# Condition Of The Blazers?



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Just a few follow-up opinions as to potential reasons and conditions for the state of this team:

*Fiscal Mandate* -- Discussed plenty here, yet still relevant. Nash will not be taking back any bad contract for any of our players. Nor, will he add to the current payroll in any way. Not surprisingly, he hasn't had any takers as many GM's either don't like the offers presented, or seem to be in the same situation in terms of not adding to payrolls already over the cap.

*Drafting High-Schoolers & Euros* -- Right, wrong, or otherwise, Management has taken the path of drafting high-schoolers and The Russian Duo in the 1st Round over the past 3 years (If memory serves, Travis Outlaw, the _elder statesman_ of the bunch would be a college senior right now.) Naturally, due to their reasonable assimilation into the NBA way and system, takes a few years longer to realize that value, as opposed to selecting college juniors or seniors. Do a degree, this same theory applies to drafting Euros. Short of, say, Tony Parker and maybe a few others, I don't know of very many European players on other teams that have stepped right in and made an immediate impact. This is not an excuse, simply an observation.

*Injuries* -- Sure, most teams have to deal with injuries. But, a team in a re-building mode can rarely afford to lose so many of their best players for long stretches over the season. The results are usually not good - as is the case with this current squad.

*The Nate Factor* -- I believe if Management had hired a mediocre yes-man to run this team, things would have turned out a bit differently. Not necessarily more wins, but different - it really would have then continued to be Nash's team. However, the Blazers pursued Nate, then offered him a long-term, high-dollar contract. In other words, they jumped squarely in bed with him as a game coach, not to mention his philosophical (no-bones, throwback, bring-your-lunchpail, my-way-or-the-highway) approach to today's NBA players. That being said, I believe PatterNash basically handed him the keys in terms of the types of players that would end up staying. I believe the slate was cleared last summer - despite any of PatterNash's then current notions regarding existing players. It would now become Nate's team. So, then, set into motion this current season as being one of evaluation and planning for the future - led by Nate himself. Hence, we've seen probably 20-something different starting units, players sent to the D-league, odd lineups and substitution patterns, etc. Although Nate obviously would like to win, he's still committed to boiling this team down to the point he can make logical, educated decisions in terms of who stays and who goes next season. In my opinion, it's really that simple. This is effectively a throwaway season.

*The Players' Emotions* -- Despite all the aforementioned, the players want to win. They're pros. Who can blame them? They currently see our team in another downward spiral and, consequently, all that frustration and emotion begins to well up and spew out. We're again beginning to hear the "We need better players! We need trades!" mantra, as well as some of the guys seemingly _protesting_ by not giving it their all. I believe the team is currently in that state. Nate's got a quasi-"mutiny" on his hands - he knows it, but is determined and locked-in his position (short of incessant tirades) as to what can or will be done. Bottom-line is, Nate is committed to the end result - hopefully, which will ultimately manifest itself next season and beyond.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: State Of The Blazers?*



ABM said:


> *The Players' Emotions* -- Despite all the aforementioned, the players want to win. They're pros. Who can blame them? They currently see our team in another downward spiral and, consequently, all that frustration and emotion begins to well up and spew out. We're again beginning to hear the "We need better players! We need trades!" mantra, as well as some of the guys seemingly _protesting_ by not giving it their all. I believe the team is currently in that state. Nate's got a quasi-"mutiny" on his hands - he knows it, but is determined and locked-in his position (short of incessant tirades) as to what can or will be done. Bottom-line is, Nate is committed to the end result - hopefully, which will ultimately manifest itself next season and beyond.


You know, what's funny, is that the players didn't say a trade needs to be made of their own initiative. They were ask if they thought a trade should be made. To me that is a big difference compared to players saying on their own we need to make a trade. It's just typical Oregonian writers trying to cause a rift.



> Do the Blazers need to make a trade?
> 
> "They are going to have to," Patterson said. "There are a lot of guys who are unhappy here. It's just time to make some moves."
> 
> ...


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: State Of The Blazers?*



mgb said:


> You know, what's funny, is that the players didn't say a trade needs to be made of their own initiative. They were ask if they thought a trade should be made. To me that is a big difference compared to players saying on their own we need to make a trade. It's just typical Oregonian writers trying to cause a rift.


Hmmmm....interesting. There's probably a little bit of both going on in this case.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: State Of The Blazers?*



ABM said:


> Hmmmm....interesting. There's probably a little bit of both going on in this case.


Same thing with Nate even saying we need to make a trade which some people have claimed. He just answered a question Jason asked. His answer was company line all the way, we always look at it,,,,


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: State Of The Blazers?*

Oregon.

I figured you knew that by now. :biggrin:


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: State Of The Blazers?*



MARIS61 said:


> Oregon.
> 
> I figured you knew that by now. :biggrin:


Haha, funny. Sad to say though I reread the posts trying to figure out what you were replying too until I seen the thread title again. Talk about slooowwwwww!


