# Brian Wheeler : Major Changes are coming



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Brian Wheeler was on Sports Sunday and he said he "expects" major changes to occur to the roster in the next month. 

Kinda makes you think, during the game today Mike Rice was talking about Jason Kidd an aweful lot, and how he would make the Blazers run. Maybe we'll see a JKidd blockbuster? or maybe the Vince Carter deal will finally happen?

SAR has done nothing but increased his trade value imo, he's played very solid playing out of position, put up solid numbers (one of the most efficient players on the team) and didn't gripe about playing the 3.


----------



## pdx_streetballer (Nov 27, 2004)

What actually did Brian Wheeler talk about? any possible moves that the Blazers may make for thier line up and team ingeneral?


Fill us in QRICH or anybody else that knows that watched Sports Sunday!


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Some posters mentioned his talk of Kidd during the game... maybe CSMN will tell us more tonight


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Newspaper said Nash Patterson and Thorn were talking for 45 minutes. But I doubt it means anything. I really don't want Kidd. His is getting older, just came off a major injury, and I don't think it would make us a contender.

BFreak


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

if we can get Kidd and Carter without losing Outlaw, Monia, Ha, Kryhapa and Telfair, I'd be giddy as a school girl.

since thats not the case, I'm leery


----------



## Blaze_Rocks (Aug 11, 2004)

:sigh: Man you guys arent tired of all this trade talk?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> if we can get Kidd and Carter without losing Outlaw, Monia, Ha, Kryhapa and Telfair, I'd be giddy as a school girl.
> 
> since thats not the case, I'm leery




Yes me too.... I think its within our grasp to do that, and get Rose as well... we certianly haev the pieces to make that happen. But I think its way too much to hope for

personally I think a deal will come after Dec 15th... 


if 2x deals are done... one for Carter/Rose and one for Kidd... I would believe he would do it simultaneously.... and would have to keep it hush hush during the interim process of letting the ink dry

One team knowing that we are getting Kidd.. then Carter/Rose... may stop and rethink the deal. But if it helps the other team as well, perhaps they will not. Making us a playoff team is not their intentions..


Kidd, Rose, Carter, Randolph, Ratliff
with Miles or Patterson, Telfair, Outlaw and a PF coming off the bench is what I am hoping for :gopray:

waiting in the wings Monia, Khryapa and Ha :woot:

this would sell a lot of tickets and products


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

> Kidd, Rose, Carter, Randolph, Ratliff


I wonder if our defense would suffer with that lineup. Aren't we one of the best teams in the league @ apponent fg %? If so, wouldn't bringing in offensive players like Carter, Rose, Kidd (along side the poor defense of Randolph) kind of hurt the defense we have now? I'd much rather see miles or patterson in one of those starting spots to give it a little better D.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> if we can get Kidd and Carter without losing Outlaw, Monia, Ha, Kryhapa and Telfair, I'd be giddy as a school girl.
> 
> since thats not the case, I'm leery



If that happened I'd be right there with you Hap. In fact I'd probably pull your pig tails


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

That would make us the 2000 blazers all over again - the attitude.

Alot of ageing stars with whopping contracts. But yes, I think it's definitly possible. New Jersey would be willing to give up Kidd, just to get rid of his contract. So Damon for Kidd straight up would work.

Then we could pull off the SAR and DA for Rose and Carter deal.

I also think we should use Darius Miles as trade bait, because he's really ineffecient this year. Both Ruben and Outlaw are better than Miles at this point. Outlaw ALREADY looks more polished with his outside jumper. Granted, he doesn't have the smooth ballhandling skills, but Miles rarely plays aggresively anyway.

It would give us a great veteran team with quality youngsters waiting in the wings.

Kidd/Telfair
Carter/Monia
Ratliff/Pryz
Randolph/Patterson
Rose/Miles


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Did he use the word major??
Wow ! An actual star????
Or is it second tier has beens and never beens ??

