# Bob Whitsitt resigns...



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

breaking news. more later


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Wha?!!

Send link as soon as you're able!!


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

http://www.kgw.com/


on top


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> http://www.kgw.com/
> 
> 
> on top


Colin Cowherd is saying it on KFXX right now, and going to the seahawks only.


----------



## Swoosh (May 2, 2003)

Wow...that's a shocker. Does that mean we will see little player movement this summer now that we no longer have "Trader" Bob?? Who is out there that can fill the vacancy?...and don't tell me Pete Babcock.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

ABM, they just reported it on KGW. He hasn't officially resigned yet though, it just said he planned to. But they made it such a big story that it pretty much seemed to be a done deal. They talked about it as if he WILL retire in the next day or two.

So who will replace him Clyde Drexler? (It would be nice if we still had the Geof Petrie/Adlemen regime)

Do you guys think Whitsett was really a bad GM? I mean, I think all of us liked almost all his moves until AFTER the fact. And even then, the only player we really lost was Jermaine O'Neal.

What frustrates us most though is how he kept aquireing players with bad attitudes, and that I think DID hurt the organization.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

*WOW*

HOLY MOLY! HOLY MOLY! HOLY MOLY! 
What does this mean? What does this mean????
Crap-please no Kraus! We will lose Pip!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Huh, maybe we could bring back his understudy...Jim Paxon.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Sounds like KGW got their hands on a helluva scoop. 

The Trader Bob days are going to be officially over in just a matter of hours. I'm happy and sad. 

Nobody's a better dealmaker than Bob Whitsitt, but he's also a terrible judge of character, and doesn't have the understanding of "team chemistry" and the importance of role players that a GM really needs. 

I think Paul finally realized that he needs a GM in Portland, specifically to run the Trail Blazers. Bob's a good man, but running two professional franchises at the same time (both of which need major help) is a lot for anyone. 

Clyde Drexler is my bet as his replacement. :yes:


----------



## Blaze (Jan 25, 2003)

HOLY COW! I wonder who his replacement might be. I remember how close Allen and Vandeweghe were when Kiki played here, but who knows? Is Drexler ready? What about Porter? He's coaching in Sactown but he might be interesting. Who ever it is, I hope they have some connection to the past Blazers team. Walton? Just kidding. Sad day for me, I liked TBob. I remember how excited I was when we learned we were getting him back in '94. Playoffs every year, two times to Western Conference finals-just not good enough for us Portland fans.


----------



## Swoosh (May 2, 2003)

I was actually looking forward to a wheeling and dealing summer with T-Bob...Oh well, now what???

I don't understand why he would leave the Blazers post and stay with the Seahawks...What does he know about football anyway?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

My personal Favorite to take over.

Buck Williams.

Buck has spent time as the VP of the Players union.
On top of that he never had an agent and represented himself in contract negotiations. The dude knows his stuff.

BTW anyone notice that Dudley said he is retiring and interested in staying in Portland with a front office position? He is a Harvard grad.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Swoosh</b>!
> I was actually looking forward to a wheeling and dealing summer with T-Bob...Oh well, now what???
> 
> I don't understand why he would leave the Blazers post and stay with the Seahawks...What does he know about football anyway?


ABout as much as Basketball, very little. That said Football is easier to get away with just getting the best talent, than basketball is.


----------



## Swoosh (May 2, 2003)

Buck may be a decent choice, but what has he been up to for the last several years, anyone know?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> ABout as much as Basketball, very little. That said Football is easier to get away with just getting the best talent, than basketball is.


Are you being serious? Whitsitt knows VERY LITTLE about basketball?

That is so incredible that you can't POSSIBLY be serious.

Whitsitt has spent two + decades in professional basketball as a member of the front office. He's a former GM of the Year. His Blazers teams have made two WC Finals and have made the playoffs every season.

I can see having some disagreement with some of his moves, and even that he should be gone, but to say he knows very little about basketball reduces your credibility in my opinion, Schilly. I just hope you're making a joke.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> 05/07/2003
> 
> By TERESA BELL and DOUG IRVING, kgw.com Staff
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

If Whitsitt truly resigns, then it's for the best of the team and the organization... if Paul Allen's not entirely behind him, then he'd be worthless or worse for the Blazers.

I'm worried about who his replacement would be. New GMs are not often very good at their jobs. Maybe Buck or whomever would be an exception.

Ed O.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

he knows a lot about talent, but I can see where shilly is coming from on the overall picture, in regards to knowing how a team funtions in baskteball.

you don't need 12 starters. That was Bob Whitsits wet dream, to have a dream team. 

you dont' need it. 

too much confusion with roles. Too many headaches. Also, Bob Whitsitt is responsible for trying to force Rasheed to be "the man" when he should have been able to see that wasn't going to happen.

so, yes he knows basketball talent, but does he really understand the nature of a team? I'm not sure he does, by his own admission he siad he wasn't a 'chemistry major'


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Why is it that I get this feeling we are Steve Martin in the "Jerk" when he gets his name in the phone book and says "Things are going to happen to me now!"  

Bob Whitsitt is leaving town? WOW!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> he knows a lot about talent, but I can see where shilly is coming from on the overall picture, in regards to knowing how a team funtions in baskteball.


That's a bunch of hooey (although NOT as much as saying that Whitsitt knows very little about basketball). The starter/role player concept is so simple that a child could understand it. Whitsitt is not a stupid man. There's a REASON he's built the team differently than many teams have.

Whitsitt has been building a team that has had to deal with Shaq, with Kobe, with Duncan (and DRob). He hasn't been able to get his hands on a player like that, so he's done the next best thing: build a deep, talented team. One that hopefully would have enough horses to throw at any opponent and wear them down. One that might not have as good of a top 2 but a better top 10.

It's the same strategy that both Dallas and Sacramento have used, but both teams have had a bit more luck than Portland, especially at PG where Nash and Bibby have been able to lead the team in a way that Damon just has not.

Whitsitt does NOT want 12 starters. He wants Shaq. Or Duncan. I guarantee that. But he's realistic enough to know that he had to go without a top-5 guy and figure out how to compete in other ways. I think he's done that quite well, and I will be sad to see him go.

But, of course, fascinated to see who IS hired (and who decides that? Just Paul Allen? Will Cheeks be involved? Or would Cheeks be on his way out? (Hire Buck as GM, Porter as head coach?). So in that respect this might make the next month or so a lot more interesting.

Ed O.


----------



## Beaverton (Apr 17, 2003)

Micahel Jordan anyone?

Scottie on the Blazers
Nike in town
Sheed = UNC alum 

Hmmmmm.....


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

More links!!!!!

Oregonlive.com


----------



## Dynasty Raider (Nov 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Beaverton</b>!
> Micahel Jordan anyone?
> 
> Scottie on the Blazers
> ...