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: State Of The Blazers?*



MARIS61 said:


> Oregon.
> 
> I figured you knew that by now. :biggrin:



It's lovely having editing capabilities. :devil:


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Adding to what ABM said....

I noticed that the very players being asked about potential roster moves/trades etc. are not the cornerstone youth. Really, who cares what Ruben has to say - we all know his motivation is first, his contract, second his exposure, and third his stats. He wants to be traded to a deep playoff type team - as would anyone nearing the end of their career.

I'd be interested in the opinion of Khryapa, Outlaw, Telfair as to what ILLS the team.

ABM - in general, I agree with your assessment - this and next season are throw aways. We are building for the future not the present. But the team still wants fans to enter the building - so they say that a goal is staying competitive. Yeah, right!


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

What a difference 6 games makes and a very long road trip. If we put us in a time machine and travelled back 10 days, many would of said they feared our recent road trip but have been pleased with the competitiveness of the Blazers for the most part of the season. We have lost several games that were close, and have gone toe to toe with some of the better teams in the league like Detroit and SA once.

But after 3 consecutive 30+ blowouts on the road trip, there seems to be a panic amongst many. Not that is not a big concern mind you. Its just not abandon ship yet.

I think the team had made strides this year despite their only 18 victories. I think like last year, that what Nash can come up with by the trading deadline is crucial to the team. I think he blew many missed opportunities last year with all those expiring/potential terminating contracts. With a glutten of SF's we still have an opportunity now to do something of worth. Moving Theo or maybe Darius or Ruben may be a good option. But we shall see.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> ABM - in general, I agree with your assessment - this and next season are throw aways. We are building for the future not the present. But the team still wants fans to enter the building - so they say that a goal is staying competitive. Yeah, right!


Thanks.

I understand what you're saying about competitiveness, but, as I mentioned above, when Nate came on-board, things instantly changed (hopefully, for the better in the long run). He's taking this season to get a _real_ feel for what he has.......and the Blazer Managent team is stepping aside (for now) and letting him do the things he feels need to be accomplished........as seemingly _destructive_ (starters/rotation mixing, D-League, etc.) as those moves may appear.

Think of the bush/tree you've just pruned back....and how ugly and void it currently looks......yet, still provides you with a sense of _accomplishment_.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Trader Bob said:


> What a difference 6 games makes and a very long road trip. If we put us in a time machine and travelled back 10 days, many would of said they feared our recent road trip but have been pleased with the competitiveness of the Blazers for the most part of the season. We have lost several games that were close, and have gone toe to toe with some of the better teams in the league like Detroit and SA once.
> 
> But after 3 consecutive 30+ blowouts on the road trip, there seems to be a panic amongst many. Not that is not a big concern mind you. Its just not abandon ship yet.
> 
> I think the team had made strides this year despite their only 18 victories. I think like last year, that what Nash can come up with by the trading deadline is crucial to the team. I think he blew many missed opportunities last year with all those expiring/potential terminating contracts. With a glutten of SF's we still have an opportunity now to do something of worth. Moving Theo or maybe Darius or Ruben may be a good option. But we shall see.


I was going to say the same thing. Stick a microphone in front of a couple guys that lost 3 games by almost 100 points and ask them if a trade is necessary . . . what do you expect? As for the trading deadline being crucial - I'm so sick of hearing this. We heard that at last years trading deadline, and nothing. Then, we heard that last off season would be/could be Portland's most critical in the history of the franchise. I think we all want to believe something good is going to happen to his team, but who knows when that will be? This years trading deadline? The draft? A trade or FA this summer? The only difference I see in this years trading deadline vs. previous years is that if we make a trade, it will probably be for financial reasons. We used to be on the other end of that. We'd trade 7 scrubs for Pippen, or Rider/JJ for Steve Smith, Eddie Gill & cash for a draft pick, etc. From a fans perspective, those trades (where you get more talent back than you give) are a lot more enjoyable. I just don't see a trade coming before the deadline that the fans are going to be estatic about. And if the Theo/Miles for Lee/Penny is true, I think there will be a lot of upset people. It certainly isn't a move that will make us better right away. That's the only type of move I can see happening. Forget about the Blazers trading for Pierce, or any other "Star" player with a big contract.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

kaydow said:


> I was going to say the same thing. Stick a microphone in front of a couple guys that lost 3 games by almost 100 points and ask them if a trade is necessary . . . what do you expect? As for the trading deadline being crucial - I'm so sick of hearing this. We heard that at last years trading deadline, and nothing. Then, we heard that last off season would be/could be Portland's most critical in the history of the franchise. I think we all want to believe something good is going to happen to his team, but who knows when that will be? This years trading deadline? The draft? A trade or FA this summer? The only difference I see in this years trading deadline vs. previous years is that if we make a trade, it will probably be for financial reasons. We used to be on the other end of that. We'd trade 7 scrubs for Pippen, or Rider/JJ for Steve Smith, Eddie Gill & cash for a draft pick, etc. From a fans perspective, those trades (where you get more talent back than you give) are a lot more enjoyable. I just don't see a trade coming before the deadline that the fans are going to be estatic about. And if the Theo/Miles for Lee/Penny is true, I think there will be a lot of upset people. It certainly isn't a move that will make us better right away. That's the only type of move I can see happening. Forget about the Blazers trading for Pierce, or any other "Star" player with a big contract.