I sure wish they would let Telfair play more.
The other rooks play on their teams,ours always get a late 
start. I can't help but think rookies must wonder about that
coming here. Or other players in general.
If I were a player,I sure wouldn't come to a team with limited
playing time.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>CelticPagan</b>!
> That would make us the 2000 blazers all over again - the attitude.
> 
> Alot of ageing stars with whopping contracts.


I think a "lot" might be stretching it. At most, it'd be Theo Rose and Kidd who are major players in the rotation. Maybe NVE too. But the majority of the team is still under 30, including the core (Carter, Zach, Darius, Telfair, etc).

I think it could be a good combo of youth and aging players.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

There is a big gap in games from Tuesday to Saturday....

enough time to swap a few players around don't you think???

opportunity knocks...


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TheBlueDoggy</b>!
> 
> 
> I wonder if our defense would suffer with that lineup. Aren't we one of the best teams in the league @ apponent fg %? If so, wouldn't bringing in offensive players like Carter, Rose, Kidd (along side the poor defense of Randolph) kind of hurt the defense we have now? I'd much rather see miles or patterson in one of those starting spots to give it a little better D.


I wouldn't necesarily think so.

Kidd would be replacing Damon; a well known defensive liability. If Kidd comes back healthy, he's a good defender who can rack up the steals.

Carter replacing Anderson is pretty much a tossup. I don't know much about Carter's defense but I would imagine it isn't worse than DA's.

It all depends on who you choose to replace SAR with at the 3. Thus far, he hasn't done a bad job of keeping opposing small forwards at bay. But if you replace him with either Miles or Patterson (highly unlikely that it's Patterson), I could only see our D improving.

Plus, we still have Theo!


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

We'd have a lot of whopping contracts, that's for sure.

Kidd ` 20 million
Rose- ~15 Mil
Ratliff ~ 10 mil
Randolph ~12 mil
Carter ~16

And they're all locked up for at least 3 years.

Kidd, Rose, and Ratliff are all over 30. And Carter and Kidd are iffy because of Kidd is coming off a big injury and Carter has been playing spuratically.

Now I think this team is actually better than the 2000 Blazers if Kidd can come back! The only thing it's missing is Arvydas Sabonis.


----------



## duckman1734 (Jun 29, 2003)

I really don't think there is any way of getting JKidd and Vince/Rose, without giving up ZBo or a few of the young guys. 

SAR & DA (or Van Exel may go if we can get Kidd) for Carter & Rose makes sense(with whatever fillers Stepania, Palacio...)

But then no one else really makes sense for NJ unless they have truly thrown in the towel and just want Damons cap room, even then I think you would have to trade Outlaw or Monia and Kyrapha to get JKidd. I wouldn't mind giving the last 2 up one bit. I really don't think either will ever see significant PT as a Blazer. 
Also may need to give up Miles, although he doesn't make much sense for NJ with Jefferson.
Kidd-Carter-Rose-ZBo-Theo
Telfair-Patterson-Miles-Filler- Pryzbilla
Outlaw-Frahm

That's not a bad line up I guess


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

if we can hold onto ZBO ratliff telfair
and get kidd rose carter 
we will win the championship kidd rose carter


----------



## NastyOne (Nov 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazerben4</b>!
> if we can hold onto ZBO ratliff telfair
> and get kidd rose carter
> we will win the championship kidd rose carter


I think that's a stretch.

I think they'll have a lot of talent, but talent doesn't always equate to championships.

Chemistry has a LOT to do with it too, and I think that Kidd, Rose, Carter, Randolph is basically a situation where you'll have too many roosters in the hen house.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>NastyOne</b>!
> 
> 
> I think that's a stretch.
> ...



If nothing else they would be fun to watch, unlike the team now.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Don't we WANT to be the 2000 Blazers? That team contended for the title. That's the goal, isn't it?

Yo, if we can get Carter and Kidd without giving up Randolph, Miles, or Telfair, then we need to do it.

Then we need to find a center.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> Don't we WANT to be the 2000 Blazers? That team contended for the title. That's the goal, isn't it?


