# Kings Sign Rahim!



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

The Kings have signed Shareef and held a press conference to announce the signing. *Original credit to PejaVu for the link in the Shareef thread*. I registered at the Sacbee site and copied and pasted the small article here to save us all some time. Sorry no link since you have to register to see the article. It's copied in it's entirety below. 



Kings reach deal with Adbur-Rahim
Bee Sports Staff
Published 3:25 pm PDT Friday, August 12, 2005

The Sacramento Kings have called a 3:45 p.m. news conference to announce the signing of forward Shareef Abdur-Rahim.
The Kings were one of three teams in the running to obtain the coveted power forward, and The Bee reported in its Friday editions that the Kings were the front-runner. 

Abdur-Rahim earlier appeared headed for New Jersey in a trade with Portland. But New Jersey nixed the deal when Abdur-Rahim failed to pass their physical due to scar tissue in his right knee. He says it's the result of a surgery from his high school days and has not affected his play in the NBA.

Terms of the contract were unavailable, but Abdur-Rahim is a marquee name. With his addition, the Kings starting lineup could be Mike Bibby, Bonzi Wells, Peja Stojakovic, Abdur-Rahim and Brad Miller. It would be, on paper at least, one of the more imposing lineups in the Pacific Division.

Be sure to read more in Saturday's Sacramento Bee. 




- Get the whole story every day - SUBSCRIBE NOW!


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


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I just checked the Blazers hoem page, and no news. So I think we can safely assume we did not get anything out of this deal.

:banghead:


----------



## Peja Vu (Jun 9, 2002)

A couple more links with more info:

http://www.kcra.com/sports/4846202/detail.html
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/08/12/sports/s161637D26.DTL


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Apparently it is for 1 year at the MLE of about 5 million.


http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3885974



> The Nets rescinded their trade with the Trail Blazers on Tuesday, claiming the nine-year veteran's right knee had failed physical exams. The Kings wasted no time reasserting their interest in Abdur-Rahim, quickly closing what's believed to be a one-year deal for the NBA's midlevel salary cap exception, worth about $5 million.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> A couple more links with more info:


Nice, thanks was searching for links.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Good for him. I'm glad to see he finally got himself into a good situation. Maybe now he can get rid of that "loser" tag that's been tied to him all these years.

This late in the game I really don't care that we didn't get anything out of the deal. The trade exception and the late first rounder next year probably wouldn't have done us any good. 

I'm a little pissed that we weren't able to get anything for Rahim last off season but the past is the past. I'm just happy to see that Rahim went to a team that looks like a good fit.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

ebott said:


> The trade exception and the late first rounder next year probably wouldn't have done us any good.



They're both better than nothing, and NJ is not in our conference.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

It's ashame that he had to accept a one year deal to show his knee is ok. This is the damage done by Thorn.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

1 year for the MLE...That's extremely odd, unless he wants to do that a couple more times.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Nice job Nash.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ok Wnaker, now you can complain that all we got for Sheed is Theo


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

Bibby and Rahim, teaming up again!

I have a feeling that, assuming Reef stays healthy they will be signing him to a few more years for a few more dollars next year. Don't they have his Bird rights now to sign him to whatever they want next year?


----------



## njnets21 (May 29, 2005)

mgb said:


> It's ashame that he had to accept a one year deal to show his knee is ok. This is the damage done by Thorn.


i am really surprised he signed for one year, after Thorn offered him an adjusted 4 year deal worth over 22mil. it just doesnt make sense unless he said no to Thorn just out of principle for the whole situation. it's unfortunate for him that he originally chose the Nets, and because of everything that happened, he feels obligated to decline a lesser offer from them, to ultimately sign an even worse offer somewhere else. sad that this kind of thing always seems to happen to the best people.


----------



## njnets21 (May 29, 2005)

I don't think it's fair to blame the damage on Thorn, however, because it would not have been a smart move for the team to sign such a long-term deal when a problem like that arises. I feel bad for SAR, but I just don't think blaming Thorn is fair.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Well I am happy that the saga is finally over........I am sure that once Rahim proves he has nothing wrong the Kings sign him for a long term deal. I would have loved to get something for him, but hey what are you going to do.

If Rahim plays out his career with Sacramento say for the next five seasons after this one year deal is up, putting up 20/8 numbers, does that mean that the New Jersey Fans call for Thorn's head? :biggrin: 

I am totally going to be rooting for Rahim to put up huge numbers next season and the season after that, and after that, and after that!!!! :clap:


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

"The Curse of Rahim" goes to the Kings for the MLE. Bummer for them.


----------



## Mike Jones (Jul 31, 2005)

*This is better than Mike Jones coming out with Back Then. I always loved Shareef and Bibby in Vancouver. It will be fun to watch again.*


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

njnets21 said:


> it's unfortunate for him that he originally chose the Nets, and because of everything that happened, he feels obligated to decline a lesser offer from them, to ultimately sign an even worse offer somewhere else.


In my view it's a far better offer than either one he got from the NJ NOTS.

Nets last year 42-40 in the East finishing in a tie for 17th in the league.
Kings last year 50-32 in the West finishing 8th in the league.

Frank has yet to prove anything as a coach.
Adelman is one of the most successful coaches of all time.

Thorn is an inept GM and a liar to boot.
Petrie is regarded as one of the shrewdest GM's alive.

Bruce Ratner < Maloof Bros.

Nets are old, crippled, have no depth to speak of, and just signed McInnis for 2 years.
Kings are young, healthy, deep, and passed on McInnis.

NJ is a horribly violent, filthy city with dismal weather.
Sacramento is a friendly, clean city with a nice climate.

Ultimately, SAR wants to shed his loser image and win a ring.