You can only make a trade if it benefits both teams. That's why most trades don't get done, one team feels like they are getting hosed. In order for Nash to make a trade, he has to satisfy the other team while making our team better also from the trade, hard to do but he is getting paid big bucks to do this kind of stuff, in other words, if he is trying to do a deal with the Knicks, he has to see how he could make them a better team also, seems strange but that's reality, he must act like he's the Knicks GM also.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SolidGuy3 said:


> You can only make a trade if it benefits both teams. That's why most trades don't get done, one team feels like they are getting hosed. In order for Nash to make a trade, he has to satisfy the other team while making our team better also from the trade, hard to do but he is getting paid big bucks to do this kind of stuff, in other words, if he is trying to do a deal with the Knicks, he has to see how he could make them a better team also, seems strange but that's reality, he must act like he's the Knicks GM also.


hold the phone martha..why is it you can make that kind of comment, and then make contradictory statements regarding nash and being able to make or not make trades?

just repeat this paragraph to yourself whenever you feel a rant coming on.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

ABM said:


> *Fiscal Mandate* -- Discussed plenty here, yet still relevant. Nash will not be taking back any bad contract for any of our players. Nor, will he add to the current payroll in any way.


You mean he won't do either of those things *AGAIN?*

*Because he's already done both.*

Had he stood pat and let current contracts expire instead of trading for Theo and Miles, and then giving both ridiculous, enormously bloated and undeserved early contract extensions, and giving Zach an enormously bloated and undeserved contract extension, we'd be in awesome shape right now financially and I'm pretty sure we'd have no worse record.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Adding to what ABM said....
> 
> I noticed that the very players being asked about potential roster moves/trades etc. are not the cornerstone youth. Really, who cares what Ruben has to say - we all know his motivation is first, his contract, second his exposure, and third his stats. He wants to be traded to a deep playoff type team - as would anyone nearing the end of their career.
> 
> ...


Ya, you know why? Because Jason is the one doing the asking. He knows who to ask to get the answer he wants.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> You mean he won't do either of those things *AGAIN?*
> 
> *Because he's already done both.*
> 
> Had he stood pat and let current contracts expire instead of trading for Theo and Miles, and then giving both ridiculous, enormously bloated and undeserved early contract extensions, and giving Zach an enormously bloated and undeserved contract extension, we'd be in awesome shape right now financially and I'm pretty sure we'd have no worse record.



I hear ya.

Theo came in the Rasheed deal, so I think that would have been OK by itself. The contract extension? Hmmm....probably one of Nash & Comapny's single biggest faux pas. (even thoughh at the "time" it certainly seemed not as bad/foolish as it does now [see Whitsitt's Jermaine for DD].) 

Miles for McGinnis is still considered to be a rather deft trade on Nash's part. I suppose the jury's still out on whether the extension will ultimately be worth it, though. However, it's been said that PA ruled out EVERYBODY to make that happen - he was enamoured with Miles so much.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

ABM said:


> Theo came in the Rasheed deal, so I think that would have been OK by itself. The contract extension? Hmmm....probably one of Nash & Comapny's single biggest faux pas. (even thoughh at the "time" it certainly seemed not as bad/foolish as it does now


When that deal went down I was not alone in calling that trade the lemon that it was. SAR and Theo didn't change their spots once they became Blazers... they were inferior talents to what was shipped out and just a terrible fit with what was already in place. Nothing OK about it.

The details of Theo's extention weren't released for quite some time until after he had resigned... strange that they held onto those for so long. Once they did become public, I recall many posters shaking their heads. Time passing has revealed who was right and wrong among us mere posters on this and the other various issues we discuss, but we aren't paid millions for our talent evaluations and negotiation skills, and we can't really be held accountable for being right/wrong.



> However, it's been said that PA ruled out EVERYBODY to make that happen - he was enamoured with Miles so much.


I'd really be interested if you could provide any sort of credible link to this. The only people I've read saying what you're alleging are posters here at bbb.net openly getting their speculation on. To my knowledge the Blazers keep what goes into their decision making process pretty close to the vest.

You recently started a thread demanding that people stop blaming Nash alone... is this some of your evidence that you're basing your theories on?

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> I'd really be interested if you could provide any sort of credible link to this. The only people I've read saying what you're alleging are posters here at bbb.net openly getting their speculation on. To my knowledge the Blazers keep what goes into their decision making process pretty close to the vest.
> 
> STOMP


altho it IS Vescey, there's this. Not sure if it vindicates what ABM said tho.



> Other than that, owner Paul Allen has grown fond of Miles and it's doubtful he'd approve his exodus. "That's nice of the Knicks," chuckled a Portland official. "They're willing to take two players we like and let us keep the one (Ruben Patterson) we don't like."