I still don't get why those high-spending teams are so badly maligned. people seem ashamed of making it to the WCF two years in a row just because we had to put up with some knuckleheads and some in-fighting in the process. 

yeah, we should've kept Jermaine O'Neal. yeah, we could've lived without Shawn Kemp. but by and large as a Blazer fan I'm pretty darned happy with how the last six or so seasons have treated me. 

for all the grief he gets, Trader Bob kept it interesting. I'd love to have another poor chemistry/high talent team that gets us to the WCF again.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NastyOne</b>!
> 
> 
> I think that's a stretch.
> ...


Does that mean you are calling Theo Ratliff a hen?


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

There's no way we get all these guys, but...

If we did, the only thing left to do would be pull in a coach who commands the respect to get these guys to buy into a team concept.

Carter says he wants to win, Kidd is a great team player, Miles and Jalen both like to pass and do it well. Randolph can get points and rebounds without necessarily being fed the ball every possession. It could work.

If you have guys like Kidd, Carter, Rose, Miles and Randolph all having a great time and playing off of each other - watch the hell out league.

It is a problem that I would love the team to have.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

if we had that fantasy lineup, and Vince and Kidd were at least 70% of their former selves, it wouldn't be hard to pry Phil Jackson out of retirement. it'd be interesting to see that team trying to run the triangle offense--with Kidd's lousy perimeter shooting I think he'd have to go with a more conventional system. 

ah, fantasy land. the eternal realm of us Blazer fans, where Shawn Kemp is an All-Star and Rasheed Wallace dominates every night from the low post. 

lucky for us, every once in a while Paul Allen actually springs for the pixy dust.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> I still don't get why those high-spending teams are so badly maligned. people seem ashamed of making it to the WCF two years in a row just because we had to put up with some knuckleheads and some in-fighting in the process.
> 
> ...


Agreed on ALL counts. Even if the Blazers didn't quite make the Finals, compared to every other West team other than the Spurs an the Lakers in the past decade or so, that team looks pretty impressive. Teams like Sacramento and Dallas have been pretty consistently good the past few years, but not only have they failed to make the Finals, they've failed even to make a pair of Conference Finals.

Dallas is showing that it's possible to take on massive contracts and turn them over on a constant basis... they took on Jamison's massive deal and turned it into a lottery pick and their PG of the future, for example. The Blazers have been well-poised to reload in a similar fashion, but they've been on a "character" kick that's derailed them from winning on the floor.

Hopefully Portland can pull off a big deal or two in the next month or so and we can all be excited not just about the quality of people on the team but also the quality of the basketball being played.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> 
> I still don't get why those high-spending teams are so badly maligned. people seem ashamed of making it to the WCF two years in a row just because we had to put up with some knuckleheads and some in-fighting in the process.


actually, the high spending teams *didn't* make it to the WCF's 2 years in a row.

Unless you count 1st round and out the "wcf's".

the team that grossly over spent was the 2000-2003 teams. Not the 99 and 2000 teams. 


> yeah, we should've kept Jermaine O'Neal. yeah, we could've lived without Shawn Kemp. but by and large as a Blazer fan I'm pretty darned happy with how the last six or so seasons have treated me.
> 
> for all the grief he gets, Trader Bob kept it interesting. I'd love to have another poor chemistry/high talent team that gets us to the WCF again.


again, the 99 and 2000 teams weren't the teams in question. It was what he did *AFTER* that point that people ***** about. It's not fair, nor really accurate, to continually trump out the 2 years that were good, when people aren't complaining about those years. 

They're complaining about the last 3 years that he was here, where the team had bad chemistry/cohesivneness and was grossly overpaying players.

It was the team that had Shawn Kemp on it. It was the team that got Derek Anderson at (what is now) a higher price than he's worth instead of keeping Steve Smith as a backup and having Bonzi be the starting 2G (where he should've been period). It was the team that brought in Rod Strickland when it wasn't needed. It was the team that brought in Detlef Schrempf when it wasn't needed.