He has a decent shot at doing that in SAC.

NJ needs to completely re-tool their line-up before they have any chance of success.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

Never knew NJ was a city. I guess you learn new stuff every day.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Ultimately, SAR wants to shed his loser image and win a ring.
> 
> He has a decent shot at doing that in SAC.
> 
> NJ needs to completely re-tool their line-up before they have any chance of success.


I wouldn't be suprised if NJ has a better record than the Kings this year. Once again the Kings show their total lack of commitment to defense. That is why they will always be also-rans. Reef is one of the worst defending big men in the league. The Kings will be soft in the middle and although they will make the playoffs they'll still go out quickly. Good news for Shareef as he'll finally see the playoffs. Unless of course the Reef jinx is real.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> NJ is a horribly violent, filthy city with dismal weather.


As I'm sure many posters from NJ will point out, NJ is a horribly violent, filthy STATE with dismal weather.



> Ultimately, SAR wants to shed his loser image and win a ring.


Ultimately, I want to fly at supersonic speeds by flapping my arms.

barfo


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

mgb said:


> It's ashame that he had to accept a one year deal to show his knee is ok. This is the damage done by Thorn.


To my knowledge, the Kings pushed for a long contract. Reef wanted to prove himself, but I'm pretty sure, it was decided that he would sign for the full 5 years.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Backboard Cam said:


> They're both better than nothing, and NJ is not in our conference.


My bitterness toward New Jersey due to all the **** that Rod Thorn has been talking since last off season overpowers that. The joy I have received from seeing them screwed over and seeing Shareef go to a team I like does me far more good than the trade exception and a late first rounder would have ever given me.

That fact that Sacramento is in our conference doesn't really concern me. We're gonna suck for the next two years and as such the fact that Shareef decided to sign with a team we play 3 games a year against completely independant of our actions doesn't bother me. And besides, I like Sacramento. They're fun to watch and their fans hate the Lakers just as much as we do. They deserve to sign a guy like S.A-R.

I think this is gonna work out really well for S.A-R. With the type of free-flowing offense that the Kings play I could see S.A-R. putting up 25-10 type numbers and making the all-star team. That would raise his stock something fierce. The question is whether anybody is gonna have cap room next season to offer him serious money.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> The question is whether anybody is gonna have cap room next season to offer him serious money.


Won't matter if they do or don't.

He's locked up for 5 in Sacramento.

I honestly don't understand anyone on this board dismissing Sacramento as a 1st round exit. Heck, even second.

The Suns, without Johnson, won't be nearly as deadly. They lost all their effectiveness from 3 point land. This was a BIG weapon for them. 

This is how I would rank the West:

*San Antonio - Div Winner* (barring an injury to Duncan, this is THE team)
*Houston* (Might be scary with TMac w/ a yr and Yao with some rest)
*Sacramento - Div Winner* (probably the top 5 starters on paper in the west)

*Phoenix* (losing all 3-pt scare will clog them up something fierce - not nearly the offensive powerhouse they once were)
*Dallas* (They are on my radar, but I wonder how Dirk responds)


* These top teams are pretty interchangeable. I think any one of these teams can best the others in a 7 game series.

- DROP OFF -

*Denver - Div Winner* (Still don't think they will make a huge dent)

- DROP OFF -

Seattle (I think last year was a cinderella year.)
Minnesota (This is Garnett's year to prove himself)
Golden State (I'm not as high as others with Baron)

- DROP OFF - 
Utah
Memphis 
LAL 
LAC

- DROP OFF - 
NO
Portland


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Ok Wnaker, now you can complain that all we got for Sheed is Theo


the Wanker wouldn't be alone in that complaint... tack on the ridiculous extention that Nash gave TR (roughly 1/4 of Portland's capspace for each of the next 3 seasons) and I'd imagine that there would be lots of fans with issues on how things have evolved. Just thinking about it makes me shake my head... Nash (a "genius" according to some here) gave oft injured 33 year old Theo more per year after leading Portland to their first lotto appearance in over two decades then Joe D gave 30 year old Rasheed coming off a championship. 

I hope this resigning doesn't look as bad in a couple more years as Trader Bob's monster mistake with resigning Damon to the cancerous tumor of a deal that Portland finally passed, but starting it's to look like a terrible blunder of the same nature... just a sloppy waste of resources IMO.

STOMP


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP said:


> the Wanker wouldn't be alone in that complaint... tack on the ridiculous extention that Nash gave TR (roughly 1/4 of Portland's capspace for each of the next 3 seasons) and I'd imagine that there would be lots of fans with issues on how things have evolved. Just thinking about it makes me shake my head... Nash (a "genius" according to some here) gave oft injured 33 year old Theo more per year after leading Portland to their first lotto appearance in over two decades then Joe D gave 30 year old Rasheed coming off a championship.
> 
> I hope this resigning doesn't look as bad in a couple more years as Trader Bob's monster mistake with resigning Damon to the cancerous tumor of a deal that Portland finally passed, but starting it's to look like a terrible blunder of the same nature... just a sloppy waste of resources IMO.
> 
> STOMP


No doubt.

Though you could compare Theo's extension to other players, the contrast to Rasheed is helpful.

It saddens me to no end that we gave up a better talent, a more effective team player, younger player, and a player you know is you can count on as your 35min starter, all for PR. And yet, the only PR that really matters is wins. Thus Theo the "good" guy presides over a half empty arena. 

Where are all those supporters of "good" guys now. This is something chronic complainers and *****y puritans don't get - the massive hypocrisy of their positions. They critisize others for lack of character, yet are liars. "Get good guys and we will come back". Isn't lying indicative of a lack of character? I call bull****.

I warned the team not to pay ANY attention to the Ron Tonkins of the world. I warned them that they were LYING when they said character was MORE important than winning.

