# Straight from the horses mouth.....Nash already calling it a season.



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

From Courtside and our good friend Jonny Nash..... They want to be optimistic, but have to be realistic. It's hard to come up with a number because on one hand in the final third of the season last year, we won 5 games. 5-22 when we made the coaching change and went with the younger guys. We played without Zach & Theo but played with SAR and Damon. Brought in the new guys, gave the youngsters a season to mature and gain experience. If you extrapilate those numbers, you still wind up with 15 or 20 wins. John and the coaching staff feels like it will be hard to win more than that. We're not in a position to win 35-40 games. 

Wow, that makes me sick as a Blazer fan. Where are all the guys who bashed me for saying the same thing? This current team is garbage and even teh GM admits it. How bad does Nate look for taking this job now? I mean he is gonna be the laughing stock. Ive said it for 3 years now...[strike]NASH IS A BORN LOSER[/strike], we will never be a playoff team with him as our GM and thats the sad truth. He has already set his sights on a top 2 pick and must have a guy picked out of high scholl with potential which is his favorite word.
This was once a proud franchise USE to winning UNTIL NASH came...[strike]now you guys[/strike] We are all entitled to our opinion, but not entitled to taunt people in this way accept sucking every year cause we have potential HIGH SCHOOLERS...GIVE ME A FRIGGIN BREAK.

Also whats more disturbing is the way they talk about Zach...he looks in great shape or hes lost weight but you notice they never say, zach will play in teh season opener. Actually maybe John should shoot to win 5 games, that way he can draft any guy he wants with potential. :dead: 


[strike]SCREW YOU NASH[/strike]

You can express your opinion wwithout being inflamatory - Schilly


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

completely 100 % wit'ya.

I wish we had another GM. Screw the youth movement- We could something for SAR, Damon, DA, Telfair, Miles and Ratliff (mentioned'em cause we ain't gonna get nothing from'em). The lakers traded Shaq for Odom, Butler and Grant. Miami got Jwill, 'tion and Posey, for whom?? Ohh if Pat Riley was our GM.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

[strike]Nothing to see here. Move along.[/strike]


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

PhilK said:


> completely 100 % wit'ya.
> 
> I wish we had another GM. Screw the youth movement- We could something for SAR, Damon, DA, Telfair, Miles and Ratliff (mentioned'em cause we ain't gonna get nothing from'em). The lakers traded Shaq for Odom, Butler and Grant. Miami got Jwill, 'tion and Posey, for whom?? Ohh if Pat Riley was our GM.



huh?


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> Straight from the horses mouth


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

Hap said:


> huh?


buh.


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

Except Riley isn't the GM, Pfund is.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

PhilK said:


> buh.


so, we're not "getting anything" for Telfair, even tho the team holds all the cards when it comes to his playing..and even if he *does* leave (which no one has shown that he is, cept for paranoid media guys who think just because he's from NY means he'll play there (read: NY doesn't get every player it wans))..

we didn't get anything for Damon (big deal) DA (oh no!) and Shareef (because the Nets were pathetic)..

again, huh?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> Where are all the guys who bashed me for saying the same thing?


We bashed you for saying things like the lines that are crossed out in this post. Useless insults and garbage is all they are. 

Question: What will it take for you to be satisfied, 20 wins, 30 wins, 40 wins, conference title, NBA title. I like that you set high standards and expectations for the team but I also think you are a bit unrealistic and inpatient and expect miracles to happen over night.


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

The Sebastian Express said:


> Except Riley isn't the GM, Pfund is.


whatever. Just not Johnash.


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

Hap said:


> so, we're not "getting anything" for Telfair, even tho the team holds all the cards when it comes to his playing..and even if he *does* leave (which no one has shown that he is, cept for paranoid media guys who think just because he's from NY means he'll play there (read: NY doesn't get every player it wans))..
> 
> we didn't get anything for Damon (big deal) DA (oh no!) and Shareef (because the Nets were pathetic)..
> 
> again, huh?


We could easily get an allstar, for SAR, Miles and Damon deal. What about the Rasheed Wallace trade? damn we had such a good team- Nash just ruined it.

Telfair is a mediocre PG- he's short, doesn't have a consistent J, no 3-pt shooting, and no real defence. We could get Williams or Paul at 3rd pick and trade Telfair along with SAR and Miles, for example- for an allstar SG.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

PhilK said:


> We could easily get an allstar, for SAR, Miles and Damon deal. What about the Rasheed Wallace trade? damn we had such a good team- Nash just ruined it.


ok, so who could we get for Shareef, Miles (BYC) and Damon?

seriously who is this magical player?

because that's a big chunk of change going out, and more than likely, not anyone worth beans coming in. 

what about the Rasheed trade? he had lowered his trade value big time, and that's why the team got what they got. And it's not like Detroit gave up bupkiss to get him either.

We had such a "good" team that was losing fans, losing games, and showing no signs of any improvement for the future.

Bob Whitsitt soiled this team, and Nash (and Paul Allen) have had to clean it up. Some people just don't like the fact that they've had to blow the team up, and start over from scratch.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

PhilK said:


> We could easily get an allstar, for SAR, Miles and Damon deal. What about the Rasheed Wallace trade? damn we had such a good team- Nash just ruined it.
> 
> Telfair is a mediocre PG- he's short, doesn't have a consistent J, no 3-pt shooting, and no real defence. We could get Williams or Paul at 3rd pick and trade Telfair along with SAR and Miles, for example- for an allstar SG.