It was the team that went over 100 million in salary...that *didn't make the WCF's*...

you know..the 2002-2003 team


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

well, Rasheed Wallace, Damon Stoudamire and Scottie Pippen were all on the 2000 team. just their combined salaries were nearly half of the total salary in your link. had we not signed them, we'd have been a reasonably priced $50 mil salary team in 2003. but we wouldn't have sniffed the WCF in 2000. 

yes, Schrempf, Strickland and Kemp were all bad decisions. (although his wise decision not to overspend on Bonzi, Sabonis and Steve Smith are often overlooked.) nobody groused about DA when we signed him, and most Blazer fans thought we'd hosed Indiana in the Dale Davis deal at the time. 

my point is that you have to look holistically at the entire 5-6 years. I'm not "trumping" the two great seasons to try to hide the succeeding mediocre/bad ones. I'm saying that Bob and Paul Allen pried open a championship window for us, and unfortunately we've been living with the hangover ever since. 

sure, the hangover wouldn't be so bad if we hadn't had some bad Kemp and Scrempf there at the end, but oh well. I'd still gladly go through all the Rider/Kemp/Jermaine/salary/etc headaches to go on that two season ride again.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> ... it wouldn't be hard to pry Phil Jackson out of retirement. .....


I agree... might be interesting


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

when you think about it, the last several seasons have been a microcosm of the Chicago Bulls experience. we've had some great times and we've had some lousy times, although never as great nor as bad as Chicago. 

I'd much rather follow a team like those old Portland teams which gambled all the time on salaries, contracts and character. who wants to follow a team without a superstar that isn't willing to gamble its way out of mediocrity?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> well, Rasheed Wallace, Damon Stoudamire and Scottie Pippen were all on the 2000 team. just their combined salaries were nearly half of the total salary in your link. had we not signed them, we'd have been a reasonably priced $50 mil salary team in 2003. but we wouldn't have sniffed the WCF in 2000.


the thing is, the team was hamstrung on improving because of the salaries being high, especially when they had Kemp. And the team didn't have a huge salary in 99 (only approx 55 million).

whereas if they ad Kidd, the salary would be higher than what Pippen's did, iirc.


> nobody groused about DA when we signed him, and most Blazer fans thought we'd hosed Indiana in the Dale Davis deal at the time.


I didn't like sigining DA, even tho I spouted the company line about how he'd be still playing when Smith was retired..although it's ironic that part of the reason they supposidly traded Smith was because he demanded a new contract. 

Strange, he never got it. From anyone.

I don't remember how I felt about the Dale Davis trade, but I know I thought the Kemp one was idiotic.


> my point is that you have to look holistically at the entire 5-6 years. I'm not "trumping" the two great seasons to try to hide the succeeding mediocre/bad ones. I'm saying that Bob and Paul Allen pried open a championship window for us, and unfortunately we've been living with the hangover ever since.
> 
> sure, the hangover wouldn't be so bad if we hadn't had some bad Kemp and Scrempf there at the end, but oh well. I'd still gladly go through all the Rider/Kemp/Jermaine/salary/etc headaches to go on that two season ride again.


if the teams salary was reasonable now, and was equivilant to the 99 team (even adjusted for the salary cap changes) I'd be happy.

But we're already at almost 80 million, and finally getting it reasonable. We don't need to put the anchor of Jason Kidd on it for another 5 years, unless it's 100% guaranteed he's going to be healthy and we get to keep Telfair.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> But we're already at almost 80 million, and finally getting it reasonable. We don't need to put the anchor of Jason Kidd on it for another 5 years, unless it's 100% guaranteed he's going to be healthy and we get to keep Telfair.


no argument there. if we can get Kidd under those circumstances, we'd be fools to pass it up. 

myself, I'd even be willing to part with Telfair if I somehow knew for sure we'd be getting a 100% healthy Kidd for the life of his contract. since that isn't really possible to know, Telfair is pretty much off-limits in my mind.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> The Blazers have been well-poised to reload in a similar fashion, but they've been on a "character" kick that's derailed them from winning on the floor.