You could try emailing Dwight Jaynes or Kerrg Eggers and see if they would say yes or not to ABM's assertion.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Right on mgb, I'm glad you pointed that out. Obviously, if the goal were short term, i.e. to balance the roster to scrap for a few extra wins this year, this team would need a trade. Quick asked the questions to elicit the answers he's looking for and to try to create controversy. Controversy, real or manufactured, sells.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> altho it IS Vescey, there's this. Not sure if it vindicates what ABM said tho.


I did say credible... 

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> I did say credible...
> 
> STOMP


true


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

STOMP said:


> When that deal went down I was not alone in calling that trade the lemon that it was. SAR and Theo didn't change their spots once they became Blazers... they were inferior talents to what was shipped out and just a terrible fit with what was already in place. Nothing OK about it.
> 
> The details of Theo's extention weren't released for quite some time until after he had resigned... strange that they held onto those for so long. Once they did become public, I recall many posters shaking their heads. Time passing has revealed who was right and wrong among us mere posters on this and the other various issues we discuss, but we aren't paid millions for our talent evaluations and negotiation skills, and we can't really be held accountable for being right/wrong.
> 
> ...


Wallace made it impossible to get as much talent back as was going out. He quit playing here so the talent we had was nothing more than a cancer. He started playing again about ten games before he left because it was a contract year and he decided for his own good it was time to start playing. That is what people seem to forget when they state about how bad of a trade it was. Of course that is just my opinion.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

mgb said:


> Wallace made it impossible to get as much talent back as was going out. He quit playing here so the talent we had was nothing more than a cancer. He started playing again about ten games before he left because it was a contract year and he decided for his own good it was time to start playing. That is what people seem to forget when they state about how bad of a trade it was. Of course that is just my opinion.


I forget very little thanks, and yet (of course) I completely disagree. 

I'm not going to address your take on Wallace's play (I've stated my feelings on that more then enough) but I will take issue with your comments justifying what they moved him for. At the time I stated that it was a terrible deal because it lowered their short term prospects and did nothing to address their future. Moving him for the Detroit package of expiring deals and a #1 would have been a much better path to take... right? Or (my most perfered plan) they could have gone into the offseason with the option of S&Ting him at significantly lower figures (closer to what he resigned in Detroit for) where many more teams could have potencially swung a deal for him. If the S&T options wernt' to their liking, the backup option would have been to just let him walk and clear capspace for an UFA to be signed later. 

Those were the other known options. Each would have been much better for the next generation of Blazer teams, but unfortunately management felt otherwise. Especially with the benefit of hindsight it's baffling to me how anyone could argue that it was anything but a bad trade.

STOMP


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> ..I'd really be interested if you could provide any sort of credible link to this. The only people I've read saying what you're alleging are posters here at bbb.net openly getting their speculation on. To my knowledge the Blazers keep what goes into their decision making process pretty close to the vest.


I know, I know you asked for "credible", but, there is THIS from Canzano... 



> Paul Allen, always the venture capitalist, is in love with Miles' potential and athleticism. He views No. 23 as a lucrative start-up. And it so happens that Allen also owns the team, so maybe this plea should be written in BASIC programming language.....
> 
> .......The Blazers are paralyzed by the fear of making a mistake, or taking on a bad contract in return, right? But while we're on the subject, what do they consider Miles' contract? And does anyone on the basketball side really have Allen's ear anymore?
> 
> Something tells me we're about to find out.


OTOH, here's a piece from CNNSI.com



> ....It's no secret that Miles was re-signed by Portland to a six-year, $48-million contract in summer 2004 at the command of owner Paul Allen, who apparently loves Miles' fluid versatility and upside. The Blazers had taken Miles off Cleveland's hands the previous January for the low price of Jeff McInnis and Ruben Boumtje-Boumtje.
> 
> "I respect the owner a lot, but the GM and the president? It is what it is,'' says Miles. "A lot of the situations last year were not really handled professionally. There was a lot of blame on me, and I was upset because I was taking all this heat, but at the time it was not really my team.''


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

STOMP said:


> I forget very little thanks, and yet (of course) I completely disagree.
> 
> I'm not going to address your take on Wallace's play (I've stated my feelings on that more then enough) but I will take issue with your comments justifying what they moved him for. At the time I stated that it was a terrible deal because it lowered their short term prospects and did nothing to address their future. Moving him for the Detroit package of expiring deals and a #1 would have been a much better path to take... right? Or (my most perfered plan) they could have gone into the offseason with the option of S&Ting him at significantly lower figures (closer to what he resigned in Detroit for) where many more teams could have potencially swung a deal for him. If the S&T options wernt' to their liking, the backup option would have been to just let him walk and clear capspace for an UFA to be signed later.
> 
> ...


Wallace made it known he wouldn't resign with us leaving us with very little levarage in any deal. It's that simple. We are lucky to get what we got.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> Moving him for the Detroit package of expiring deals and a #1 would have been a much better path to take... right? Or (my most perfered plan) they could have gone into the offseason with the option of S&Ting him at significantly lower figures (closer to what he resigned in Detroit for) where many more teams could have potencially swung a deal for him. If the S&T options wernt' to their liking, the backup option would have been to just let him walk and clear capspace for an UFA to be signed later.


