# The secret deal revealed?



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

Me thinks so.

Kerry Eggers:

"Before Portland made the trade that sent Zach Randolph, Dan Dickau and Freddy Jones to New York in exchange for Frye, Francis, a trade exception that allowed Portland to obtain James Jones and the draft rights to Rudy Fernandez, New Jersey was considering *a deal for Randolph that would have sent small forward Richard Jefferson to the Blazers."*


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

NJ should have made that deal. They'd be better with Zach at PF and Vince at SF then they will be with Vince at SG and RJ at SF. But I'm glad they didnt take it. I'll take Fernandez, Frye, and J.Jones over Jefferson, Dickau, and F.Jones.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

B_&_B said:


> NJ should have made that deal. They'd be better with Zach at PF and Vince at SF then they will be with Vince at SG and RJ at SF. But I'm glad they didnt take it. I'll take Fernandez, Frye, and J.Jones over Jefferson, Dickau, and F.Jones.


Portland seemingly still could have structured the deal to get the trade exception. All we had to do was include a couple of scrubs on either side, and it could have worked.

Ed O.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Portland seemingly still could have structured the deal to get the trade exception. All we had to do was include a couple of scrubs on either side, and it could have worked.
> 
> Ed O.


NJ would have had to be receptive to that. We all know that Thorn is an *** that backs out of deals. I doubt he would have taken on either of Dickau or Jones. Of course he would have insisted in Webster, and I would have told him to do something to himself.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BIG Q said:


> NJ would have had to be receptive to that. We all know that Thorn is an *** that backs out of deals. I doubt he would have taken on either of Dickau or Jones. Of course he would have insisted in Webster, and I would have told him to do something to himself.


I'm not sure it was Nash or Thorn who couldn't get deals done previously. We could have sent them $3m to cover Jones's salary, and then they could have cut him if they'd liked.

I agree with B&B that NJ would have been wise to take the deal... just not that Portland made out better with Frye and Francis.

Ed O.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

This makes me sick to my stomach- I'd much rather have Jefferson than Frye, or for that matter, rather than Frye, Rodriguez & Jones...

This lineup would have been great

Blake/Jack
Roy
Jefferson
Aldridge
Oden

Scoring and defense at every position (except maybe the 2 spot).

Christ.... I hope this wasn't really a trade with a high probability of happening.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

That was the second part of my deal coming soon fiasco.

I had heard Portland would make a trade with a player on draft day then during the draft send Randolph to NJ for Jefferson. 

I am still holding out hope that the first trade happens. When I hear it's dead I will let you all know what it was.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> This makes me sick to my stomach- I'd much rather have Jefferson than Frye, or for that matter, rather than Frye, Rodriguez & Jones...


I agree that I'd rather have Jefferson than Frye, but I'm not sure if you add in Rudy (I assume that is who you meant by Rodriquez). Jefferson is nice, but Rudy will be special too, especially if he can play beside Roy. Also, I'm holding out hope that we can actually end up with a better SF in the next 2-3 years, whether through the draft of free agency.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

I'll take Jefferson in a heartbeat over what we got. Too bad. He would have looked nice in our lineup.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Reep said:


> I agree that I'd rather have Jefferson than Frye, but I'm not sure if you add in Rudy (I assume that is who you meant by Rodriquez). Jefferson is nice, but Rudy will be special too, especially if he can play beside Roy. Also, I'm holding out hope that we can actually end up with a better SF in the next 2-3 years, whether through the draft of free agency.


Frye, Rudy and cap flexibilty v. Jefferson

I think the Blazers could have used a proven experienced SF to go along with all these young kids. I would have loved to see the line up with RJ, but clearly management has a plan and is trying to time a roster that will peak with Oden.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

I was very torn on the concept of a Zach for RJ trade.

Amusing that this trade was in serious discussions, as we on this board had a bunch of threads discussing the merits.

Not getting that deal done will hurt in the short term.

I think that there is a reasonable chance that we end up better off in the longer term, which is a timeframe that is more important for a possible contender period.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Jefferson would have been sweet. Too bad. Maybe it'll work out for better in time. Who knows.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

amazing....just another rumor and some are treating it as fact. NJ denied this several times and considering them and Indiana have been talking for weeks about JO, it's highly unlikely they would have traded away the primary asset they had if they were to move for JO.