That's just simply wrong. They resigned Zach Randolph even after he was involved in a bar shooting. They resigned Darius Miles, who has gotten into trouble a few times. They even signed Nick the Quick, who has a reputation as a temperamental player who doesn't get along with coaches. The Blazers are clearly willing to take a gamble on good players with character issues.

And oh by the way, this "derailed" team just beat the best team in the NBA last night.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Miles and Van Exel are not the sort of impact players we used to gamble on, and Zach still has enough holes in his game that it's far from clear if he's worth that kind of money. (And we didn't exactly sign NVE.) So, we're throwing pretty big money at pretty good players with not overly bad fan perceptions, with the end result being a fairly average product on the floor.

Whitsitt swung for the fences. Nash so far is going with the safe base hits.

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Miles and Van Exel are not the sort of impact players we used to gamble on, and Zach still has enough holes in his game that it's far from clear if he's worth that kind of money. (And we didn't exactly sign NVE.) So, we're throwing pretty big money at pretty good players with not overly bad fan perceptions, with the end result being a fairly average product on the floor.
> 
> Whitsitt swung for the fences. Nash so far is going with the safe base hits.
> ...


whitsitt didn't swing for the fences when he started out as the GM. He made dozens of trades (i'm being generous) and cleared out the old guard.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

But did you ever get the sense he was just making moves for the hell of it? In my opinion, Whitsitt always had a clear plan of what he wanted to accomplish, and the moves got more and more aggressive as he built momentum. Nash has yet to show any real sense of direction, with one move making sense only to be contradicted by the next.

Dan


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

It might be best to keep in mind that the rules changed during BW's tenure. In the first few years there wasn't the heavy luxury tax, and he had more freedom to move players. A couple of years later, the whole league started being careful about the luxury tax and trading was made more complicated/difficult.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> But did you ever get the sense he was just making moves for the hell of it? In my opinion, Whitsitt always had a clear plan of what he wanted to accomplish, and the moves got more and more aggressive as he built momentum. Nash has yet to show any real sense of direction, with one move making sense only to be contradicted by the next.
> 
> Dan


making moves with a "plan" doesn't always make it better. Some of TB's moves, even with the "plan" in mind were idiotic.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

What moves were idiotic? Several backfired, to be sure, but every move he made (that I can remember) had potential to pay off big.

What are the worst moves of Whitsitt's tenure?

- Clyde for Thorpe. Well, that team had lost its edge and the trade made us no worse off... Start of an overhaul. (The same could perhaps be said of Nash so far, but I don't see it being quite in the same vein.)

- Grant for Kemp. Big risk, potential big payoff, big failure. We all knew it was a long shot, but boy were we giddy with the thought of Kemp flashing back 2 years to allstar form...

- O'Neal for Davis. Win now vs. keep developing an inconsistent, injury-prone hot head who couldn't even get court time. I still don't see the problem there.

- Bringing in Strickland and Scrempf. Rod obviously didn't work out, but I dare say that was because of Damon more than because of Rod. Rod did and said everything right, just the team didn't win. And I've never understood the ill feelings toward Scrempf. His productivity was nowhere near his former Seattle levels, but he played hard despite the injuries and was a threat whenever he stepped on the court.

Dan


----------



## CrGiants (Dec 4, 2003)

The ill feelings towards Schrempf were caused by Whitsitt's willingness to let Schrempf do as he pleased without any repercussions. Schrempf more or less came and went as he pleased, which annoyed several others who had to follow more strict guidelines (at least in terms of schedule, not offcourt behaviors).


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I don't recall ever hearing about that... How bad can it have been if the media didn't jump on it? They were circling like sharks around that team.

All I remember is Shrempf had the neck spasms that kept him in physical therapy for stretches. If that's all you're referring to, I'd say it's pretty understandable.

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> What moves were idiotic? Several backfired, to be sure, but every move he made (that I can remember) had potential to pay off big.


trading for Kemp was idiotic. re-signing Rod was idiotic. bringing back Schrempf was idiotic. 