You think Ed O. has a hard-on for the Blazer brass now? IMO, he (and many others) would have crucified management if any one of those options had occurred.

I think the feeling was that Theo, certainly was a serviceable Center, while it was also hopeful that SAR could man the 3. Things don't always turn out as planned. Just ask Apolo Ohno, Bodie Miller and Michelle Kwan.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

ABM said:


> You think Ed O. has a hard-on for the Blazer brass now?


No, I think it's the opposite, isn't it?



> I think the feeling was that Theo, certainly was a serviceable Center, while it was also hopeful that SAR could man the 3. Things don't always turn out as planned. Just ask Apolo Ohno, Bodie Miller and Michelle Kwan.


Sometimes luck happens, but bad plans tend to work out badly. The plan was that SAR would be a winner in Portland after being a loser his whole career, and that Theo would be healthy as a horse after being injury prone. That's a bad plan, because it requires something between good luck and a miracle to work. It wasn't bad luck that it didn't work. Not working was by far the most likely outcome.

barfo


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

mgb said:


> Wallace made it known he wouldn't resign with us leaving us with very little levarage in any deal. It's that simple. We are lucky to get what we got.


Everything is simple if you selectively look at the evidence. There are conflicting reports of what exactly went on behind the scenes, but facts are in public Wallace always said he hoped to resign. TV, print, and radio, again and again. But whatever... lets address what we actually do know.

Portland didn't need any more leverage to have traded him for Detroit's offer. They wouldn't have needed any extra leverage to wait until the offseason to choose between S&T offers or letting him walk either. They needed better judgement, not more leverage.

The Blazer management was hosed in that trade, and then compounded that mistake by prematurely extending Theo at top dollar. We've been anything but lucky to be rooting for that mess... 

I really wonder why you're defending those mistakes as somehow forced apon management. They had choices to make, they just choose incorrectly. 

STOMP


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> No, I think it's the opposite, isn't it?



One would think that, but, when I lived in Centralia, WA, I learned when it was said someone had a "hard-on" for another, it meant that they had a certain degree of disdain for them. Go figure. :whoknows:


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

STOMP said:


> Everything is simple if you selectively look at the evidence. There are conflicting reports of what exactly went on behind the scenes, but facts are in public Wallace always said he hoped to resign. TV, print, and radio, again and again. But whatever... lets address what we actually do know.
> 
> Portland didn't need any more leverage to have traded him for Detroit's offer. They wouldn't have needed any extra leverage to wait until the offseason to choose between S&T offers or letting him walk either. They needed better judgement, not more leverage.
> 
> ...


I watch games where I question if Wallace was trying to win or lose games. That is something I seen, nothing I read. Wallace wanted to leave Portland in a dive when he left, that is my opinion. Later I read that he wasn't completing his assignments, didn't want the ball, how accruate that is I don't know, but from what I seen I believe it. Damon made the statement something to the effect that Wallace knows now it's for his own good to play well, that was how he played the last ten or so games. Before that from what I read, he didn't feel 'wanted' so he didn't care. The $17M or whatever he was making didn't mean anything, but as long as he didn't feel 'wanted'. Of course I don't know how much what I read is true, unless it was a direct quote from a player, but I do know what I seen on the court either on tv or when I was there.

One other thing, I'm not arguing the talent Wallace has or how good he is when he 'wants' to play well.

Also, any sign and trade Wallace has to agree too. I'm not sure what players we would have wanted from Detroit but Wallace is only going to S/T with a team that isn't giving up to much or why go there? And I don't believe he'd do any deal that'd help Portland. Only my opinion.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

ABM said:


> You think Ed O. has a hard-on for the Blazer brass now? IMO, he (and many others) would have crucified management if any one of those options had occurred.


Assuming that would happen, how exactly does that matter? I'm much more concerned about the potencial of the club to contend then what Ed thinks. He seems to be a pretty standup guy as far as admitting when he's been wrong in the past though... certainly better then many here. In fact he has previously admitted he was wrong thinking that the Wallace trade was a good one.



> I think the feeling was that Theo, certainly was a serviceable Center, while it was also hopeful that SAR could man the 3.


Managements are usually judged by what results from their decisions, right? Theo's been a one-trick (shot blocking) pony for his career. He's also undersized, and oft-injured. He's now 33, a backup, and commanding 1/4 of Portland's cap. 

SAR has played on the low block his whole career. Prior to this year, so had Zach (he's coming back from injury so hopefully next year he's back to banging). Two forwards on the low block plus a center with no offensive game and guards with streaky outside shooting (at best) is a recipe for offensive struggles. Both Zach and SAR struggle guarding 4's, and both obviously lack the quickness to guard 3's. I (and others) said this from the outset, and the games proved the point pretty emphatically IMO.

Hope is a great thing to have, but I'd rather put mine behind a management with a better eye for talent and on-floor team chemistry. 