My solution at the time, was to turn the tables on the Oregonian, ESPN and all of them, and embrace - in a good humoured way - the negative PR, own it, and thus, gradually, morf it into a persona. Become the new Bad Boys of the NBA. The WWF style villians. The Oakland Raiders or A's of the 70's.

Maybe that is a stupid idea, or maybe Paul Allen only wants to be loved by everyone. Whatever. The point is that to react to the cresendo of bull**** hurled at you was not, and has not "fixed" anything.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

HOWIE said:


> Well I am happy that the saga is finally over........I am sure that once Rahim proves he has nothing wrong the Kings sign him for a long term deal. I would have loved to get something for him, but hey what are you going to do.
> 
> If Rahim plays out his career with Sacramento say for the next five seasons after this one year deal is up, putting up 20/8 numbers, does that mean that the New Jersey Fans call for Thorn's head? :biggrin:
> 
> I am totally going to be rooting for Rahim to put up huge numbers next season and the season after that, and after that, and after that!!!! :clap:



Yes, but I think Rahims numbers will drop off anyways

Whether he was plugged into a lineup of:
Kidd, Carter, Jefferson, Rahim, Krstic

or 

Bibby, Wells, Peja, Rahim, Miller

either way he has some scorers to compete with... so I think his days of 20/8-10 are behind him just in sheer team balance


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Yep. I don't see how anyone could look at this as anything but a disaster. we lost the most productive player we've had since Clyde Drexler/Terry Porter for what? Theo Ratliff? 

I remember solidly being in the "Raider" camp with you, Masbee. we could've fielded a wacky, obnoxious team of guys who may not have won a ring, but were always fun to watch, always being written about, and always in the playoffs. it takes some serious balls to step up to the plate and say, "I want to be Darth Vader" though. 

*sigh*

I guess we've just got to take our lumps.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Trader Bob said:


> Yes, but I think Rahims numbers will drop off anyways
> 
> Whether he was plugged into a lineup of:
> Kidd, Carter, Jefferson, Rahim, Krstic
> ...


I think you are WAY off base.

This is a team that thrived on feeding the PF slot. This is a coach that finds ways to involve the PF. 

I think Reef is actually going to have a career year playing there. I think he is going to be asked to take more shots than he ever has, and I think he'll deliver.

Playing in NJ, I believe you are right - he would have been a 16-20 guy. In Sacramento, I think he'll be 20-24. I think he'll consistantly be asked to take 17 shots a game. That's what they have asked of their PF for years now. I don't see that changing and I think that is the reason they picked Reef.

Of any PF in the league, that is actually obtainable, Reef is the only one that can play up to Webber's capability offensively in the ways they need.


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

Masbee said:


> It saddens me to no end that we gave up a better talent, a more effective team player, younger player, and a player you know is you can count on as your 35min starter, all for PR. And yet, the only PR that really matters is wins. Thus Theo the "good" guy presides over a half empty arena.


I can respect that it saddens you to give up talent for PR. OTOH, it gladdens me that Wells and Wallace are gone. Clearly, we didn't get value for Wallace, so I'm disappointed that Nash couldn't do better, but I'm still glad I'm not watching those guys' theatrics any more. It remains to be seen whether we got value for Wells.

I think that a team can have character, and still be winners. The Spurs would seem to prove that it can be done, repeatedly. Seems like the Blazers, with their professional PR department, and with all the surveys they've conducted, just might have a better handle on what the fan base wants than we do.

Theo's presiding over a half full arena is because the fans got sick of the antics of Wells and Wallace, et. al.



> Where are all those supporters of "good" guys now. This is something chronic complainers and *****y puritans don't get - the massive hypocrisy of their positions. They critisize others for lack of character, yet are liars. "Get good guys and we will come back". Isn't lying indicative of a lack of character? I call bull****.


This supporter is right here! :wave:

I had quit going to the games for a season and a half, because I didn't like watching the players we had. I've went to two games at the end of last year, when the kids started getting more minutes. I'll probably go to about 5 games this season...assuming the youngsters are getting enough minutes to make it fun to watch a probable loss. I don't live in PDX, so I've seldom gone to more than 7 games a year....so 5-7 is about as good as it gets for me. SO, I can't speak for the rest of us puritan prudes, but I can personally tell ya where to stick your 'liar' bull ****. 



> I warned the team not to pay ANY attention to the Ron Tonkins of the world. I warned them that they were LYING when they said character was MORE important than winning.


Yeah, they may have just gone with their surveys, I guess.



> My solution at the time, was to turn the tables on the Oregonian, ESPN and all of them, and embrace - in a good humoured way - the negative PR, own it, and thus, gradually, morf it into a persona. Become the new Bad Boys of the NBA. The WWF style villians. The Oakland Raiders or A's of the 70's.


Hell YEAH! Bring back Rodman. Sign AI and Ron Artest. uke:



> Maybe that is a stupid idea, or maybe Paul Allen only wants to be loved by everyone. Whatever. The point is that to react to the cresendo of bull**** hurled at you was not, and has not "fixed" anything.


So, there's no reason to think that it would be any better if they had kept the knuckleheads. Probably, more wins and maybe more first round exits, but at the cost of having to watch the idiocy. Not worth it to this fan.

The bull **** being hurled here isn't being hucked by the 'puritans.'

Go Blazers


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> To my knowledge, the Kings pushed for a long contract. Reef wanted to prove himself, but I'm pretty sure, it was decided that he would sign for the full 5 years.