That did come to my mind; with Mike leaving the Wizards at this exact same time.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> Why is it that I get this feeling we are Steve Martin in the "Jerk" when he gets his name in the phone book and says "Things are going to happen to me now!"


Remember what DID happen to him? A sniper picked his name out of the book and spent the better part of the movie trying to kill him.

That's how I feel for the Blazers at the moment (again, if this turns out to be true).

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I can almost promise you they're not going to fire Cheeks if (and when) they bring in a new GM.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> I can almost promise you they're not going to fire Cheeks if (and when) they bring in a new GM.


Can you name the last time a coach stayed for more than a year after the GM was replaced?

It's possible that Cheeks will be the exception, but history is against that. Why would a GM want to come in and make his imprint on the organization but NOT be in control of who's running the team on a daily basis? 

Ed O.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Firing Bob is a PR move, and it's likely what David Stern was referring to when he said "there'd be changes in Portland." 

In the interests of PR, the worst thing in the world would be to fire Maurice Cheeks after his national anthem hero act (I mean that sincerely). 

Also, Scottie - who'd clearly had his fill of Whitsitt's tinkering over the last three years - will be more likely to stay now, with Whitsitt out of the picture. 

I don't know who the new GM will be (they could just hand the job over to Wankentein, or whatever the name of Bob's assistant is), and go from there. But the writing is on the wall - this offseason is going to be about re-defining the Blazers' image... and that means players like Rasheed Wallace, Bonzi Wells, Ruben Patterson, even Damon Stoudamire, Zach Randolph, and Qyntel Woods better not start building additions to their Portland homes.


----------



## Swoosh (May 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> I can almost promise you they're not going to fire Cheeks if (and when) they bring in a new GM.


There is no way they fire Cheeks after the PR boost he got with the whole National Anthem thing...the fans would go nuts. Although he may not be the best X's and O's coach, he has great character, and that's what they're trying to improve upon.


----------



## Swoosh (May 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Public Defender</b>!
> 
> I don't know who the new GM will be (they could just hand the job over to Wankentein, or whatever the name of Bob's assistant is), and go from there.


Wasn't Warkentein let go a couple of weeks ago, or am I mistaken?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Public Defender</b>!
> Firing Bob is a PR move, and it's likely what David Stern was referring to when he said "there'd be changes in Portland."


Assuming Whitsitt's really on the way out, I think you're spot-on with both of your points.



> In the interests of PR, the worst thing in the world would be to fire Maurice Cheeks after his national anthem hero act (I mean that sincerely).


What if Brown retires in Philly? Cheeks could go there, the new GM could bring in his own coach, and everything would be A-OK.

Did Buck Williams play under Jeff Van Gundy? After a quick google search: yes. For a couple of seasons. (Talk about building a house of cards...  )



> Also, Scottie - who'd clearly had his fill of Whitsitt's tinkering over the last three years - will be more likely to stay now, with Whitsitt out of the picture.


Pippen's thought that he's known more than his GM since he's been in the league. I think that Pippen will follow the dollar signs, irrespective of who's the GM at which teams.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Swoosh</b>!
> 
> There is no way they fire Cheeks after the PR boost he got with the whole National Anthem thing...the fans would go nuts. Although he may not be the best X's and O's coach, he has great character, and that's what they're trying to improve upon.


I'll ask you, too: please name a coach that's lasted more than a year when a new GM comes in.

Maybe we're both right, though.

Cheeks has one year left on his contract, so maybe they'll let him coach out the string... they wouldn't be firing him, but they wouldn't be committing to him, either. It would be shocking to me if Cheeks is the head coach for the long-term under a new GM.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Can you name the last time a coach stayed for more than a year after the GM was replaced?
> 
> It's possible that Cheeks will be the exception, but history is against that. Why would a GM want to come in and make his imprint on the organization but NOT be in control of who's running the team on a daily basis?
> ...


I can't mainly because I don't feel like looking. But think about it..The one guy who's in the organization that IS good PR is Cheeks. So they "let go" of the guy who is the brunt of all the bad PR in TB, and in the process, let go to Cheeks too?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed I have no doubt Whitsitt is very good at GM. Tommyboy hit the nail on the head as to my opinion though. Bob seemse to, IMO, look at how players look on paper rather than looknig at individual attributes and how they will mesh with each other.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>
> 
> Pippen's thought that he's known more than his GM since he's been in the league. I think that Pippen will follow the dollar signs, irrespective of who's the GM at which teams.
> 
> Ed O.


Yes, but in many respects, Pippen's been right. Jerry "players don't make the franchise, executives do" Krause has proven himself to be lucky, rather than smart. And Trader Bob has upset the applecart season-in and season-out... while he has upgraded in talent, he's been unable to keep a stable group together that can reach the next level. That was always Pip's criticism, and I would say, to steal your phrasing, it's "spot-on." 

Yes, Pip will follow the dollar signs... but doing so will be much easier to swallow without Trader Bob in his way.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Hmmm...Just a though. Larry Brown as GM?

Mo was his assistant in Philly. His Brother Herb is currently Mo's assistant.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

Cheeks isn't a problem. He represents a building block for the franchise.

I see Allen basically going this direction. Hire someone that will work with and retain Cheeks (that Cheeks approves of, so to speak), get rid of the embarassing players like Ruben, Sheed, Damon and even Qyntel.

add in some character guys.


I think Allen is running the ship right now, and it will be 100% his call on how this thing plays out, not any new GM they bring in.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> Cheeks isn't a problem. He represents a building block for the franchise.
> 
> I see Allen basically going this direction. Hire someone that will work with and retain Cheeks (that Cheeks approves of, so to speak), get rid of the embarassing players like Ruben, Sheed, Damon and even Qyntel.


Qyntel having 1 stupid thing makes him an "embarassing" player?

What is Chris Webber then?


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

i was hesitant to add Qyntel to that list.

that's why i wrote it that way, i should have used the term "maybe even".


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> I can't mainly because I don't feel like looking. But think about it..The one guy who's in the organization that IS good PR is Cheeks. So they "let go" of the guy who is the brunt of all the bad PR in TB, and in the process, let go to Cheeks too?


Well, maybe you can find one if you look. But if you do there won't be many. I guess George Karl is one, post-Whitsitt in Seattle. Naming coaches that have been fired when their GMs changed is much easier to do. See: Dallas, LAL, Detroit, Cleveland, Denver, Washington, Memphis, etc.

The same rationale you use for Cheeks could be used to keep any head coach... the team fired the GM because the team isn't winning. The only guy in the organization who HAS won is the coach. So they let go of the guy who's responsible for building the losing team and in the process let go of the coach (with the history of winning) too?