Also, they said several times they had to get Carter under contract before they would make any moves. That couldn't happen till well after the draft.

Just Eggars speculating on this one, and it's a rumor that's been around for a long time.

Besides, RJ the last couple of seasons has looked as brittle as Pryzbilla...and he's not a big threat from the arc.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Stevenson said:


> Me thinks so.
> 
> Kerry Eggers:
> 
> "Before Portland made the trade that sent Zach Randolph, Dan Dickau and Freddy Jones to New York in exchange for Frye, Francis, a trade exception that allowed Portland to obtain James Jones and the draft rights to Rudy Fernandez, New Jersey was considering *a deal for Randolph that would have sent small forward Richard Jefferson to the Blazers."*



Can't be true. We might have gotton a decent player for Zach? According to certain posters here, that is inconceivable.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Can't be true. We might have gotton a decent player for Zach? According to certain posters here, that is inconceivable.



I wonder what Jefferson's contract is like. Anything beyond 2 years from now?


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Can't be true. We might have gotton a decent player for Zach? According to certain posters here, that is inconceivable.


why would anybody say that considering portland got Frye and Jones, 2 decsnt players rather then just 1, and Fernandez who could be a lot better then decent?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

moldorf said:


> amazing....just another rumor and some are treating it as fact. NJ denied this several times and considering them and Indiana have been talking for weeks about JO, it's highly unlikely they would have traded away the primary asset they had if they were to move for JO.
> 
> Also, they said several times they had to get Carter under contract before they would make any moves. That couldn't happen till well after the draft.
> 
> ...



Alright, here we go again. I don't think posters are treating this rumor like fact, they are treating the rumor like a rumor and wondering if the rumor was true, would it have been a good trade . . . but in general, I think posters understand that we are commenting on a rumor by a sports writer.

It appears that you too are doing the same thing we are by evaluating RJ's value at the end of your post.


----------



## Nate4Prez (Jun 3, 2007)

mediocre man said:


> That was the second part of my deal coming soon fiasco.
> 
> I had heard Portland would make a trade with a player on draft day then during the draft send Randolph to NJ for Jefferson.
> 
> I am still holding out hope that the first trade happens. When I hear it's dead I will let you all know what it was.


Yeah, I bet you had some great inside information.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> It appears that you too are doing the same thing we are by evaluating RJ's value at the end of your post.


in what way is that???

unless I'm wrong RJ is an actual player an "evaluating" him is at least based upon reality

in what way is the "trade" of zach for RJ and actual trade? a trade in reality?

you can not pretend that this thread won't be filled with comments by those who don't like the actual trade that occured. It's already there, and some will point to this rumor and use it to criticize that which they already don't like, with the suumption that portland could have done this trade instead of the one they did


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

BlazerCaravan said:


> I wonder what Jefferson's contract is like. Anything beyond 2 years from now?


it's the same length as zach's for about 6 million less over the 4 years


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Nate4Prez said:


> Yeah, I bet you had some great inside information.




I did, still do I think. A lot of deals that are talked about don't get done. I was assured by someone that it was going to get done....it hasn't yet, which may be the reason for Zach going to NY instead of NJ????


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

oh hey, cool, ANOTHER thread about the thread.

can't we just keep the discussions about "deal coming soon" in the "deal coming soon" thread instead of starting a new thread about it every day?


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

blakejacked said:


> oh hey, cool, ANOTHER thread about the thread.
> 
> can't we just keep the discussions about "deal coming soon" in the "deal coming soon" thread instead of starting a new thread about it every day?


And you just contributed to it and bumped it to the top. :clap:


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

You know what. On second thought, I can see NJ totally wanting to do the deal. I have a hard time believing any longer that Pritch would do it. Have you seen Jeff's contract?

4 years for $55M.

He's very good. But not great. Is taking him and his contact better than what Portland could potentially get through Free Agency or another deal. It's a gamble, but a worth while one. Even if Portland is unable to use it's money to lure a better player to Portland, they'll probably have similar small forwards available to get through trades that would have more reasonable salaries. For instance, Magette or Childress are players at a fraction the cost for shorter term deals. Seems like we could get the same results for less risk.