My mistake. The first article I read said it was a one year deal.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

CatchNRelease said:


> I can respect that it saddens you to give up talent for PR. OTOH, it gladdens me that Wells and Wallace are gone. Clearly, we didn't get value for Wallace, so I'm disappointed that Nash couldn't do better, but I'm still glad I'm not watching those guys' theatrics any more. It remains to be seen whether we got value for Wells.
> 
> I think that a team can have character, and still be winners. The Spurs would seem to prove that it can be done, repeatedly. Seems like the Blazers, with their professional PR department, and with all the surveys they've conducted, just might have a better handle on what the fan base wants than we do.
> 
> Theo's presiding over a half full arena is because the fans got sick of the antics of Wells and Wallace, et. al.


I completely agree. I got so sick of seeing Wells and Wallace's bs. It was really refreshing to see the young guys play. I loved the last quarter of the last game. Don't get me wrong, Wallace is a talent when he wanted to be, but just not worth the bs to me.

I'm looking forward to the season!

GO BLAZERS!!


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

CatchNRelease said:


> I think that a team can have character, and still be winners.


Especially if the character is named Tim Duncan. 
It isn't important whether somebody else can be winners. Important thing here is whether the Blazers can be winners. Sure doesn't look like it so far.



> Theo's presiding over a half full arena is because the fans got sick of the antics of Wells and Wallace, et. al.


Wells and Wallace weren't there at all last season. Are these fans so sick they didn't notice? And if so, when do you think they'll recover? Maybe about the time we start winning again, perhaps?

barfo


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

CatchNRelease said:


> I can respect that it saddens you to give up talent for PR. OTOH, it gladdens me that Wells and Wallace are gone. Clearly, we didn't get value for Wallace, so I'm disappointed that Nash couldn't do better, but I'm still glad I'm not watching those guys' theatrics any more. It remains to be seen whether we got value for Wells.
> 
> I think that a team can have character, and still be winners. The Spurs would seem to prove that it can be done, repeatedly. Seems like the Blazers, with their professional PR department, and with all the surveys they've conducted, just might have a better handle on what the fan base wants than we do.
> 
> ...


It gets very old to hear the Spurs listed as an example of how a team should be run.

1) I would like another example please. We all want to hear more than one to prove the point, that you can place character as the single number one priority and still be a big winner. Otherwise, statisically, it could mean nothing.

2) The Spurs success is, IMO, vastly more about amazing dumb luck than any other factor. Good, but not great, team, hits its first bad stretch in YEARS, beats all the odds against them to win the number one pick over teams with a higher chance, in a year where the consensus No. 1 pick is a dominant big man. (which only happens once every 5 to 10 years). AND THIS HAPPENS TO THIS FRANCHISE TWICE. Robinson and Duncan.

Character my ***. Talent is why the Spurs are and have been winners. It is easy to be picky about character (or cost, or haircolor or anything else) when you have Tim Duncan on your team.

And what's with the Spurs picking up Glenn Robinson last season? Was that a character move? Or was the temptation of the fruit of talent too great for the sainted team?

Why would I have wanted Rodman? I want guys that can play.

If you can't tell the difference between generalizations of a group and personal attacks, I don't know what to say.

Individual anecdotes have little relevance to comments about a large group of people. Fact of the matter is - Wallace and Wells were LONG GONE and the arena was half-empty and the Blazer staff was working overtime just to get that many to show up.

Those are facts despite your personal story as a very small counterpoint. There are always individual changes and movement. Some people come, some people go. But more people are gone. And a lot of the people that left, whined about the team on the way out, and won't consider returning until the team is consistently winning again, despite their promises.

The point is that dumping talent that was demonized, not only set the franchise back years, from which it has yet to begin recovering from, but most of the people that led the witchhunt are gone (your example notwithstanding) or still very unhappy (The Oregonian).

The Blazers made a mistake to pay attention to and react to and try to please. Because you can't.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Masbee said:


> No doubt.
> 
> Though you could compare Theo's extension to other players, the contrast to Rasheed is helpful.
> 
> ...


I don't see the embrace of a "bad boy" or "raider" team in a place like Portland. That can only work in big market towns with a different demographic. Places like Green Bay, Sacramento, Portland, only tolerate good guys.


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

barfo said:


> Especially if the character is named Tim Duncan.
> It isn't important whether somebody else can be winners. Important thing here is whether the Blazers can be winners. Sure doesn't look like it so far.


The point I was making is that it has been demonstrated that a team with character can win. More than once. And stay competitive in between titles.

IMO, SA provides a legitimate arguement against those who profess, 'If you build a team with character, you're destined to loose.' TD is a character guy. So are Avery J., David R., Sean E., Steve Kerr, Malik, Manu, et. al. 

I didn't say the Spurs didn't have talent, too. Seems pretty unlikely that a team with little or no talent would be expected to win big, regardless of character.

I wouldn't expect this team, with all the young players, and management in cost cutting mode, to look like winners, so far. I'm optimistic that that is going to improve.



> Wells and Wallace weren't there at all last season. Are these fans so sick they didn't notice? And if so, when do you think they'll recover? Maybe about the time we start winning again, perhaps?
> 
> barfo


Perhaps they didn't want to see the selfishness of Damon. Maybe they're hacked off to see Reef playing ahead of Miles. Might be they don't want to support DA and Rubens' whining about minutes. Could be they just couldn't stand to watch Mo coach another game. I think people noticed they were gone, and could have chosen to stay away for a multitude of reasons.

I don't have much insight as to when they'll recover. The team alienated about half the fan base. I'm pretty sure that not all of them said they'd come back as soon as some of the knuckleheads are moved. Winning sure wouldn't hurt though.

Go Blazers


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Masbee said:


> It gets very old to hear the Spurs listed as an example of how a team should be run.
> 
> 1) I would like another example please. We all want to hear more than one to prove the point, that you can place character as the single number one priority and still be a big winner. Otherwise, statisically, it could mean nothing.