I'm not saying that there's no an inconsistency there, but there's a similar situation ANYWHERE a GM is hired.

Let's say the new GM is Drexler (*shudder*). He's got no track record as an executive (he screwed Houston and then he's been holding Kiki's clipboard), and he's eager to build up his own legacy as an executive. Let's see what he's got to work with.

An owner with lots of money that's willing to spend it... one that has given his GM a HUGE amount of slack in the past to work in their own way. This has got to be a GM's dream. So Drex is set there.

He's got players. Some with big contracts, some with long contracts, some with good contracts. A lot of talent. A lot of perceived troublemakers. This is a mixed bag, but generally has to be seen as a better situation than, say, Cleveland or Denver or even Detroit when their new GMs took over.

He's got a coach. Cheeks has started off pretty well in his career: 99 wins is a goodly amount for two years. Cheeks is well-liked in the community. But Cheeks has limited experience. He's not that great of an X's and O's guy. He's perceieved as letting the inmates run the asylum.

Does he leave Cheeks in place? A guy he barely knows? A guy with a limited track record? Or does he let Cheeks's contract run out, and put a guy he trusts (Terry Porter, Rudy Tomjanovich (if he's canned in Houston) in charge of handling the players? And if he's going to let Cheeks's contract run out, it might be better to cut it off now, especially if Brown leaves Philly (since Cheeks would be the natural replacement).

Granted, there's a LOT of speculation here, but I don't think Cheeks is as bullet-proof in the wake of a Whitsitt ouster as a few of you do.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> i was hesitant to add Qyntel to that list.
> 
> that's why i wrote it that way, i should have used the term "maybe even".


I think it's more than a stretch to add him, even if you hesitated. But I see your point.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Public Defender</b>!
> Yes, but in many respects, Pippen's been right. Jerry "players don't make the franchise, executives do" Krause ...


Actually that quote was first said by Jerry West, and I think it goes..."players don't win championships, organizations do"

I agree with Mr. Clutch.

STOMP


----------



## DucknBlazer (May 7, 2003)

What about Magic Johnson? Im not sure he would be the right man for the job but I bet he would be interested.


----------



## Swoosh (May 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> Qyntel having 1 stupid thing makes him an "embarassing" player?
> ...


...or Jason Kidd for that matter. I wouldn't clasify Woods in the same category as Patterson, Sheed or Damon for one stupid mistake...yet.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> I think it's more than a stretch to add him, even if you hesitated. But I see your point.


a bit testy today, aren't we?

:starwars:


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

hey, strike Qyntel then.

but you have to admit its pretty embarassing when a player gets pulled over, doesn't have any ID or insurance, smoke rolls out of the truck, then he gives his Franz bread trading card as ID and admits he's "addicted to weed".

its brutally fun, yet embarassing and reinforces the jailblazers, dopesmoking thug image.

so one strike, no biggy, but I just have a feeling Paul Allen is going to clean house.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

great googily moogily


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> 
> a bit testy today, aren't we?
> ...


hm..no...thats not my being testy.

You'll know when I'm testy.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Public Defender</b>!
> 
> 
> And Trader Bob has upset the applecart season-in and season-out... while he has upgraded in talent, he's been unable to keep a stable group together that can reach the next level. That was always Pip's criticism, and I would say, to steal your phrasing, it's "spot-on."


It's totally NOT accurate, though. Let's look at the starting 5 in each of the last Game 7s for Portland:

Damon
Smith
Pippen
Wallace
Sabas
6th man: Bonzi

Damon
Bonzi
Wallace
ZR
Sabonis
6th man: Pippen

Where's the applecart being overturned? The Blazers' core is more similar to what it was 3 years ago than most teams in the NBA, I would bet.

Ed O.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> hm..no...thats not my being testy.
> ...



special Blazer Yoda Haiku for you:

the Hap has spoken
You will know when he is, yes
testy he is, no


----------



## Blaze (Jan 25, 2003)

In response to the question about how long a coach has lasted, Carlesimo was actually hired by Brad Greenburg and then Whitsitt took over a month or two later. Carlesimo lasted a few more years before Dunleavy took over. What if Dunleavy came back and did the GM position? I don't really think so, but that would be interesting. I thought he didn't do so hot in Milwaukee as the GM, but I could be wrong. I really feel like Vandeweghe could be the guy, if the money's right. From the interviews I've heard him do, he is very personable and not guarded like Whitsitt. I also remember Vandeweghe, when he was a Blazer, lived downtown, when I wasn't the place to be, so compared to Bob, he would be in town all the time. I remember seeing him this year at a "turn back the clock day" and he was wearing the old Nuggets jersey from the time when he played there. I dunno know, just get somebody who get us a championship.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> It's totally NOT accurate, though. Let's look at the starting 5 in each of the last Game 7s for Portland:
> ...


So does that Make Damon, Sabas and Rasheed the Apple Core?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I had my criticisms about Whitsitt, but bottom line he was one of the better GM's at acquiring talent. I would criticize him for not seeing the forest through the trees (ie focusing more on talent than attitude) but overall he was a very adept GM. I have to say, I am more apprehensive about POR future than optomistic. 

Let's hope, beyond Hope that Jordan, Magic, Drexler ARE NOT our next GM, or we could be in for a big time collapse.

My biggest concern is who is out there to replace him? I see no GM out there I would feel comfortable with, and THAT concerns me. Especially, on what I feel is our biggest offseason to date. 

I hope those of you who bashed Whitsitt and called repeatedly for his firing remember the words "Be careful what you ask for" because the post-Whitsitt era could be VERY BLEAK. I hope this is not the case, but w\o a clear GM out there, it is a cause for concern.

Paul DO NOT hire Drexler!!!!


----------



## Swoosh (May 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> 
> So does that Make Damon, Sabas and Rasheed the Apple Core?


Or would that be the core and two bad seeds


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Well, Ed O, you make a good point. The Blazers haven't exactly gone topsy-turvy like the Grizzlies, but when the players come in, it's not like plugging them into a clear system, the way it is with other contenders. 

The Spurs have built their team around two players - D-Rob and Duncan. With everyone else having very clear roles when they come in. Shooters, stoppers, ball-handlers. Does it matter if it's Mario Elie or Bruce Bowen playing defense and taking open shots? No. 

The Lakers have built around two stars (Shaq, Kobe) and three role players (Fisher, Fox, Horry)... with the only position changing the almost irrelevant PF spot. When Mitch Kupchak goes after players, he knows where they're going to land in the system. 

The Kings have retained the same three frontcourt players who carry the load on offense (Webber, Divac, and Stojakovic), while the bench and backcourt have changed. But the roles have always been clear - if you're in the backcourt, get the ball to Webber, and knock down an open shot when you have to. If you're coming off the bench, bring energy, rebound, and don't make mistakes. Clear enough. 

