a Nets fan, I didn't want Thorn to trade a first rounder; however if the situation was reversed, I wouldn't want Thorn to take less.

I think Nash is doing what he has to do.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

It´s too early to tell right now. Of course, we won´t know for sure until Shareef has signed the dotted line.

If he walks for nothing, I don´t really consider it a loss. What we don´t gain in talent, we gain in savings. Ideally, we´d get a first rounder and the traded expection, that would be a big success. If we get nothing, I don´t necessarily consider it a failure.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Starting to sound like maybe holding out was a great move for the Trailblazers. I hope that New Jersey agrees with this deal sending a first rounder to Portland for Rahim.

linkage


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Im beggining to think that if Shareef was serious about signing the MLE, and not getting more (a fair chunk more) from Portland in a S&T, it'd already have happened.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> Im beggining to think that if Shareef was serious about signing the MLE, and not getting more (a fair chunk more) from Portland in a S&T, it'd already have happened.


What do you mean? He CAN'T sign for the MLE until after the moratorium, so it's impossible for him to have signed.

He's leaving the door open for Portland to work out a sign and trade because he has nothing to lose and a lot ($10m or so) to gain by doing so.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> What do you mean? He CAN'T sign for the MLE until after the moratorium, so it's impossible for him to have signed.


agree'd to than. 

mobley agree'd to a contract. So did swift, and evans (I think).

And so did Ray Allen and Michael redd.

If he's so adiment about agree'ing to the MLE, he can just announce that he's agree'd to it and be done with it.



> He's leaving the door open for Portland to work out a sign and trade because he has nothing to lose and a lot ($10m or so) to gain by doing so.
> 
> Ed O.


so like I was impying, he's more for the $$ than he is for the simple fact of playing with the Nets.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

According to Chad Ford:


> If the Nets are forced to use their mid-level on Abdur-Rahim, they'll still have until July 29th to use their $5 million trade exception to acquire another *free agent*.


I thought the trade exception could only be used in a trade?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I think its not for the money.. its just plain common sense by Rahim

I wish I had a chance to say.. Yes I want to go for the extra $10 mil.. so include Portland in the deal or I am not signing for the MLE.

$10 mil is a huge amount of money...


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Blazer Bert said:


> According to Chad Ford:
> 
> I thought the trade exception could only be used in a trade?


It is... its very much like a credit from a previous deal

it also means they can go out an purchase another player with the TE and still get Rahim for the MLE


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> so like I was impying, he's more for the $$ than he is for the simple fact of playing with the Nets.


That's simply not true, Hap. Neither logically nor by what's reported to date.

He's more interested in playing for the Nets for more money than for less. His stated position is that he's more interested in playing for the Nets for the MLE than he is with any other option, though.

Mobley, Redd, et al, had no alternatives that would land them with the same team for more money. SAR does have one, and of COURSE he's open to it.

It seems you're using the same logic of "let's just pick who we want at #3 and not worrying about trading down". There's a bit of simple strategy here on SAR's part, just like on the Blazers' during the draft dealings, that will result in a potentially better outcome than simply settling for the simpler approach.

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Ed O said:


> That's simply not true, Hap. Neither logically nor by what's reported to date.


Agreed. Seems to me that this way (if Shareef does sign with the Nets for the MLE), he gets to play for the team he (apparently) wants to play for, and that team gets to keep their 1st-rounder next season (potentially improving the team at a later date, either by trade or draft).

So Shareef's camp telling the Nets that he would sign for the MLE if it came to that is either the most selfless act I've seen a player/agent make in recent memory... or the most foolhardy. Maybe both?

PBF


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Nash hasn't screwed up on this because the fact is we don't know squat about what the details are.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> That's simply not true, Hap. Neither logically nor by what's reported to date.
> 
> He's more interested in playing for the Nets for more money than for less.


duh..what I said.



> His stated position is that he's more interested in playing for the Nets for the MLE than he is with any other option, though.


and yet, hasn't agree'd..



> Mobley, Redd, et al, had no alternatives that would land them with the same team for more money. SAR does have one, and of COURSE he's open to it.


that has nothign to do with why I brought them up. They already announced they agree'd. So it's possible to announce that the team has come to an agreement.

thats the *only* reason they were brought up.



> It seems you're using the same logic of "let's just pick who we want at #3 and not worrying about trading down". There's a bit of simple strategy here on SAR's part, just like on the Blazers' during the draft dealings, that will result in a potentially better outcome than simply settling for the simpler approach.


no **** sherlock. Thats what Im implying they're doing.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> no **** sherlock. Thats what Im implying they're doing.


I guess I don't understand what your point was.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I guess I don't understand what your point was.
> 
> Ed O.


I'll slow it down.

If Shareef was only interested in being a Net, he would've agree'd to their MLE offer, and that'd be that.

Since he hasn't, to me, it seems like he's really interested in more money. Therefore he really wants Portland to do a S&T with the Nets, and really wants the Nets to do a S&T with us.