You don't have to look any further than the pre-Whitsitt Blazers for an example of a team that always considered character in making personnel decisions. Clyde, Buck, Terry, Duck, and Jerome were pretty decent players as well as being generally decent people. Whitsitt, unfortunately, not only didn't care about character, he used bad character as a tool to get talent. Any other team's blacksheep was good enough for Portland as long as the guy could put the ball in the hoop. The problem was that assembling so many headcases is a recipe for continual distractions from team success.

[QUOTE}The point is that dumping talent that was demonized, not only set the franchise back years, from which it has yet to begin recovering from, but most of the people that led the witchhunt are gone (your example notwithstanding) or still very unhappy (The Oregonian).

The Blazers made a mistake to pay attention to and react to and try to please. Because you can't.[/QUOTE]

Witchhunt? Who had to hunt in order to see constant boorish behavior from the Blazers? It was in the press so often because it happened so often. 

Nobody says a player has to be an alter boy. Acquiring a player who's a saint buy doesn't have any game would be stupid. That said, just ruling out players who exhibit continual on- or off-court behaviors that are a distraction to the team's success doesn't mean you can't get talented players. Every team is going to have occasional incidents arise where a player will foul up. Probably every team has at least one bad apple they have to work around a bit. That doesn't mean that you want to fill the basket entirely with bad apples.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> You don't have to look any further than the pre-Whitsitt Blazers for an example of a team that always considered character in making personnel decisions. Clyde, Buck, Terry, Duck, and Jerome were pretty decent players as well as being generally decent people.


Um. Clyde, Terry, and Buck were first-rate people. If I recall correctly, Jerome was involved in the whole SLC embarassment. I don't know about Duck's character beyond his self-esteem issues.

iWatas


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

Masbee said:


> It gets very old to hear the Spurs listed as an example of how a team should be run.
> 
> 1) I would like another example please. We all want to hear more than one to prove the point, that you can place character as the single number one priority and still be a big winner. Otherwise, statisically, it could mean nothing.


First, I never said the team could place character as the single number one priority and still be a big winner. I said I was glad that Wallace and Wells are gone, and that I believe a team with character can be a winner. That's a huge leap to you wanting me to prove something completely different.

Second, I don't feel compled to provide more than one instance, in that the one example proves that, statistically, it is possible to build a winning team with good character guys. But since you ask, I'd say the Suns are an example of a team that values it's image. I can't recall the Sonics having any Bonzis or Sheeds.



> 2) The Spurs success is, IMO, vastly more about amazing dumb luck than any other factor. Good, but not great, team, hits its first bad stretch in YEARS, beats all the odds against them to win the number one pick over teams with a higher chance, in a year where the consensus No. 1 pick is a dominant big man. (which only happens once every 5 to 10 years). AND THIS HAPPENS TO THIS FRANCHISE TWICE. Robinson and Duncan.
> 
> Character my ***. Talent is why the Spurs are and have been winners. It is easy to be picky about character (or cost, or haircolor or anything else) when you have Tim Duncan on your team.


OK, they got lucky, and got guys with talent and character. And it's not ALL about talent. Tim Duncan and Wallaces' talent level aren't too far apart, IMO. TD's better, no doubt, but Wallace is in his league. To me, character is where Duncan separates himself. 

TD WANTS the ball in crunch time, Wallace doesn't want to be the first option. TD wants to be the leader, Wallace dosn't want that pressure, either. TD doesn't intentionally provide 41 FT attempts in a season to the opposition, ever. Leadership, confidence, self control, and performance under pressure...things related to character, ADDED to TD's talent is what makes him the player he is.



> And what's with the Spurs picking up Glenn Robinson last season? Was that a character move? Or was the temptation of the fruit of talent too great for the sainted team?



Was GR in trouble last year? I actually don't recall when he last was in trouble, maybe I missed something. To point to one guy on the Spurs' team to impeach their character is really unfair, IMO.



> If you can't tell the difference between generalizations of a group and personal attacks, I don't know what to say.


Well, here's what you said:


> Where are all those supporters of "good" guys now. This is something chronic complainers and *****y puritans don't get - the massive hypocrisy of their positions. They critisize others for lack of character, yet are liars. "Get good guys and we will come back". Isn't lying indicative of a lack of character? I call bull****.


It just seemed kinda like you were saying "all us supporters of the 'good' guys..." were just a bunch of "...chronic complainers and *****y puritans (who) don't get - the massive hypocrisy of their positions." Then it seemed as though you were saying the said "supporters of the 'good' guys" are hypocritical and a bunch of big fat liars. Surely you could see where someone might take that personally?



> Individual anecdotes have little relevance to comments about a large group of people. Fact of the matter is - Wallace and Wells were LONG GONE and the arena was half-empty and the Blazer staff was working overtime just to get that many to show up.


Agreed. In the same vein, your individual opinon has little relevance to comments about a large group of people. What percentage of the empty seats are empty because a bunch of hypocritical fans, who promised they'd come back when the team cleaned up their act...didn't? You don't know that any better than I do.



> Those are facts despite your personal story as a very small counterpoint. There are always individual changes and movement. Some people come, some people go. But more people are gone. And a lot of the people that left, whined about the team on the way out, and won't consider returning until the team is consistently winning again, despite their promises.


I guess you're anecdotal experience IS relevant to a larger group of people? And, WHAT are the 'facts' your talking about? I'll respect your opinion, but I'm not ready to accept them as fact.



> The point is that dumping talent that was demonized, not only set the franchise back years, from which it has yet to begin recovering from, but most of the people that led the witchhunt are gone (your example notwithstanding) or still very unhappy (The Oregonian).