The Blazers have struggled because when new players are brought in, there's not necessarily a sense of what the player's supposed to do. Signing Derek Anderson to a long-term deal when you've got Bonzi as your starting SG? Who's the starter? Signing Jeff McInnis and Antonio Daniels when Stoudamire and Pippen are going to wind up your point guards anyway? How does that work? 

Trader Bob's trades have not created any more of a stir in terms of sheer player turnover, but in terms of how the new players fit, it's created quite the dilemma for coaches and players alike. That's what Pippen, Bonzi, Damon, and others mean when they say things like "too many guys, not enough minutes."


----------



## Swoosh (May 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Public Defender</b>!
> Well, Ed O, you make a good point. The Blazers haven't exactly gone topsy-turvy like the Grizzlies, but when the players come in, it's not like plugging them into a clear system, the way it is with other contenders.
> 
> The Spurs have built their team around two players - D-Rob and Duncan. With everyone else having very clear roles when they come in. Shooters, stoppers, ball-handlers. Does it matter if it's Mario Elie or Bruce Bowen playing defense and taking open shots? No.
> ...


Do you see a pattern here...Those teams have legitimate stars to build around. That's one thing Bob has not had...a star. Without that star or two to build around, he has done the next best thing...get as much talent as you can. Stars are hard to come by...you have to be lucky (SA in getting Duncan), bad (get a star via draft lottery), or a large market (Shaq to LA via Free Agency). Portland has none of those "advantages", so we do what we can do.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

The Kings have done the same thing... signing Clark when you've got Pollard backing up Vlade? Signing Jimmy Jackson when you've got Hedo?

The Mavs traded for Van Exel and La Frentz, in spite of having Nash and Bradley at the 1 and 5 spots. They tried to get Redd and Lewis. They brought in Rigaudeau for some reason. They added Raja Bell.

I just don't see why Bob's moves have been (strategically) different. Anyone who paid attention to Rick Brunson's role on the team last year (520 minutes in 01-02) knew that McInnis would be an upgrade there. Getting DA is a bit more confusing to me in terms of roles, but I think it was, like Clark in Sacramento, merely an infusion of talent.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't PREFER to do what SA and LA does: have a MVP-level player or two and fill in with good role players. Portland, like Dallas and Sacramento, simply don't have that level of player (even in Dirk and Webber, IMO) to do that.

Ed O.


----------



## Beaverton (Apr 17, 2003)

Maybe we can get Pat Croce. That would be an excellent choice, as he was the one that hired cheeks in Philly (or at least hired brown). He's a high energy guy that brings great attitude to his franchises.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

woulda been nice if we'd gone after McGrady a couple yrs ago.

a McGrady-Sheed tandem would rival any western powers two stars.
Especially since that would allow Sheed his natural #2 on the totem pole role.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed I see the depth point, but I think what people are talking about is all of those teams have legitamate all-stars, which Portland has not.

BTW if you check the 1st and 2nd All NBA teams only KG's team is not still active.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Beaverton</b>!
> Maybe we can get Pat Croce. That would be an excellent choice, as he was the one that hired cheeks in Philly (or at least hired brown). He's a high energy guy that brings great attitude to his franchises.


That's an interesting suggestion. I got the sense that he didn't really make many basketball decisions, though; that Brown and Rich King were largely responsible for the player acquisitions (which really haven't been that impressive, IMO, since Brown was hired).

For PR purposes, this might make sense (although not as much sense as Drexler or Buck) but I don't know if it's a good idea outside of the PR space.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Beaverton</b>!
> Maybe we can get Pat Croce. That would be an excellent choice, as he was the one that hired cheeks in Philly (or at least hired brown). He's a high energy guy that brings great attitude to his franchises.


Croce is not a GM. He was the team president, after working his way up from team trainer. He merely was a PR figurehead.


----------



## Beaverton (Apr 17, 2003)

didn't croce win GM of the year or something recently?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Ed I see the depth point, but I think what people are talking about is all of those teams have legitamate all-stars, which Portland has not.


I don't disagree. I don't know, however, if it's his fault Damon and Rasheed haven't developed to the same level as Nash/Bibby and Dirk/Webber.



> BTW if you check the 1st and 2nd All NBA teams only KG's team is not still active.


Very interesting. Isn't McGrady in one of those teams? (I honestly don't know, and I'm running to lunch so can't check.)

Ed O.


----------



## Beaverton (Apr 17, 2003)

nevermind. 

http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2001/0725/1230699.html

more of a businessperson/fan than anything else.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't disagree. I don't know, however, if it's his fault Damon and Rasheed haven't developed to the same level as Nash/Bibby and Dirk/Webber.
> ...


Oops you are right KG and McGrady.

AS far as Damon and Sheed not developing, you are right. But Bob continued to build depth rather than address the star factor, even after it was obvious that they wouldn't become those stars.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

*strange timing*



> Originally posted by <b>Beaverton</b>!
> nevermind.
> 
> http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2001/0725/1230699.html
> ...



The timing on this one is strange-the Sixers are still "in it"...???


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Bfan, that news is from 2 years ago, it was being used to show Croce's involvement with Philly.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> Well, maybe you can find one if you look. But if you do there won't be many. I guess George Karl is one, post-Whitsitt in Seattle. Naming coaches that have been fired when their GMs changed is much easier to do. See: Dallas, LAL, Detroit, Cleveland, Denver, Washington, Memphis, etc.


You're right about that one, *Ed O*. The only other situation I can think of is when Jerry West took over as GM of the Lakers in 1982 and retained Pat Riley. But it's pretty rare. It's the exception to the rule when the coach stays.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

And of course, Jerry Sloan weathering the GM change in Utah would be another exception to the rule. 

Regardless of the trend, I anticipate Paul Allen telling the new GM that "Cheeks is the man" until proven otherwise.


----------



## Sheedfan30 (Apr 17, 2003)

*I think Whitsitt resigning is somewhat of a major help to the Blazers...*

First off, Bob did have his good trades like Rod Strickland and Harvey Grant for Rasheed Wallace, and Shawn Respert for Bonzi Wells. But he has a poor history with this team, like Jermaine O'Neal for Dale Davis, and paying Shawn Kemp 20 million dollars as a 9th man, and Rasheed Wallace, Scottie Pippen, and Damon Stoudamire in the teens of millions to never get out of the first round for 3 straight years. It also could mean less moves, which may not be as exciting, but will help the team have a much better level of cohesiveness.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

*Cheeks gets nod from Allen*



> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> You're right about that one, *Ed O*. The only other situation I can think of is when Jerry West took over as GM of the Lakers in 1982 and retained Pat Riley. But it's pretty rare. It's the exception to the rule when the coach stays.