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

mgb said:


> any sign and trade Wallace has to agree too. I'm not sure what players we would have wanted from Detroit but Wallace is only going to S/T with a team that isn't giving up to much or why go there? And I don't believe he'd do any deal that'd help Portland. Only my opinion.


Sure he'd have had to agree to a S&T... but I'll believe a player will turn down a contract appox twice as big after I see it happen once or twice. CTC right? Detroit was far from the only team that Portland could have dealt him to and the value of what they got back could have varied greatly. The value might have been in vets or in young players or picks packaged with overpriced vets. I think your assertion that built up spite for Portland would have him nixing deals that might benefit them is a big reach. 

If he wouldn't agree to the various scenarios the Blazers liked, then they could have just watched him walk clearing 17 mil from Portland's books and opening a variety of options for a creative GM. The rebuilding effort would have begun in full rather then the half-donkeyed way it did.

STOMP


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> I'm much more concerned about the potencial of the club to contend then what Ed thinks. He seems to be a pretty standup guy as far as admitting when he's been wrong in the past though... certainly better then many here.


Speak for yourself....Mr. "Morrison is so overrated" (which you constantly said last year)....

Now that he's making people look like fools, your nowhere to be found when anything regarding him pops up, last year you would of been all over it like white on rice...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Speak for yourself....Mr. "Morrison is so overrated" (which you constantly said last year)....
> 
> Now that he's making people look like fools, your nowhere to be found when anything regarding him pops up, last year you would of been all over it like white on rice...


Nice irrelevant bait... since you called me out directly I'll hit

If I found delusions funny, I'd find your post hilarious. Sadly...

Link one thread where I said that Adam Morrison is "so overrated" which supposively I was doing constantly last year, and you might have a point. I don't recall saying anything close. I've responded plenty to what I think of him last year and this... good offensive player who can create his own shot, below average athlete and defender. I've compared him favorably to one time AS Wally Szczerbiak. I'm not shy with that view and if he suddenly stops moving like Frankenstein and demonstrates he can defend an NBA starting 3 then I'll happily upgrade him in the opinions I share.

If you're noticing that I'm not participating in every one of your rise and shine Adam-lovefest threads, it's not because I don't think he's going to make the league, but more that I find your daily calls for group deep inhaling of his jock creepy. It's not like anyone here really knows me and I'd be embarassed to admit I was wrong on something. Heck, this past offseason I was wrong predicting the Suns would be bad. Now I think they're legit. So what?

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Morrison might be MORE overrated now than ever before. Last year he wasn't even an all-american (OK... he was honorable mention... not sure if that counts) and he wasn't a consensus top-5 pick. At this point he might be guaranteed in the top 3, and it's very possible he's just setting up some team for a bigger disappointment.

But I can't see the future. I just hope that the Blazers don't end up with him if we have a top 3 pick. I don't see a reason to participate in zags' little love-fests, either, though.

Ed O.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Let me first stipulate that I haven't seen Morrison play and I don't plan to until he plays in the NBA. I'm not paid to be a scout, and I don't think the blazers will be asking my opinion on who to draft, so I don't have any reason to watch college ball.

But... when somebody gets called the 'next Larry Bird', I don't even need to see him play to know he's overrated. 

I wonder if Larry Bird ever met Lady Bird?

barfo


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Morrison might be MORE overrated now than ever before. Last year he wasn't even an all-american (OK... he was honorable mention... not sure if that counts) and he wasn't a consensus top-5 pick. At this point he might be guaranteed in the top 3, and it's very possible he's just setting up some team for a bigger disappointment.
> 
> But I can't see the future. *I just hope that the Blazers don't end up with him if we have a top 3 pick*. I don't see a reason to participate in zags' little love-fests, either, though.
> 
> Ed O.


Me neither, Ed... me neither. If we're going to take a SF with a top-3 pick, I'd MUCH rather we take Rudy Gay (or, possibly, Bargnani--who apparently could play either SF or PF in the NBA). Rudy may not be the "pure scorer" that Morrison is, but he's just an all-around better prospect, in my opinion... not to mention that he actually plays all 94', unlike Adam Morrison (who only plays 47'). :biggrin:


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Nice irrelevant bait... since you called me out directly I'll hit


Its completely relevant, since you were the one calling people out for doing the same thing...Not fessing to being wrong in the past is exactly what you have done....



> If I found delusions funny, I'd find your post hilarious. Sadly...


uh okay. *yawn*




> Link one thread where I said that Adam Morrison is "so overrated" which supposively I was doing constantly last year, and you might have a point. I don't recall saying anything close.


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=221864&page=1&pp=15&highlight=Adam+Morrison+STOMP

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=202477&highlight=Adam+Morrison+STOMP 



> good offensive player who can create his own shot, below average athlete and defender. I've compared him favorably to one time AS Wally Szczerbiak. I'm not shy with that view and if he suddenly stops moving like Frankenstein and demonstrates he can defend an NBA starting 3 then I'll happily upgrade him in the opinions I share.