They were demonized because they behaved like jerks, who's fault is that?

The Blazers lost more games without them, probably, but I still think trading those two, and begining the re-build is the right thing. 



> The Blazers made a mistake to pay attention to and react to and try to please. Because you can't.


I'm having a hard time believing that you know better than the Blazers what needed to happen to start winning the fans back.

Go Blazers


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

here it is, plain and simple: if the Spurs happen to wind up getting the first pick in the draft and get Olowakandi or Kwame Brown instead of Duncan, they never get beyond the first round (and are often a lotto team) to this day.

you can talk all you want about "character," but frankly a team led by a decrepit David Robinson, or Tony Parker and Ginobli, just isn't going to go far. 

as for your comparison of Duncan and Wallace, you seem to equate "character" with "superstar mentality." Duncan wants the ball in crunch time, therefore he has good character. Wallace wants to be a second banana and do coat drives and care for his children and have a strong marriage, but because he doesn't want to be the leader he has no character? or not as much as Duncan? 

that's BS. 

Duncan has something in his skull that Wallace clearly doesn't. it's the reason Duncan was the first pick in the draft, while we got Wallace for Rod Strickland.

people can be quality human beings, care about others, have tons of character, and yet not want to be the leader. Adolph Hitler was a fantastic leader, carried the entire Third Reich on his shoulders, but had absolutely not an ounce of character. 

Rasheed Wallace has character. he's just not a go-to superstar guy.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

CatchNRelease said:


> They were demonized because they behaved like jerks, who's fault is that?


The people demonizing them, duh. Those people wildly overreacted to the players' behaviour, and as a result the Blazers now suck, big time. 

Demonize: To represent as evil or diabolic.

Is behaving like a jerk evidence of an evil or diabolic nature, in your opinion?

barfo


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

theWanker said:


> here it is, plain and simple: if the Spurs happen to wind up getting the first pick in the draft and get Olowakandi or Kwame Brown instead of Duncan, they never get beyond the first round (and are often a lotto team) to this day.


Plain and simply, that didn't happen. The DID get TD. The Spurs then suceeded with a team of good guys. Therefore, it IS possible to do it. I think the Suns have pretty good guys, and did pretty well. I think the Sonics did pretty well with decent guys on the team. I didn't plan to wear out the history of the Spurs.



> you can talk all you want about "character," but frankly a team led by a decrepit David Robinson, or Tony Parker and Ginobli, just isn't going to go far.


I don't think anyone would disagree with that. 



> as for your comparison of Duncan and Wallace, you seem to equate "character" with "superstar mentality." Duncan wants the ball in crunch time, therefore he has good character. Wallace wants to be a second banana and do coat drives and care for his children and have a strong marriage, but because he doesn't want to be the leader he has no character? or not as much as Duncan?


Yeah, I think stepping up as the leader of a team shows character. I think it shows character to perform as the first banana, when you are willing to CTC of a first banana. I think Wallace SHOULD do coat drives, and he should be a good family man...and I think he should be willing to step up and play ball without being a jerk.

Wallace shows poor character, IMO, because he thinks he's above the rules. He'll argue calls, eyes popping, arms waiving, and mouth spewing all kinds of nonsense...and the vast majority of the time, he's just dead wrong. What would you say about Wallace's character when he laid in wait to threaten a ref on a loading dock? Wallace showed poor character when he supported Wells over Cheeks when Wells was dumped.

Wells' lack of character is so well documented, I guess we don't need to even go there?



> that's BS.


And there we have it. We can all stop wondering now.



> Duncan has something in his skull that Wallace clearly doesn't.


Leadership, desire, work ethic, respect for his teamates, coaches and the refs?



> it's the reason Duncan was the first pick in the draft, while we got Wallace for Rod Strickland.


Because Wallace was the fourth pick of his draft, he gets to be second fiddle, and treat anyone he pleases disrespectfully? 



> Rasheed Wallace has character. he's just not a go-to superstar guy.


You say he has character, I say he IS a character...and damn I'm glad he's someone else's character.

I've never said that I want a team of alter boys. I wanted Damon gone because he's not a good PG, not because he smoked dope. I wouldn't mind seeing RP gone, only because he will be unhappy about PT, and loud about it. I don't care that Darius called Mo the 'N' word. I don't care that Zach's brother is an idiot.

What I don't want on the team I follow are guys that flip off the fans, average a T every other game, and threaten the refs after a game.

Go Blazers


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

barfo said:


> The people demonizing them, duh. Those people wildly overreacted to the players' behaviour, and as a result the Blazers now suck, big time.
> 
> Demonize: To represent as evil or diabolic.
> 
> ...


OK, then I would have to challenge that you say they were 'demonized'. I'm sure that I didn't call them evil or diabolic. I don't recall anyone else calling them that. Who do you claim called them demons, evil or diabolic?

And, no, acting like a idiot does not necessarily make someone evil for diabolic.

Go Blazers


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

CatchNRelease said:


> OK, then I would have to challenge that you say they were 'demonized'. I'm sure that I didn't call them evil or diabolic. I don't recall anyone else calling them that. Who do you claim called them demons, evil or diabolic?


It was this guy:



CatchNRelease said:


> They were demonized because they behaved like jerks




barfo


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

CatchNRelease said:


> I've never said that I want a team of alter boys. I wanted Damon gone because he's not a good PG, not because he smoked dope. I wouldn't mind seeing RP gone, only because he will be unhappy about PT, and loud about it. I don't care that Darius called Mo the 'N' word. I don't care that Zach's brother is an idiot.
> 
> What I don't want on the team I follow are guys that flip off the fans, average a T every other game, and threaten the refs after a game.


Interesting.

I only care that Damon smoked dope because it seemed to make him even stupider than he was already.