Here is what the article at the "O" says:

"...
The Blazers coaching staff was told of Whitsitt's decision early this morning at the team's practice facility in Tualatin. At that time, Blazers coach Maurice Cheeks was given a vote of confidence from team owner Paul Allen and is expected to help lead the search for Whitsitt's replacement. ..."



http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/oregonian/index.ssf?/blazers/oregonian/050702whitsitt.frame


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Public Defender</b>!
> But the writing is on the wall - this offseason is going to be about re-defining the Blazers' image... and that means players like Rasheed Wallace, Bonzi Wells, Ruben Patterson, even Damon Stoudamire, Zach Randolph, and Qyntel Woods better not start building additions to their Portland homes.


If that's really true, it's just more bad news to follow bad news.

I.e. Get ready to watch the Trailblazers become a miserable team in the name of "cleaning house." Fun. I'm sure fans will be much more cheerful and upbeat in here if the team were winning 20 games a year with "good guys."

Everyone would be all, "Hey, they lost again, but imagine if they came over to your house...they'd be so nice to talk to!" and, "I know we won't get to see them in a playoff game for five years, but I feel safer in the neighborhood these days with no *Jailblazers* hassling me, and what's *that* worth?"

Hopefully, though, the next GM *won't* destroy the talent base on the team just to say they changed the Blazers' image.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Ed O, 

On your discussion of the moves of the Kings and Mavericks having a parallel to the Blazers, you're correct, but the difference is that both teams made an effort to bring in complementary players. 

The Kings core: Webber, Divac, Stojakovic... they bring in players to assume roles around them. Turkoglu as another Stojakovic, Bibby as a more stable PG, Bobby Jackson as a sparkplug, Jimmy Jackson as insurance in the event of injury to Christie, Turkoglu, or Stojakovic. Keon Clark as an alternative to Webber playing 45 minutes a night. The players were brought in for a reason. 

The Mavericks' core: Nowitzki, Nash, Finley... Nelson has Bradley as sort of an odd-man out that he can't do much with. He adds LaFrentz to bring another shot-blocker with some offense, Van Exel to buoy the second team's offense and have another good ball-handler to play off the ball when Nash is in. Najera to play tough defense as a starter or reserve. 

There's reason. I have not seen that with the Trail Blazers.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Beaverton</b>!
> Micahel Jordan anyone?
> 
> Scottie on the Blazers
> ...


Well, given this information:

_"A Wizards source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press that Pollin's decision was based on three reasons: player dissension, a franchise faltering after the years of Jordan in charge, and deteriorating relationships throughout the organization."_

I'm not sure that Jordan has what it takes to be a GM. It's very different to HAVE talent and to be able to both IDENTIFY and MANAGE talent.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

do not fear the Trailblazers becomnig a miserable team.


that'll never happen with Allen as the owner, never.


even if they got rid of Sheed, Damon and Ruben and added NOTHING in return, you would have a starting lineup of 
McInnis/Pippen -PG
DA- SG
Bonzi- SF
Zach- PF
Dale- C


with Aryvdas, Qyntel and AD getting most of the bench minutes.

that team would win 40-45 games and make the playoffs, IMO


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Who cares if the Blazers become a miserable team for a year or two? That's how you get #1 draft picks! Superstars win championships and the Blazers need a superstar.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Obviously not every draft brings a superstar... Joe Smith was a #1, so was Kandi and Kenyon Martin. I think you're overrsimplifying things quite a bit tlong. 

Since everyone is throwing out Whitsett replacement names, I'll put Greg Anthony's out there. He's an ex-Blazer with some background in finances and politics, and obviously handles himself well in front of a camera. 


STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Public Defender</b>!
> On your discussion of the moves of the Kings and Mavericks having a parallel to the Blazers, you're correct, but the difference is that both teams made an effort to bring in complementary players.


Hrm... I see Ruben Patterson and Jeff McInnis as TOTAL complimentary players. Patterson is a defensive player with little or no offensive game. McInnis was plainly going to be our backup 1.

What other players have been brought in recently that AREN'T complimentary players?

Derek Anderson is about it, and he was just a youth upgrade over Steve Smith.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

And #1 picks are superstars? Tim Duncan and LeBron James aren't exactly in every draft.

And tommyboy, if *all* Portland did was lose Wallace, Patterson and Stoudamire, the team might scrape into the playoffs, sure.

If they also lose Randolph (sucker puncher), Woods (pot-head driver), and Wells (fan-disrespecting punk) in a massive "house cleaning," that *some* have suggested is coming, the team is left with:

McInnis
DA
Pippen (assuming he's retained)
Davis
Dudley

That's pretty miserable.

I'm not really in favour of talent-downgrades just to get better people in place. I pick my friends based on quality of people...my entertainment is based on quality of performance. Whether Wallace doesn't talk to reporters or not, he's a lot better than nothing on the court.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> Hrm... I see Ruben Patterson and Jeff McInnis as TOTAL complimentary players. Patterson is a defensive player with little or no offensive game. McInnis was plainly going to be our backup 1.


McInnis came in after being a starter for the Clippers - he's not exactly going to be happy about being the #3 point guard, is he? Of course, he signed so maybe it's his fault, except that as his press conference slip proves, he thought that Stoudamire was going to be traded (information that Trader Bob should never have sent his way). 

Patterson was brought in as a known practice menace - he ticked off Rashard Lewis, before that, he ticked off most of the Lakers by picking fights with Kobe. He thought he could get a starting job by just outmuscling guys in practice... not the personality of someone willing to accept a role as a complementary player. 



> What other players have been brought in recently that AREN'T complimentary players?
> 
> Derek Anderson is about it, and he was just a youth upgrade over Steve Smith.
> 
> Ed O.


Yes, Derek Anderson would be another example after McInnis and Patterson, of a player brought in without a shared understanding between management and player of what was expected. Add to that Antonio Daniels who is far too talented to accept countless DNP-NC's, which resulted from the bench being too stacked with higher paid guards, and you've got almost a perfect track record of players who were brought in without rhyme or reason. Just more well-paid bodies for the coaches to sort out. Is it any wonder it took Mo so long to come up with a rotation that worked?


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

3 GM's in one day????? (Whitsitt, Jordan, Bower)

When has that ever happened?


----------



## Beaverton (Apr 17, 2003)

They come in 3s.


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, given this information:
> ...


Success dilutes the mind into thinking oneself into as a lightning rod.

I give you Master P's basketball career, David Faustino's rap career, Magic Johnson's talkshow, and Britney Spear's restaurant.

STuart


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>s a b a s 11</b>!
> 
> Success dilutes the mind into thinking oneself into as a lightning rod.
> 
> ...


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Dude, that made my day. Thanks!