I like the NY deal better now.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Crimson the Cat said:


> You know what. On second thought, I can see NJ totally wanting to do the deal. I have a hard time believing any longer that Pritch would do it. Have you seen Jeff's contract?
> 
> 4 years for $55M.
> 
> ...


the CBA has appeared to make the ability to manage contracts almost as important as the ability to evaluate talent. Sometimes, the best deals are the deals a team doesn't make.

Jefferson is certainly better then James Jones but not 50 million dollars better, especially considering the plans that the blazer FO has implemented. And IMO, Jones will surprise a lo of blazer fans with the level of his ability, as well Frye.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

moldorf said:


> the CBA has appeared to make the ability to manage contracts almost as important as the ability to evaluate talent. Sometimes, the best deals are the deals a team doesn't make.
> 
> Jefferson is certainly better then James Jones but not 50 million dollars better, especially considering the plans that the blazer FO has implemented. And IMO, Jones will surprise a lo of blazer fans with the level of his ability, as well Frye.


Trades are about getting the best deal and not necessarily the best player. I concur with yours and Cat's posts totaly.

gatorpops


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

gatorpops said:


> Trades are about getting the best deal and not necessarily the best player. I concur with yours and Cat's posts totaly.
> 
> gatorpops



You might be right . . . but tell me the idea of Roy and RJ slashing to the basket with Aldridge and Oden down low and all four locking down on D doesn't make your mouth water a little.

RJ is a clutch performer who could have been counted on when things get tough on the youngins. But hey, I'm also waiting to see what KP magic happens in 2009 . . . ugh what is that about 10 years from now :biggrin:


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Can't be true. We might have gotton a decent player for Zach? According to certain posters here, that is inconceivable.


This rumor says that NJ *considered* this move, not that they were willing to deal and Portland backed out. Maybe NJ considered it for an hour and then said no way? Did you consider that perhaps KP wasn't the deal-breaker on this?


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

mediocre man said:


> I did, still do I think. A lot of deals that are talked about don't get done. I was assured by someone that it was going to get done....it hasn't yet, which may be the reason for Zach going to NY instead of NJ????



You are so full of crap. why dont you just give a hypothetical trade scenario like everyone else? Its not like it would kill you or the franchise.

and even if you are fed any kind of information, im pretty sure everyone got the same information as you from trade rumor threads all across the forums and internet, So really, you dont hold any more insider information than we all do.

The way you hold insider information is if its a deal that NOONE has even mentioned or talked about.

Why not be the voice of reason if you know so much and give everyone a constructive starting point on trade discussions! It sure beats 50 different people taking blind guesses in the dark and proposing unique trade scenarios.

Seriously? Why not say something like, "I heard it involves us dealing with (TeAM NAME HERE)". You dont have to give away any names or anything, but at least a constructive basis for a starting point regarding trades.


And incase anyone wants my 2 cents...My guess is that we arent looking to upgrade at SF any more, but probably SG or PF.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Five5even said:


> .....
> 
> 
> And incase anyone wants my 2 cents...My guess is that we arent looking to upgrade at SF any more, but probably SG or PF.


SF: Aldridge, Frye, Outlaw, McRoberts, LaFrentz

It's really hard to picture anybody realistically available at PF for an upgrade....portland looks pretty flush there.

SG: Roy, Webster, Jack, maybe blake or Jones.

yeah...there's really no proven depth there but Roy will get most of the minutes 

one fantasy trade I saw that actually made some sense (providing you're not real impressed with Jack):

portland trades Jack and Miles to Miami for Daequan Cook and either Jason Williams or Antoine Walker.

why might miami do this?:...they are desperate for a PG for one thing and Jack would be the best player involved in the trade. Since Williams would be an expiring contract next year, Walker would be the "compromise" position for portland if Miami refused to move the often injured williams.