> - Grant for Kemp. Big risk, potential big payoff, big failure. We all knew it was a long shot, but boy were we giddy with the thought of Kemp flashing back 2 years to allstar form...


not all of us. I was on record saying it made no sense at the time, and that it wouldn't help them.


> - Bringing in Strickland and Scrempf. Rod obviously didn't work out, but I dare say that was because of Damon more than because of Rod. Rod did and said everything right, just the team didn't win.


the team already had 2 PG's who were working fine. The team was already one of the best teams in the league (record wise) and an extra guard was brought in. And right away he got minutes. I don't recall if Greg Anthony was injured, but I don't think he was. 

It'd be like bringing in NVE from the moment he was traded for, and giving him major minutes. Teams don't work that way. Especially that team.



> And I've never understood the ill feelings toward Scrempf. His productivity was nowhere near his former Seattle levels, but he played hard despite the injuries and was a threat whenever he stepped on the court.


he wasn't needed, and he said things in the paper about the team at the time, that were kind of insulting. Basically, what was the point of bringing in Rod and Det?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> I don't recall ever hearing about that... How bad can it have been if the media didn't jump on it? They were circling like sharks around that team.
> 
> All I remember is Shrempf had the neck spasms that kept him in physical therapy for stretches. If that's all you're referring to, I'd say it's pretty understandable.
> ...


the media wasn't circling that team like sharks at that time. The team was still winning. They were, however, questioning the return of Det and Rod though. 

One of the biggest complaints about Trader Bob is, he never let the team stay together long enough to meld.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Any idiotic moves, in your mind, that have turned out well? Or is your definition of an idiotic move one that you had misgivings about that were later confirmed?

As I outlined above, all of those moves you call idiotic were perfectly justifiable, just risky. Had they worked out better, they'd probably go down in history as brilliant. Very fine line there.



> One of the biggest complaints about Trader Bob is, he never let the team stay together long enough to meld.


True, but that complaint could be levied at almost any modern team not based in L.A. or S.A. Either teams aren't good enough to compete, or they aren't held together long enough to gel. The exceptions win championships. Bob made several moves in short order that quickly ascended the team to near the top, then he made the very reasonable decision to try to climb to that next rung. In my opinion, no way would our team have been better than LA in '01 had we kept the group intact. The wheels were already falling off and we had no answer to the most vexing problem -- Shaq. Bringing in Dale and Kemp was an attempt to counter that. Just didn't work.

As for Strickland, we needed an infusion of good PG play. Scottie wasn't really running the show, Damon was starting his backpedal, and Greg was on the decline from a couple years that were far above anything he had produced previously in his career. Besides, every GM dreams of trading a good player for an up and coming star, then resigning that player later and having the last laugh.

Where's the idiocy?

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Any idiotic moves, in your mind, that have turned out well? Or is your definition of an idiotic move one that you had misgivings about that were later confirmed?


if it's an idiotic move, by definition, it didn't turn out well. 

thats an impossible question to answer. 



> As I outlined above, all of those moves you call idiotic were perfectly justifiable, just risky.


they weren't all perfectly justifiable. Whats the justification in bringing back Detlef? Or signing Rod Strickland?

or trading for Kemp? 



> True, but that complaint could be levied at almost any modern team not based in L.A. or S.A. Either teams aren't good enough to compete, or they aren't held together long enough to gel. The exceptions win championships. Bob made several moves in short order that quickly ascended the team to near the top, then he made the very reasonable decision to try to climb to that next rung.


I don't know if I'd say that he made "quick work" of it to ascend near the top. He came in 94, and didn't "ascend" until 99. And here we are in Nash's 2nd season, and people are *****ing and moaning, and comparing his work already, to Trader Bob's best 2 years (years 5 and 6). 

The difference is, when TB moved the players then, it was accepted that the team (more than likely) had done their run, and things needed to be changed. And back then, people were mocked for holding onto the past, saying how we should've kept Drexler/Porter etc, and now some people pine for the days of Sheed and Bonzi.