----------



## Speed (Dec 31, 2002)

Clearly, this had been planned for the last month or so. This must be what David Stern meant when he said he saw good things in our future. I thought Bob did a good job, but I'm glad the fans are getting what they want, which is someone who is based in Portland. 

Go Blazers


----------



## Speed (Dec 31, 2002)

KG and TMAC are two of the top "Superstars" in the league and their teams are going nowhere.

Go Blazers


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

COme on SPeed!!!only 14 more posts to 1000!!!!


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Don't be surprised if Portland thins out the roster, anticipates a losing season, and does better than they did the year before. With clearer defined player roles, the sky is truly the limit with this team.


----------



## Qyntel's Shadow (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Speed</b>!
> Clearly, this had been planned for the last month or so.


You know, at game 6 the RG camera folks were doing this thing where they showed Paul on the jumbotron and the crowd cheered, and then they showed Mark Cuban and the crowd booed. You know, they do that with players and fans wearing jerseys. Anyway, I didn't think much of it at the time, but I didn't see Bob in any of the Paul Allen shots. Now, one could argue that he brought someone else (there was a woman in most of the shots) to sit next to him, but, in retrospect, that seems a bit odd, especially considering today's events. A foreshadowing, maybe? In reality, it was probably more a directoral decision to keep Bob out of the shot so the crowd would definitely cheer. To be honest, I was kinda surprised to see PA get that ovasion. I figured there would be a number of dim bulbs that would blame him for the players' off-court antics.


----------



## Speed (Dec 31, 2002)

alright schilly!

Go Blazers


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> breaking news. more later



Does anyone know who are legit candidates to come in?!?! I say MAS CLYDE THE GLIDE!


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

*Re: Re: Bob Whitsitt resigns...*



> Originally posted by <b>MAS RipCity</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know who are legit candidates to come in?!?! I say MAS CLYDE THE GLIDE!


MAS MAS MAS...do you realize I catch myself saying MAS in real life! See what you did! :grinning:


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Bob Whitsitt resigns...*



> Originally posted by <b>MAS RipCity</b>!
> Does anyone know who are legit candidates to come in?!?! I say MAS CLYDE THE GLIDE!


If they bring Clyde in as a figurehead - fine. In my opinion, he hasn't proven that he has the interest in the nuts and bolts required to be a gm (or a coach!)

I am a little concerned. On one hand, I'm delighted because he really didn't endear himself to the portland community.

On the other hand, I have to admit, there wasn't a single trade he's made that I didn't really like at the time.

My problem is that I just don't see anyone out there for the job.

One thought - Have Tbob work out a trade for Denver's pick and then hire Kiki!

just kidding by the way.


----------



## sabas4mvp (Sep 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Qyntel's Shadow</b>!
> 
> You know, at game 6 the RG camera folks were doing this thing where they showed Paul on the jumbotron and the crowd cheered, and then they showed Mark Cuban and the crowd booed. You know, they do that with players and fans wearing jerseys. Anyway, I didn't think much of it at the time, but I didn't see Bob in any of the Paul Allen shots. Now, one could argue that he brought someone else (there was a woman in most of the shots) to sit next to him, but, in retrospect, that seems a bit odd, especially considering today's events. A foreshadowing, maybe? In reality, it was probably more a directoral decision to keep Bob out of the shot so the crowd would definitely cheer. To be honest, I was kinda surprised to see PA get that ovasion. I figured there would be a number of dim bulbs that would blame him for the players' off-court antics.


Regarding that quote, but totally off topic, did anyone that was at the game happen to catch two guys on the Rose Garden screen wearing Sabonis Jerseys after his last huge dunk... Cuz if you did that was an official Sabas4MVP sighting!


----------



## Swoosh (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Bob Whitsitt resigns...*



> Originally posted by <b>trifecta</b>!
> 
> 
> One thought - Have Tbob work out a trade for Denver's pick and then hire Kiki!
> ...


Kidding aside...good idea!


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Now I am getting to like the idea of what Kiki is doing in Denver. Cleaning up the payroll and building a team. Wondered if Portland could trade twice in one lifetime for Kiki?


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

I think Kiki has something good started in Denver, why would he drop that to start over in Portland? I don't see it.

Hey Shilly- you mentioned back on page 1 that Dudley went to Harvard, but he went to Yale.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Why the love fest for Denver? They have been one of the worst teams in the NBA the last two years. They passed on Amare Stoudamire twice. They traded McDyess and NVE and Raef La Frentz (60% of a playoff-caliber starting lineup, and the toughest 60% to fill... put Posey in there and it's up to 80%) and got Nene and cap space for them.

Kiki MIGHT build the team into a winner, or he might lose out to SA and Utah for FAs and be forced to overpay for mediocre free agents to avoid 60 losses this year.

I think it's far too early to be patting Kiki on the back.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiki is sitting on a great situation in Denver. They have a good cast of young players, will have a top 3 pick this summer + about $18mill to spend on free agents. Insanity to walk away from that.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

I think Denver made those moves to clear cap space for the future, but you're right- any fool could do that. And half of the fools could do it better.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*I can't believe*

that nobody has asked the most important question of all:

Does this mean that *Trader Bob* has to change his on-screen name?


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

*Traitor Bob* :grinning: :grinning:


----------



## ThomasG86 (May 3, 2003)

Jeez... allready 7 pages.  I am happy with the decision... its defiently a step forward!


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*What about*

JVG might want to be a GM.
Pat Riley might be sick of coaching in Miami.
I think Buck Williams would be good because he is a lawyer, he is smart, well spoken, loved by the community, and well experienced in the ins and outs of the league financial rules. Is he a good judge of talent? I would guess so.
I would not be surprised to see Clyde there. He has been after this position for years.


interesting.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Buck Williams is a laywer? I didn't know that.

What I DO know is that you can't trust laywers as far as you can throw us 

Ed O.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Why the love fest for Denver? They have been one of the worst teams in the NBA the last two years. They passed on Amare Stoudamire twice. They traded McDyess and NVE and Raef La Frentz (60% of a playoff-caliber starting lineup, and the toughest 60% to fill... put Posey in there and it's up to 80%) and got Nene and cap space for them.
> 
> Kiki MIGHT build the team into a winner, or he might lose out to SA and Utah for FAs and be forced to overpay for mediocre free agents to avoid 60 losses this year.
> ...


Completely agree. I was only suggesting it because of the outrage it would cause - Trade away your number 1 pick and then go to the team you traded him to!

That said, Kiki is a pretty smart guy and I feel way better about his chances of success compared to Clyde. It's also safe to say that Kiki isn't coming and Paul is way too smart to put Clyde in any position of decision-making.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazers.com's list of Whitsitt's accomplishments.