Why for Portland?: obviously portland gets rid of Miles's contract. They would then either buyout or waive williams or walker. And porland was reportedly very impressed with Cook when he worked out for them. An athletic 6'5 SG. Walker has a 3 year contract, but the 3rd year is a team option, so portland would gain 9 million more in cap space in july, 2009.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

moldorf said:


> SF: Aldridge, Frye, Outlaw, McRoberts, LaFrentz
> 
> It's really hard to picture anybody realistically available at PF for an upgrade....portland looks pretty flush there.
> 
> ...


Walker is a waste. Williams is excess at PG.

I was thinking of a player that could fill in at SG/SF.

Like a Granger, Mason, Childress, Maggette sort of player.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Five5even said:


> Walker is a waste. Williams is excess at PG.
> 
> I was thinking of a player that could fill in at SG/SF.
> 
> Like a Granger, Mason, Childress, Maggette sort of player.


that's why they'd be waived.

forget Granger, Indiana views him the way portland views aldridge...they're not going to let him go without getting a lot back in return.

Mason almost never makes a 3 and I believe he's a BYC now. Not an option

Jack for Childress would be good...maybe. But Atlanta won't do it now that they have Law.

Maggette can't hit the 3 to save his life. He's a slasher and the key will have at least one of Oden, Aldridge, and Roy in it all the time. A slasher wouldn't be that effective. And he's overrated on defense.

Portland is developing a team of rookie scale contracts...trading is going to get more difficult for them, and almost impossible for them to get good talent without sending 3 or 4 players out for one.

Portland has one pressing issue contract-wise in the nest 2 years: Miles's contract. And several teams are desperate for a PG. This may be portland's only opportunity to do something about Miles before they have to hope he completely recovers. A medical retirement is too remote a possibility.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> Portland has one pressing issue contract-wise in the nest 2 years: Miles's contract



Joel's as well.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

moldorf said:


> that's why they'd be waived.
> 
> forget Granger, Indiana views him the way portland views aldridge...they're not going to let him go without getting a lot back


let me get this straight....

were trading jack, przybilla, or miles, jack for walker, cook or williams, cook SO THAT WE CAN BUY OUT THEIR CONTRACT?

wtf are you smoking?

and There are records on indiana's forum and others on the internet that surprisingly have jack on their radar as a potential trade scenario for granger with potentially przybilla or webster and a 1st rd pick in the future.

take a look here!!!!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Five5even said:


> let me get this straight....
> 
> were trading jack, przybilla, or miles, jack for walker, cook or williams, cook SO THAT WE CAN BUY OUT THEIR CONTRACT?
> 
> wtf are you smoking?[/URL]


It's not totally out of the realm of possibility to trade Jack to get rid of Miles's contract and only get Cook back. Portland just traded Zach for cap space in two years and a couple of prospects.

Zach, unlike Miles, can actually still play basketball in the NBA.

I don't like the idea of giving up Jack to get rid of Miles, but I could see it happening, and getting Cook back wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

Ed O.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Five5even said:


> let me get this straight....
> 
> were trading jack, przybilla, or miles, jack for walker, cook or williams, cook SO THAT WE CAN BUY OUT THEIR CONTRACT?
> 
> wtf are you smoking?


you might want to read that ridiculous sentence you just wrote and ask yourself wtf you're smoking. It's practically incoherent

what I said was jack and miles for cook and either williams or walker.

Cook portland would gladly keep. And portland would only buyout the contract of the other player involved if they agreed to a reduced level, otherwise they'd be waived. Once they're picked up by another team, 50% of the value of their new contract is deducted from portland's obligation.

jack>cook but apparently not by much in the blazers eyes. A couple of reports are that portland would have taken cook instead of fernandez if he'd been available.

And clearing 9 million dollars off the cap in 2009 is a big deal for portland.



Five5even said:


> and There are records on indiana's forum and others on the internet that surprisingly have jack on their radar as a potential trade scenario for granger with potentially przybilla or webster and a 1st rd pick in the future.
> 
> take a look here!!!!


uhhh...well that's fine. I'd pay a little more attention to larry bird though when he says granger is one of their core players


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Five5even said:


> You are so full of crap. why dont you just give a hypothetical trade scenario like everyone else? Its not like it would kill you or the franchise.
> 
> and even if you are fed any kind of information, im pretty sure everyone got the same information as you from trade rumor threads all across the forums and internet, So really, you dont hold any more insider information than we all do.


well, I can vouche for him that he came up with that trade rumor long before anyone on either realgm, bbf, fanhome or any of the other forums including olive, did. 