Morrison isn't a great defender, but he's not a horrible defender either....Like most guys who average 30 a game, he isn't going to be a shutdown defender...In fact, I can't think of many players that are that good offensively and are great defenders...

So its obvious that your just grasping at something to knock him for, because obviously it hasn't hampered other players who were drafted highly...(especially in an NBA era that is score first)...

BTW he held (everbody's unwarranted golden boy Rudy Gay) to 10 points...going to overlook that too?...

Wally as a Junior was averaging 24 points a game, Morrison is averaging nearly 30...both in weaker conferences and both are claimed to be not great defenders...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Morrison might be MORE overrated now than ever before. Last year he wasn't even an all-american (OK... he was honorable mention... not sure if that counts) and he wasn't a consensus top-5 pick. At this point he might be guaranteed in the top 3, and it's very possible he's just setting up some team for a bigger disappointment.


Thats your opinion and I guess you have the right to that....But do you have anything substantial to back it up?



> But I can't see the future. I just hope that the Blazers don't end up with him if we have a top 3 pick. I don't see a reason to participate in zags' little love-fests, either, though.


Same way I feel about participating in your little "management sucks" and our young players aren't good fests as well....


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Please, give me someone that can play D. Give me a Buck Williams type of player. We need the backbone of our team. Anyone in the draft like that worth picking where we'll most likely draft?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mgb said:


> Please, give me someone that can play D. Give me a Buck Williams type of player. We need the backbone of our team. Anyone in the draft like that worth picking where we'll most likely draft?


you take that kind of player at 30 or 34. not 1-5.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Thats your opinion and I guess you have the right to that....But do you have anything substantial to back it up?


Common sense?

A player that's considered to be one of the best--if not THE best--player in the country is rated more highly--and therefore might be MORE overrated--than a player that's in the mid-teens in terms of top players.



> Same way I feel about participating in your little "management sucks" and our young players aren't good fests as well....


Of course, Blazers management has more to do with the Blazers than Morrison does. If we were on a Gonzaga board I think your point would have a bit more merit.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> you take that kind of player at 30 or 34. not 1-5.


I think that a top-5 pick on a player that is defensive-focused would be tough to do, too, unless that player were a center.

IMO we don't just need a guy like Buck Williams who can come in and defend and rebound. We need to get better players, and ideally at least one jolt of productive talent into the roster. Limiting the player to primarily offensive or defensive capabilities makes me nervous...

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Its completely relevant, since you were the one calling people out for doing the same thing...Not fessing to being wrong in the past is exactly what you have done....


exactly what I've done eh? This ought to be good...



> uh okay. *yawn*
> 
> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=221864&page=1&pp=15&highlight=Adam+Morrison+STOMP
> 
> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=202477&highlight=Adam+Morrison+STOMP


Is your reading/comprehension really this poor? You've got absolutely nothing, yet you're acting like you've caught me red handed. In those links I posted nothing even remotely along the lines of calling him overrated. 

When you mock other posters who don't agree with your opinion as knowing nothing about college hoops and claim that every college expert feels otherwise... and then I link the recent thoughts of one of your two listed experts that directly contradicts your claim... thats not necessarily my view that they're stating. When I point out how preposterous it is for you to claim to be in the know about what every scout feels about Adam, that has nothing to do with my opinion of his game. I take a lot more issue with the insults you throw at those who merely disagree with you and your poorly constructed arguments then I do with Adam's game. 



> Morrison isn't a great defender, but he's not a horrible defender either....Like most guys who average 30 a game, he isn't going to be a shutdown defender...In fact, I can't think of many players that are that good offensively and are great defenders...
> 
> So its obvious that your just grasping at something to knock him for, because obviously it hasn't hampered other players who were drafted highly...(especially in an NBA era that is score first)...


I guess thats why the saying goes _offense wins championships_... eh Zags?

It's my belief that to build a team that can contend, a GM needs to look to put defense first and foremost. With cornerstones of Zach and Telfair, my favorite team is not off to a good start in this regard. I believe that having good defenders along their front line is a large part of the success of the San Antonio and Detroit clubs. I can't think of a past champion that wasn't one of the best defensive clubs in the league. IMO, offense is the easy part. Emphasizing my belief in the importance of D is something I do when I cast my 2 cents in on any player or team, not just in your bizarro world of all things Adam.

Both Wally and Adam are thought to be poor defenders, because thats what they are. By NBA SF standards they don't possess average athleticism... I can't think of a decent wing defender that didn't have that going for them. Both can shoot the lights out, and Adam's high release may allow him to get off more shots in the pros then Wally, but both will always be a step slow. Pretty much everyone who evaluates hoops notes this. It's as obvious as the rain in Portland. So when both last year and this I pointed to lack of athleticism and D I'm not grasping at straws, I'm pointing to the same flaws that most others do.