RP I have no issue with.

Darius and the N word I would put at the same level as Bonzi's transgressions.
(although there is only the one Darius incident, as far as I can remember).

I also don't care about Zach's brother.

Flipping off fans is ok by me, they quite obviously deserve it, and then some.

T's are ok by me. What, one point every other game? So what? We gave up way more points than that when we traded away his defense.

Threatening the refs - agree that that's a bad thing. Especially if you are a ref.

barfo


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

barfo said:


> It was this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> barfo


 :cheers: You got me there, barfo. I should have gone back to see who used the 'd' word...it wasn't you, but I didn't use it first, either.



Masbee said:


> The point is that dumping talent that was demonized, not only set the franchise back years, from which it has yet to begin recovering from, but most of the people that led the witchhunt are gone (your example notwithstanding) or still very unhappy (The Oregonian).


Go Blazers


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

barfo said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I only care that Damon smoked dope because it seemed to make him even stupider than he was already.
> 
> ...



I see Bonzi's run in with Mo as a bigger deal than Darius's. Bonzi was on TV, IIRC. Spats during practice aren't that uncommon. And, as you point out, it's only once with DM, that we know of.


Go Blazers


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

CatchNRelease said:


> I can respect that it saddens you to give up talent for PR. OTOH, it gladdens me that Wells and Wallace are gone. Clearly, we didn't get value for Wallace, so I'm disappointed that Nash couldn't do better...


...which alludes to the other obvious point. Nash could have done much much better by choosing one of several other courses, but unfortunately he chose the one he did. Your personal distain for the guys he shipped out has nothing to do with the bad decisions he made by not going with Detroit's offer of expiring deals and 1sts that Atlanta quickly accepted or just letting Wallace walk for the cap space and becoming a FA player. Instead he hitched Portland's salary cap space to a oft injured one trick pony on the tail end of his career. That trade was an obvious mistake day 1 (IMO), and it's become much worse with TR's extention. 

Being a diehard Blazer fan and things being what they are... I'm hopeful that someday Telfair, Outlaw, (my hope) Nedzad ect... turn into players eventually, but I've got to imagine that they'd enjoy more successful careers with better talent around them. Nash could have done that, but instead he went with what he did. 

Is it possible for you to separate your distain for some past players from the fact that Portland's GM wasted a very valuble opprotunity to acquire talent for his new mix? I'm not lamenting the loss of Sheed (or Bonzi), I'm talking about the incredible waste of cap space that Nash decided to go with. That sort of decision making doesn't bother you?

STOMP


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Why are you guys whining because we got rid of Bonzi, Sheed, Damon and the other "bad apples." Did I miss something, when did these guys become superstars? They are mediocre players who never won us a championship and never would have if we kept them. So get over it. 

Putting up with bad apples is worth it if they get you wins, but these guys were a .500 club with some pretty good players around them, and they were dropping. I don't know why a single Blazer fan would be sorry that Bonzi's gone. Nor Damon, Qyntel or any of the others. None of them are anything special. 

The only player that had benefits that outweighed his negatives was Sheed and that was by a slim margin. I know all you Sheed lovers blew your load when he won the championship with the 12 and 7 he put up in Detroit. But that was an illusion. That was Sheed in a perfect time at a perfect place. That was Sheed as fourth fiddle. Look what happened last year when they needed Sheed to step up to second, even first banana? One good game, and his usual 12 and 6 the other games. 

Nash may not win GM of the year with what he got back for these guys, but they all had baggage, and that's what you get. Pippen had baggage in Houston and they traded him to us for junk. Trader Bob may have done better. But he also probably would have kept us in that middle-of-the-pack, first-round-and-out, no cap room and no good draft picks wasteland. Nash was given the job to build from the ground up, and in order to do that he needs time. 

I agree that the character issue regarding the Blazers is overblown. Talent is everything in the end. But the level of talent that the "jailblazer" players had was nothing special.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Goldmember said:


> Nash was given the job to build from the ground up, and in order to do that he needs time.


How much time? 

Will my imaginary grandchildren live to see the finished product?

barfo


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

I give him two seasons. If we aren't back in the playoffs by '07, I'm calling for his head.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

STOMP said:


> ...which alludes to the other obvious point. Nash could have done much much better by choosing one of several other courses, but unfortunately he chose the one he did...with Detroit's offer of expiring deals and 1sts that Atlanta quickly accepted or just letting Wallace walk for the cap space and becoming a FA player. Instead he hitched Portland's salary cap space to a oft injured one trick pony on the tail end of his career. That trade was an obvious mistake day 1 (IMO), and it's become much worse with TR's extention.


Hindsight is 20/20. If you really knew that all we would end up with for Sheed in the end was an overpriced Theo then major props to your foresight. But you're probably the only one in here that wouldn't have called for Nash's head if he did what you suggested. I can see it now. Everyone (including myself) would have busted his chops for losing Sheed for nothing. At the time Reef and Theo was a good score for Sheed, and it had Blazerville buzzing. Nash was gambling on turning Reef into something better, presumably in the backcourt, but Reef got hurt. Snakeyes. It was a mistake by Nash but not a huge one.


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

STOMP said:


> ...which alludes to the other obvious point. Nash could have done much much better by choosing one of several other courses, but unfortunately he chose the one he did. Your personal distain for the guys he shipped out has nothing to do with the bad decisions he made by not going with Detroit's offer of expiring deals and 1sts that Atlanta quickly accepted or just letting Wallace walk for the cap space and becoming a FA player. Instead he hitched Portland's salary cap space to a oft injured one trick pony on the tail end of his career. That trade was an obvious mistake day 1 (IMO), and it's become much worse with TR's extention.
> 
> Being a diehard Blazer fan and things being what they are... I'm hopeful that someday Telfair, Outlaw, (my hope) Nedzad ect... turn into players eventually, but I've got to imagine that they'd enjoy more successful careers with better talent around them. Nash could have done that, but instead he went with what he did.