From that list:



> Blazers compiled a 289-171 record (.628) the past six seasons, ranking fourth in the NBA in that span. Only the Los Angeles Lakers, San Antonio Spurs and Utah Jazz have compiled a better record than the Blazers the past six years.


Too bad more people didn't keep this in mind while he was being criticised so roundly. I hope that we can get someone who can maintain that level of excellence.

Ed O.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Blazers.com's list of Whitsitt's accomplishments.
> 
> From that list:
> ...


There we agree. Trader Bob managed to field a highly competitive team for seven seasons at the helm. But first round exits every season but two, the highest payroll in the NBA, and ultimately all the offcourt stuff caught up with him... and Paul Allen decided to throw a bone to the critics in the Portland community by asking him to step down.


----------



## RoseCity (Sep 27, 2002)

Lemme run down some of the avalible candidates and give my thoughts...

Jordan - I sure hope not. Besides he would be a perfect fit in Charolette, his home state, to attract attention for a few seasons. The NBA would love this!

Buck Williams - I see him as a strong possibilty. He has the smarts,community blessing and he is an ex player who surely values good people.

Croce - Nope. Not a GM. Although we are now looking for a President as well and Id like him to be the guy. Not likely though. He retired for good, so he said, few years ago.

Drexler - I hope not. He seems like he would be just like MJ as a GM. Living on his legacy as a player. At least in Denver he doesn't have a history. If he really wants to be a GM, he will put in alot of hard work down in Denver as an ***. coach for several years.

Babcock - Kinda skeptical. Doubt Allen goes this route. Simply because this guy was on the other end of good deals with Bob.

Can't think of anyone else. Cmon people. Throw out some names of GM's who are out there WITH experience. All the non experienced names are above. At least the logical ones.

Who thinks Allen goes the route Kiki did in Denver(IE Hiring no name Jeff Bdzelik as Head Coach) and finds a good candidate who noone knows much about? All it would take is a good interview or two.




> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Hmmm...Just a though. Larry Brown as GM?
> 
> Mo was his assistant in Philly. His Brother Herb is currently Mo's assistant.


I like his hoops mind and teaching skills. I would die and go to heaver for him to be our head coach. His GM moves(Along with Billy King) in Philly as well as his wierd taste for Derrick Colemans,Brian Skinners and other players like Whitsitt went after(Seel: Talented but troubled) are def. not something I wanna see with a new GM.

If Allen knows what is right for him... He will hire someone who knows about the whole team game... Preferablly a ex player who knows how things work.

An ESPN article by Frank Hughes from Seattle is saying Whitsitt might still be in control of personell decisions...Just not in the fans views. Read it here: http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/hughes_frank/1550605.html


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

OK.. OK.... I ama basketball junkie... I am on vacation and watch the Boston-NJ game and Bonzi at halftime.. and whoa... this announcement about Whitsitt resigning...

I have no internet access or computer around and will not be back in Oregon until Late Sunday.... so what is a guy to do...

go to Kinkos... of course....

wuz up...I need to know... I will go read all the threads now....

was this expected? who is next? Is Paul Allen going to make fgood on his statements? and Whitsitt saw the writing on the wall?...

Letter to Mr. Allen...
I am available for the GM job... I just need to give 2 weeks notice, but its covered by my vacation allotments..


but if I were you I would sign up MJ tomorrow morning.... let Pippen be the assistant GM

:allhail:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> BTW anyone notice that Dudley said he is retiring and interested in staying in Portland with a front office position? He is a Harvard grad.


It was discussed a few weeks ago... Dudley woud be doing the job of head babysitter for the players.... a person in charge of getting their heads on straight


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

well.... SCBF..... I will be taking suggestions for my new screenname now....

I really do not thikn MJ is our solution at GM, but he does know the game..... very well.. he is smart.. but so was Bird and Magic....
but they are not in the executive chairs right now either...
and I do not think Mr. Allen will give him a portion of the team to own either.... apparently a thing MJ wants


interesting times at Blazerdom....


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob ~ how about *Mr. President*? Kinda has a ring to it and since your not really the GM anymore. :yes:


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

i was so happy to see he's gonna split
i think we tired of him long ago


----------



## JayBlazerFan (Jan 3, 2003)

*Obvious choice.*

Pippen... for President!


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Did any of you see TBOB at game 7? I didn't, but I did see Paul Allen cheering by himself. 


I would love to see Buck here but I don't think it will happen, my thought is it will be somebody none of us have thought of.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> 
> I would love to see Buck here but I don't think it will happen, my thought is it will be somebody none of us have thought of.


I think it'll be someone that will have been mentioned (David Kahn?) but not someone totally obvious like Clyde Drexler.

You could be right though... it could come out of nowhere. Hopefully in a good way, if that's the case! 

Ed O.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Is it possible that Pip has this job tied up and because his kids are here and all that he decides to climb the food chain so to speak?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Is it possible that Pip has this job tied up and because his kids are here and all that he decides to climb the food chain so to speak?


I wonder how badly he would be criticized by his players after he "only" wins 60% of his games over almost a decade of being GM... it would be irony to see the guys making 10 times as much money as he does second-guess him while they're recovering from another surgery.

Ed O.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Why the love fest for Denver? They have been one of the worst teams in the NBA the last two years. They passed on Amare Stoudamire twice. They traded McDyess and NVE and Raef La Frentz (60% of a playoff-caliber starting lineup, and the toughest 60% to fill... put Posey in there and it's up to 80%) and got Nene and cap space for them.
> 
> Kiki MIGHT build the team into a winner, or he might lose out to SA and Utah for FAs and be forced to overpay for mediocre free agents to avoid 60 losses this year.
> ...


Whoa, yo, Ed O. Kiki's doing fine. No one's going to nominate for Exec of the Year, but it's pretty damn hard to make something from nothing. But he's done ok. 

1.) McDyess has proven to the league that he's made of glass. Getting something for him was a good move. Marcus Camby's a decent player and has been healthy more than Dice. 

2.) NVE was a cancerous sore in Denver - getting rid of him for some cap space was a smart move. 

3.) Raef LaFrentz is not a franchise player - but the players they've gotten in the draft could prove to be - Hilario, Tshvili, and whomever they land this summer... could be steps in the right direction. 

Yes, Kiki's still in a tough spot, but it's always tough to build a winner out of a loser in the Western Conference. Best way to do it is to seize players from teams that need to make changes.... hmm... like the Blazers.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Public Defender</b>!
> 
> Whoa, yo, Ed O. Kiki's doing fine. No one's going to nominate for Exec of the Year, but it's pretty damn hard to make something from nothing. But he's done ok.


What's he done? In 99-00, they won 35 games. They won 27 games last year and 17 this year. They're a laughing stock of the NBA. They MIGHT bounce back, but there's no guarantees. In the mean time, interest in the Nuggets has to be at an all-time low.