On the other hand, I'm a big proponent of drafting the best talent available over need. When the Blazers select, despite having needs everywhere besides SF, that best available talent may in fact be Adam. With Stern's new age limit in place combined with it generally being a down year talent wise, this is projected by most prognosticators to be an extremely weak draft. When guys like Sheldon Williams are projected as mid-lotto picks... yeeesh!!! While a lack of talented prospects helps AM's chances of going high in this draft, it won't help him be what he's not or effect how he'll fare in the league. What will help him is his vastly improved his outside shot... as long as he keeps that going for him he should be able to earn regular minutes. 

That said, I'd support Portland selecting Gay or Aldridge over Adam because I believe they are the better pro talents. I don't know nearly enough about Bargnani to weigh in. I hope that its OK with you that I feel this way, but somehow I doubt it...

STOMP


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Is your reading/comprehension really this poor? You've got absolutely nothing, yet you're acting like you've caught me red handed. In those links I posted nothing even remotely along the lines of calling him overrated.


You didn't flat out say that he was overrated, but you argued with me for a reason, because you thought he wasn't that good of a player...



> When you mock other posters who don't agree with your opinion as knowing nothing about college hoops and claim that every college expert feels otherwise... and then I link the recent thoughts of one of your two listed experts that directly contradicts your claim... thats not necessarily my view that they're stating. When I point out how preposterous it is for you to claim to be in the know about what every scout feels about Adam, that has nothing to do with my opinion of his game. I take a lot more issue with the insults you throw at those who merely disagree with you and your poorly constructed arguments then I do with Adam's game.


mock posters huh?...I guess you see things other people don't...

take off your diaper and quit trying to accuse me of starting things with people here like always...

you sound like my little sister when I was younger...always crying foul for attention to get me in trouble...



> Both Wally and Adam are thought to be poor defenders, because thats what they are. By NBA SF standards they don't possess average athleticism... I can't think of a decent wing defender that didn't have that going for them. Both can shoot the lights out, and Adam's high release may allow him to get off more shots in the pros then Wally, but both will always be a step slow. Pretty much everyone who evaluates hoops notes this. It's as obvious as the rain in Portland. So when both last year and this I pointed to lack of athleticism and D I'm not grasping at straws, I'm pointing to the same flaws that most others do.


Seriously though, I can send you some tapes....Its obvious all you've watched his ESPN highlights...

But, I guess thats the beauty of the internet, anyone can get on and say anything...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Common sense?
> 
> A player that's considered to be one of the best--if not THE best--player in the country is rated more highly--and therefore might be MORE overrated--than a player that's in the mid-teens in terms of top players.
> 
> ...


So common sense is all you have to back up the fact that you think he's overrated...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> You didn't flat out say that he was overrated, but you argued with me for a reason, because you thought he wasn't that good of a player...


no, I argued with you because you were being so insulting and flat wrong in your statements... I don't know how much clearer I can be. 



> take off your diaper and quit trying to accuse me of starting things with people here like always...
> 
> you sound like my little sister when I was younger...always crying foul for attention to get me in trouble...


impressive!



> Seriously though, I can send you some tapes....Its obvious all you've watched his ESPN highlights...
> But, I guess thats the beauty of the internet, anyone can get on and say anything...


Nothing beautiful about your bleep. I've watched plenty of Zags games this year and last. But like I said before, _"I hope that its OK with you that I feel this way, but somehow I doubt it..."_

who would have ever guessed that you'd resort to hurling insults over someone disagreeing with you? 

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> So common sense is all you have to back up the fact that you think he's overrated...


Are you being obtuse on purpose? Or does it come naturally?

I have NOT said that I thought he was overrated as far as I can remember, and certainly not in this thread. I said, "Morrison might be MORE overrated now than ever before."

See the difference there, or want me to spell it out for you more clearly?

You're ridiculous.

Ed O.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Are you being *obtuse* on purpose? Or does it come naturally?
> 
> Ed O.


That's the 2nd time I've heard that word used as an adjective - the other was in Shaw Shank Redemption. Every other time was in Geometry class.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

The State of the Blazers is strong. Though we have a poor record, a low percentage of our losses were by 30 points or more. Some people question the moves we've made in the past. But all the intelligence we had at the time said Jermaine O'Neal would suck, and Dale Davis was an all-star. 

So if we had to go back in time, I say we do the Jermaine O'Neal move all over again. 

Just talking about this just makes the rest of the NBA think we are weak!


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> The State of the Blazers is strong....


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

STOMP said:


> no, I argued with you because you were being so insulting and flat wrong in your statements... I don't know how much clearer I can be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hurling insults!, LOL.....

:clap: 

You never cease to amaze me...

point more fingers at me, I'm the bloody insulting bafooon who does nothing but "hurl" insults at the h8ers...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Are you being obtuse on purpose? Or does it come naturally?
> 
> I have NOT said that I thought he was overrated as far as I can remember, and certainly not in this thread. I said, "Morrison might be MORE overrated now than ever before."
> 
> ...


Gotcha....

Now quit hurling insults at me....


(me trying my best impression of a special someone on this board).


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Hurling insults!, LOL.....
> 
> :clap:
> 
> ...


another Zags masterwork of confusing the obvious and lashing out at those who point it out. 

gold star for you!

STOMP


----------