While I didn't think it was a mistake from day one (I thought TR and Reef was a decent return for Wallace), the way it's played out...you're completely correct on this.



> Is it possible for you to separate your distain for some past players from the fact that Portland's GM wasted a very valuble opprotunity to acquire talent for his new mix? I'm not lamenting the loss of Sheed (or Bonzi), I'm talking about the incredible waste of cap space that Nash decided to go with. That sort of decision making doesn't bother you?
> 
> STOMP


The whole tone of your post would indicate that I'm a huge Nash supporter. I'm not. The extensions to TR and ZR were bad moves, especially Theo. I've posted before that Nash wouldn't be doing a good job unless he got SOMETHING good for one of the three huge expiring deals. So...yeah, that sort of decision making bothers me a lot.

Go Blazers


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

CatchNRelease said:


> The whole tone of your post would indicate that I'm a huge Nash supporter. I'm not. The extensions to TR and ZR were bad moves, especially Theo. I've posted before that Nash wouldn't be doing a good job unless he got SOMETHING good for one of the three huge expiring deals. So...yeah, that sort of decision making bothers me a lot.


OK sorry, my bad reading your stuff the wrong way. I'm glad to see we're on the same page in this matter. It's hard for me to understand how this isn't turning every Blazer fan's stomache into knots... maybe apathy has truly set in.

To me, SAR walking for nothing speaks to the lack of vision/bleeps management had when they decided to move Sheed. I thought that was a terrible move towards mediocrity for the Blazers. Just like starting two shot happy point guards (McInnis and Damon) was bad for the mix from the outset, management thinking that SAR and Zach might enjoy any real success together was baffling. IMO it was completely obvious that they would struggle together, and losing probably wouldn't do much to improve a player's percieved value around the league. 

Another thing that drives me nuts in this matter is that with the choice to waive DA instead of hoping to be able to package him with other assets for expiring deals, they aren't letting SAR NVX and Damon walk to clear space to resign Joel (Nash has said that he doesn't think they could clear the space) or to dip into the FA market (Theo's $$$ largely prevents that), so they're doing it to keep expenses down. Well I guess on the bright side thats one way to assure that the club might truely bottom out for a couple more years and could possibly strike it rich in the lotto... with Joel gone after this year the frontcourt could be really bad. Some bright side eh?

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Goldmember said:


> Hindsight is 20/20. If you really knew that all we would end up with for Sheed in the end was an overpriced Theo then major props to your foresight. But you're probably the only one in here that wouldn't have called for Nash's head if he did what you suggested. I can see it now. Everyone (including myself) would have busted his chops for losing Sheed for nothing. At the time Reef and Theo was a good score for Sheed, and it had Blazerville buzzing. Nash was gambling on turning Reef into something better, presumably in the backcourt, but Reef got hurt. Snakeyes. It was a mistake by Nash but not a huge one.


With the benefit of hindsight it was clearly a mistake to make that trade and not go for the sort of deal Detroit was offering (picks and expiring deals)... but I did say as much at the time in your *John Nash Bites* thread before Atlanta dealt him for exactly what I was advocating... 

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77627&page=1&pp=15

... but locking down 33 year old Theo Ratliff to an extention that ties up 1/4 of the teams cap for the next 3 years while letting valuble expiring deals walk for nothing so as not to incure the lux tax is a recipe for mediocrity at best. I find the whole thing very disconcerting.

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

man, Stomp, I got to give you props on calling this the same way all along. you da man. I loved the deal at the time, but man was I wrong. 

it was kind of funny to go through that thread and see how people saw Sheed back then. I won't name names, but here are a few great quotes: 



> That's kind of how I feel about Wallace. He was always good for a few highlight dunks on ESPN, and he had a rep as a great talent, but his teams usually underachieve. After awhile, it makes you wonder if he doesn't have something to do with that.


...and the championship ring and the other Finals appearance...



> Stomp, If for no other reason than not to have the media butcher this team under the logo Sheed the Tyrant than this trade is a ray of sunshine.
> 
> You may not like this trade but for PR reason alone the clouds are parting in Portland, disagree with that while you're fireing up that next espresso


yep, them PR clouds sure parted and the fans came back in droves. 



> Wouldn't it be painfully ironic if we fail to make the playoffs this year, ending the streak of 21 straight and extending SAR's lottery streak?


doah! 



> essentially Shareef is so bad that Portland will become on par with the cellar dwellers in the east?
> 
> Ok I can see that as reasonable.


doah! 

i'm sure people can look up some of my fine old posts about what a steal Dale Davis was for Jermaine O'Neal. still, though, it was fun to re-read that one. 

one of these days I'd love to see a thread devoted to the most outlandish (in retrospect) posts on this boards. there are some doozies, I bet.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> one of these days I'd love to see a thread devoted to the most outlandish (in retrospect) posts on this boards. there are some doozies, I bet.


I resemble that remark. 

Thank goodness Wingfield's days were discussed on BLT, and I think that the archives to that mailing list have been lost 

Ed O.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

STOMP said:


> With the benefit of hindsight it was clearly a mistake to make that trade and not go for the sort of deal Detroit was offering (picks and expiring deals)... but I did say as much at the time in your *John Nash Bites* thread before Atlanta dealt him for exactly what I was advocating...
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77627&page=1&pp=15
> 
> ...


Wow, you went deep in the vault for that one. I'll to give you credit, you called it. Your post about Shareef ended being right on the money.


----------