Now let's look at the pieces he had to work with...



> 1.) McDyess has proven to the league that he's made of glass. Getting something for him was a good move. Marcus Camby's a decent player and has been healthy more than Dice.


McDyess has only played in 10 games the last 2 seasons, but before that he was consistently playing 70+ games (except 98-99, when he plaed in all 50). He's still only 28 years old, and I seriously doubt he'll be out of commission forever.



> 2.) NVE was a cancerous sore in Denver - getting rid of him for some cap space was a smart move.


I don't know about that. NVE looks pretty good to me in Dallas. They MIGHT be able to bring in Arenas or Miller, but if Kiki could have worked with Nick, they might have had a player that's as good as either of these guys for the last two seasons... and NVE's contract has an option after next year, so if he continued to be a problem, and they couldn't have gotten more for him than a year of Howard and his expiring contract, they would have probably been out from under his contract after '04 because he wouldn't have picked up the option.



> 3.) Raef LaFrentz is not a franchise player - but the players they've gotten in the draft could prove to be - Hilario, Tshvili, and whomever they land this summer... could be steps in the right direction.


Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Every player doesn't have to be a franchise player to contribute. They could have had Raef, Hilario AND Tskitishvili. Or they could have let Raef walk last summer (instead of signing him to an extension like Dallas did). Or they could have done a sign and trade. But they got diddly-squat for him and they strengthened a division rival.

I don't see Skita being a franchise player EVER unless his work habits improve dramatically. I've heard and read multiple reports that he isn't willing to work hard enough and Denver is already questioning his future with the team.



> Yes, Kiki's still in a tough spot, but it's always tough to build a winner out of a loser in the Western Conference. Best way to do it is to seize players from teams that need to make changes.... hmm... like the Blazers.


He might pull it off. But what he's done (tearing down a mediocre team) is the easy part. It's the BUILDING that's tough. And considering how relatively unimpressed I've been with his demolition job (he's stripped his team of every valuable piece, and is left basically with Hilario, Skita and some cap space) I don't have much confidence he'll succeed any time soon.

Ed O.


----------



## Saxon_guy (Jan 20, 2003)

Well, this is definatley for the better! I am glad to see him go. All these trades he made for talent and not chemistry show that he didn't really know what he was doing.

Maybe we can get Pippen now! :yes:


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Van Exel had to be traded, and the only way to do it was to send Raef at the same time. 

Time will tell on McDyess. 28 years old and two surgeries later - he's losing his prime to injury, unfortunately.

The tough part for Kiki is getting someone to truly build around. It might be Nene, it might be someone in this draft, if he can get one of those top 3 picks, or if he can trade that pick for someone of value. 

As for being under the cap, he'll have a much easier time luring talent if they can get that one proven commodity and create an atmosphere of promise (a la the Clippers a few years back). 

Clearing the air was the first step and Kiki did it decisively.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

What about Lionel Hollins?

I think he could be a good fit for GM. He's very basketball wise.

If not him, Harry Glickman!


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

Finally, Bob is history.

We lost so many great players because of that ***.

Clyde Drexler
Brian Grant
Jermaine O'Neil


Look at what that joker brought in

JR Rider
Shawn Kemp
Rahsheed Wallace
Ruben Patterson
Damon Stodamire
etc

It's a great day in PDX


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> Look at what that joker brought in
> 
> JR Rider
> ...


If by "etc." you include Brian Grant and Jermaine O'Neal (two "great" players he got rid of), then at least you're consistent.

But if by "etc." you mean Grant, O'Neal, Steve Smith, Derek Anderson, Chris Dudley, Arvydas Sabonis, Steve Kerr and any number of other good basketball players and quality human beings (who do not fail in the PR perception world) then I don't know what you're complaining about.




> Its a great day in PDX


Says a guy with a Sonics avatar.

Ed O.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I wonder how badly he would be criticized by his players after he "only" wins 60% of his games over almost a decade of being GM...
> ...



taking the long view and ignoring all the subplots of how those wins were achieved and what transpired in terms of personnel over that time span does not acurately reflect what Bob Whitsitt meant to Portland. It completely discounts JR Rider, Shawn Kemp, Brian Grant, Jermaine O'Neal, Detlef Schrempf, Rasheed Wallace, etc...and all of the sordid events related to them. It also ignores the reality that the Blazers have had zero accountability for their actions, which directly reflects on the job Bob Whitsitt did.

Hey, the Boston Red Sox manage to win a lot of games too, what good is it? Winning a high percentage is nice, but in the end winning championships is what actually matters, nothing else matters.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> taking the long view and ignoring all the subplots of how those wins were achieved and what transpired in terms of personnel over that time span does not acurately reflect what Bob Whitsitt meant to Portland.


Taking the long view DOES take all of that into account. If all those distracations were so bad, the team would not have continued to win. The team would not have continued to play to a packed house almost every night. The day-to-day stuff that some people let stick in their craw is the small stuff that is practically insignificant relative to the true (IMO) standards of success: winning during the regular season and being in a position to win in the postseason.



> It completely discounts JR Rider, Shawn Kemp, Brian Grant, Jermaine O'Neal, Detlef Schrempf, Rasheed Wallace, etc...and all of the sordid events related to them.


All those sordid events relating to the Blazers signing Brian Grant? Drafting Jermaine O'Neal? Trading Rider for Steve Smith? Getting an All-Star in Rasheed Wallace for a headcase of a PG and a crappy-shooting 3 with a horrible contract?

He's made mistakes. As everyone does. But his mistakes were outweighed by his successes. The long-term view shows that.



> It also ignores the reality that the Blazers have had zero accountability for their actions, which directly reflects on the job Bob Whitsitt did.


They have not had zero accountability. Players have been fined, suspended, and otherwise disciplined countless times. Has anyone been released? No. Other than that there was really no other way to hold them more accountable.



> Hey, the Boston Red Sox manage to win a lot of games too, what good is it? Winning a high percentage is nice, but in the end winning championships is what actually matters, nothing else matters.


The Red Sox are one of the most storied franchises in pro sports. The Indians, who HAVE won world series and have been around about as long, are not. Check out the support for the teams when Boston struggles vs. when Cleveland struggles. Nobody gives a crap about the Indians unless they're winning because they don't have the winning tradition of the Red Sox.

Winning consistently matters, too.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

So Ed.. I am curious.. are you still a lawyer? prosecutor or defender? or ?


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> So Ed.. I am curious.. are you still a lawyer? prosecutor or defender? or ?


Probably neither... He's just a great master debater.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> So Ed.. I am curious.. are you still a lawyer? prosecutor or defender? or ?


I am an attorney, but my lawyerin' is only part of my current position. The legal work I do is mainly small business stuff (entity formation, contracts, etc.)

Ed O.


----------