> In my opinion, no way would our team have been better than LA in '01 had we kept the group intact. The wheels were already falling off and we had no answer to the most vexing problem -- Shaq. Bringing in Dale and Kemp was an attempt to counter that. Just didn't work.


hm..I don't see how the "wheels" were coming off. Brian Grant opted out, so they should've let him go. Then they should've said "ok Jermaine, this is your year to be the main backup"

instead of having Dale Davis and a fat bloated contract (er...Shawn Kemp) they could've had basically the same team + no wasted coke head.



> As for Strickland, we needed an infusion of good PG play. Scottie wasn't really running the show, Damon was starting his backpedal, and Greg was on the decline from a couple years that were far above anything he had produced previously in his career.


what the hell? The team was 42-18 before they brought Rod Strickland in. They then lost 5 straight and ended the season 8-14. How the hell did they need an "infusion of good PG play"??

if they were 42-18 and they were having bad PG play, I'd hate to see what they would've been with "good" pg play..

Also, Damon wasn't "starting his backpedal". That was his best statistical year as a Blazer. Shot 43% from the floor (a small improvement over the year before, but an improvement none the less).

way to go out on a limb to defend retarded trades/signings by trader bob here.



> Besides, every GM dreams of trading a good player for an up and coming star, then resigning that player later and having the last laugh.
> 
> Where's the idiocy?
> 
> Dan


what does that last bit have to do with what we're talking about?


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> if it's an idiotic move, by definition, it didn't turn out well.


But you seem to be treating it as a biconditional: If it didn't turn out well, it's an idiotic move. That, I dare say, is hindsight idiocy. 

Just because you had misgivings about it initially, combined with the fact it didn't turn out well, does not make it idiotic.



> Whats the justification in bringing back Detlef? Or signing Rod Strickland? or trading for Kemp?


Did you not read anything I wrote? I already answered that question about Kemp and Strickland. Shrempf should have been pretty obvious -- he was a versatile offensive threat that was very difficult to guard, and we didn't really have anyone filling that role. He just wasn't healthy enough to step up.



> I don't know if I'd say that he made "quick work" of it to ascend near the top.


You twisted my words around. I said he "made several moves in short order that quickly ascended the team to near the top," not that he quickly turned the team around. Big difference.

For instance, most thought bringing in Rider was beyond idiotic -- borderline lunacy. But that was the start of a rapid rise to the top of the NBA, which he continued by turning it into Steve Smith. Idiotic or brilliant? You decide.

Brian Grant was barely a household name when Whitsitt aggressively pursued him...



> And here we are in Nash's 2nd season, and people are *****ing and moaning, and comparing his work already, to Trader Bob's best 2 years


No, I don't think anyone's doing that. I'm certainly not. Nash isn't being compared to what Whitsitt accomplished at his best, rather the way he's gone about it (I thought I was pretty clear about that in the post you first objected to). It's the lack of anything resembling a consistent plan.



> hm..I don't see how the "wheels" were coming off.


The team went into a pretty deep funk after the implosion against LA. Never really seemed like they recovered from that. Damon, Steve, Greg, Scottie, Arvydas, all rapidly declining age and/or health.



> Then they should've said "ok Jermaine, this is your year to be the main backup"


There was no indication at the time that he was ready to do so, other than reports out of practice that he was a different player than we saw on the court. Dale was at least a proven commodity, coming off an all-star year and battling Shaq well enough to keep Indiana close in the Finals.

Say what you will about Rod, he played well enough to warrant his time on the floor. Damon's best year statistically? Whoopee! That's some seriously high praise. Rod said and did all the right things, but the team stunk it up. Was that Rod's fault or some other team dynamic that didn't take to him well?



> what does that last bit have to do with what we're talking about?


Just explaining what was probably going through Bob's head with regards to Strickland (and Rasheed, obviously). Any other GM in the same situation would have found it very tempting, just like the Niners did with Rice and what's his face with Dallas.

Dan


----------