He's in it for his own financial gain, so when I hear (from nets fans, or the papers) that it's a 'done deal' in theory, I don't believe it. If he was only interested in playing for the nets, he wouldn't have cared what Portland did, or wanted to wait for them to iron out a deal. He would've said "screw you Portland, I'm agree'ing right now".

instead he's going "Look, I'll sign this MLE sheet right here. I swear, I'll do it! Don't make me do it! Ok look, I'll sign it IF you don't do a sign and trade, but really, I mean it. I'll sign it. Honest, I will! But seriously, if you do a sign and trade, that's cool, but however, if you don't, I'll sign the MLE! I promise! Although, if you guys want to take longer to iron out the details, that's kosher with me. Seriously man, I will sign this contract, right on the dotted lines! Right here, my john hancock is about to be signed! Im signing...I'm going to sign at the count of 10...1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...I'm not kidding Portland. I'm going to sign that MLE with the Nets. You think I'm kidding, but I'm not. You guys will get nothing! But, like I said, if you can do the sign and trade, do it. I can wait. "


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> I'll slow it down.
> 
> If Shareef was only interested in being a Net, he would've agree'd to their MLE offer, and that'd be that.


Who IS "only interested in being a [insert team here]"? Of course he's interested in making more money.

Are you saying that if he doesn't get a sign and trade that he'll go to another team? Or are you simply saying that he's waiting because of financial reasons?

Your entire final paragraph seems like nonsense to me. What SAR and his agent are doing is entirely natural.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

either that or he recognizes that if they can work a S&T then the Nets would retain their MLE and be able to add more depth to their team, all the while getting more moeney.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Who IS "only interested in being a [insert team here]"? Of course he's interested in making more money.
> 
> Are you saying that if he doesn't get a sign and trade that he'll go to another team? Or are you simply saying that he's waiting because of financial reasons?
> 
> ...


again, no duh. because they want more money, and aren't really willing to be a net for the MLE. He's not going to sign for the MLE unless it's the last absolute straw. 

why are we arguing the same point?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> why are we arguing the same point?


Maybe we're not arguing 

It seems to me that you are saying that SAR isn't serious about taking the MLE from the Nets... which, to me, means that when push comes to shove (i.e., Portland declines to do a S&T) SAR won't sign with NJ.

Am I misreading your comments?

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Maybe we're not arguing
> 
> It seems to me that you are saying that SAR isn't serious about taking the MLE from the Nets... which, to me, means that when push comes to shove (i.e., Portland declines to do a S&T) SAR won't sign with NJ.
> 
> ...


in a round about way.

if push comes to shove, he'd begrundingly take it, but only because he'd have to. I doubt that he's already agree'd to take it, and that the Nets are not going to continue trade talking with Portland.

I wouldn't be surprised if he signs elsewhere, especially if he gets a S&T with Portland and another team.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Maybe we're not arguing
> 
> It seems to me that you are saying that SAR isn't serious about taking the MLE from the Nets... which, to me, means that when push comes to shove (i.e., Portland declines to do a S&T) SAR won't sign with NJ.
> 
> ...



I guess we'll never know since we will eventually get that 1st round draft pick.


----------



## angrypuppy (Jul 5, 2005)

e_blazer1 said:


> Hmmm. Angrypuppy and Spud show up from the ESPN board within a couple of days of each other. Interesting...
> 
> How've you been AP? Enjoying the Lakers' rebuilding program?



Ahhh, sweet, smart & sassy Spud. What could have been, had she lived in the "right" Portland (Maine).

I've been fine, e. Damn good to see you! I still owe you a beer if you make it out my way again. The Laker rebuilding program is humming along nicely. Given the cautious nature of our GM, I thought the team would keep Buter and continue to draft Mark Madsen types (low risk, low ceiling). Andrew Bynum's mother was reportedly glad that Nash passed on her son, as she didn't want her son exposed to the unsavory characters that reside in Portland. 

How're you enjoying the offseason, and what do you think the Portland plans? I'm most curious about the wording of the new CBA, and the impact on our two teams.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

And to think.. with the new CBA ratification being delayed and the signings delayed to Aug 1....

we can talk about Rahim for at least 2 more weeks... 

:rofl:


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

How have 46 people voted "yes" or "no" when nobody even knows what's going to happen?


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Tince said:


> How have 46 people voted "yes" or "no" when nobody even knows what's going to happen?


glad you asked!!!

I actually voted "yes" after logging on and immediately reading a report that claimed Shareef had agreed to the MLE and that Nash had turned down 2 2nd rounders...

12 hours later, I've heard 100 conflicting reports essentially amounting to, wait and see, so yeah, wish I could change my vote.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

It's too easy to answer if you wait until it's resolved. I voted No because even if we don't get anything I think it's best to maintain your credibility for future negotiations.


----------