So unless he's somehow just a good guesser, I'd say that he has some inside info. 



> The way you hold insider information is if its a deal that NOONE has even mentioned or talked about.
> 
> Why not be the voice of reason if you know so much and give everyone a constructive starting point on trade discussions! It sure beats 50 different people taking blind guesses in the dark and proposing unique trade scenarios.
> 
> Seriously? Why not say something like, "I heard it involves us dealing with (TeAM NAME HERE)". You dont have to give away any names or anything, but at least a constructive basis for a starting point regarding trades.


well, he had his reasons. But he did tell some of us, those he knew wouldn't blab it all over hell and back.


> And incase anyone wants my 2 cents...My guess is that we arent looking to upgrade at SF any more, but probably SG or PF.


why would we upgrade at our two better positions? How is that a good guess? Or did you mean backup SG (because the backup PF is pretty well filled up)?


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Five5even said:


> *and even if you are fed any kind of information, im pretty sure everyone got the same information as you from trade rumor threads all across the forums and internet*, So really, you dont hold any more insider information than we all do.
> 
> *The way you hold insider information is if its a deal that NOONE has even mentioned or talked about.*


I consider insider information to be...

1. What you said

or

2. Information received from a source within the organization/other reliable location, in which case it makes at least some sense to not reveal the rumor until it actually occurs.

(the following is not addressed to just you)

People should stop getting bent out of shape over the "soon" part of MM's thread. Timeframes change. GMs change their minds. The league is dynamic, and people expect because something is a certain way at one time, then that's concrete when it's really the complete opposite.

Rumors are called rumors rather than 'finalized trades that we can all rejoice about or condemn KP because of' for a reason. They are not final. They are not a sure thing.

If you don't want people to share their RUMORS, then you aren't obligated to read those threads. If anything, we should be grateful for people like MM and ABM for sharing these things when they could have just withheld it to themselves.

Yeah, neither of these deals went through, and aren't likely to, but that's no reason to get ticked at the poster. Sure, some people will post BS, but MM and ABM are reliable posters who deserve a lot better than some people on here realize.

[/rant]


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

LameR said:


> I consider insider information to be...
> 
> 1. What you said
> 
> ...


Rep'd :clap2:


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

As I remember, no one forced MM to write soon in his original post. I believe the reason "soon" was included was because it was really the bit of information that was helpful to the board. Without "soon" any of us any time can write that a trade is going to be done. The "soon" part made the information relevant. Otherwise there was really little that would be interesting or helpful to the board, since all else was "secret".


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

what i have a problem with the "soon" thread and secret squirl stuff is that some people were filled in while most of us were left like mushrooms. You dont have to say "hey look at me look at me hehehehe i have a surprise but i am never going to give it out but i will tell these friends what it is! hehe hehe look at me look at me. 

be cryptic if need me but dont say "i have a new baby, new car and xbox360 but you cant see them!" 

you could be like this:

I get the feeling that a player will be traded to the east in exchange for a player that could really fill a need. <======= that is much better 

i have inside info that:

some players will be traded for a player to fill the sg/sf tweener position this would cause Raef to play more center while sliding frye to sf. 


why are there so few deadeye shooters anymore?


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Better yet, how about a Rumor Registry. For all those interested in such, they can tell 3 or more respected board members the details of the trade. It must include: (1)DATE trade is to be done; this is date paperwork will go to league office; (2)TEAMS involved; and (3) PLAYERS to be traded (players making under $1million per year need not be named).

Once sufficient time has passed, the trade rumor will be assigned an appropriate score:
DATE:....within 2 days of actual - 6 points
.........within 4 days - 3 points
.........within 7 days - 1 point

TEAMS: exactly correct - 4 points
....... 1 or more teams of multi-team trade (not the Blazers of course)- 2 points 
PLAYERS: exactly correct - 10 points
.........some but not all correct - 5 points

Then, we all can see over time what the average points/rumor a particular member has as his/her average.


----------