Thanks for the laugh!


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Thanks for the laugh!


You probably won't be laughing when we get a 10-72 record this year.


----------



## Captain Chaos (Dec 1, 2004)

Hap said:


> Bob Whitsitt soiled this team, and Nash (and Paul Allen) have had to clean it up. Some people just don't like the fact that they've had to blow the team up, and start over from scratch.


That about sums it up for me. 

Portland has been a team in transition for many years now. Continuous changes to the lineup and +/- players to find the right kind of mix. I'm glad to finally see some drastic changes because it was long overdue in my opinion.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Hap said:


> Bob Whitsitt soiled this team, and Nash (and Paul Allen) have had to clean it up. Some people just don't like the fact that they've had to blow the team up, and start over from scratch.


:clap:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Captain Chaos said:


> That about sums it up for me.
> 
> Portland has been a team in transition for many years now. Continuous changes to the lineup and +/- players to find the right kind of mix. I'm glad to finally see some drastic changes because it was long overdue in my opinion.


going on that, if TB hadn't tinkered with the team so much, and built through the draft (somewhat), things wouldn't have been so bad. 

but he'd always change things every year. And then he hired a horrible coach. And then let the players do whatever they wanted (including pissing on the fans and telling them it's rain).

This is just like ABM's garage sale metaphore. Sure, it's neat to keep the old camaro you had (you could, afterall, just fix it up and use it)..but after a while, constantly trying to fix it up get's to be a pain in the ***.

So you just decide to sell it all for a new car. Sure, the new car isn't (as of now) as valuable as the Camaro *ONCE WAS* (or could be if you spent 15K on a restore)..but unlike the old Camaro, your new Colbalt actually starts..and runs...and get's good mileage...and is safer to drive...and cheaper to drive...and most importantly, doesn't break down on your drive to Montana.


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

Hap said:


> Bob Whitsitt soiled this team, and Nash (and Paul Allen) have had to clean it up. Some people just don't like the fact that they've had to blow the team up, and start over from scratch.


So why the hell do they keep Theo Ratliff, Ruben Patterson and Darius Miles, Instead of gitting rid of their fat contracts?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

PhilK said:


> So why the hell do they keep Theo Ratliff, Ruben Patterson and Darius Miles, Instead of gitting rid of their fat contracts?


for sarters, they probably kept them for the same reason Shawn Kemp stayed in Portland. 

No one is going to pay the money for 2 of them (Theo and Ruben) unless they can dump off a lot worse contract (and subsequently player).

As for Darius, I think the reason they've kept him is because he's a BYC, and it's almost damn near impossible to trade him for equal (or close to) talent because of that.

so, again...huh?


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> [strike]Nothing to see here. Move along.[/strike]


Image not necassary


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

Hap said:


> for sarters, they probably kept them for the same reason Shawn Kemp stayed in Portland.
> 
> No one is going to pay the money for 2 of them (Theo and Ruben) unless they can dump off a lot worse contract (and subsequently player).
> 
> ...


Theo and ruben could easily find some place in a contender- as great role players. right now- the Blazers don't need that kind of fillers. We could trade them for expiring contracts, which would clear 16~ mil. out of our cap- and then we could easily re-sign Joel, and after DA's contracts expires- we could play a great role in the free agent market.

As for DMiles- I see a problematic Athlete, no real character, and except of dunks- no real contribution. But that's just me huh?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I think what Nash was trying to do last night is set an expectation level with the fans, something I commend, because even though I personally think they will be better than 20 games, if Nash were to come out and predict 30+ games and the team were to come up short of that, then people would regurgitate it as something he failed at once again. 

It's all about makeing exccedable expecatations for the team.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Another thing is Nash may in fact be leveling a challenge to the team...

The Players make look at this expectaitons and vow to prove Nash wrong.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> We could easily get an allstar, for SAR, Miles and Damon deal. What about the Rasheed Wallace trade? damn we had such a good team- Nash just ruined it.


We could?? After SAR knees are proven to be weak and a possible liability, after Damon signs a pitifully small contract (showing his true worth) after Miles goes on a crazy diatribe where he calls his coach a "Dirty, Lazy (racial slur). 

As for the Sheed trade...after Sheed leads the league in technical fouls 3 years straight, after Sheed tries to attack a referee after a game (I was right there on the loading dock for that one, crazy) after Sheed throws a B-ball and hits Ruben B.B in the back of the head knocking him to the floor and then laughs, after Sheed gets caught in the yellow Hummer, after Sheeds says all he cares about is "CTC.?"

You really think we could get more then we did for Sheed? Consider what ATL got for him from Detroit.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

PhilK said:


> You probably won't be laughing when we get a 10-72 record this year.


I really doubt that will happen.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

I wonder if the plan is to hire a new GM after Nash's contract runs out after this year (It does, right?) The way I see it, Nash is a good drafter, and a mediocre at best trader. This team has a lot of young pieces mostly thanks to his work, perhaps its time to move on to a new GM who is more of a "closer" so to speak and can make the right moves to mold the team into a championship. Just something to consider.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Foulzilla said:


> I wonder if the plan is to hire a new GM after Nash's contract runs out after this year (It does, right?) The way I see it, Nash is a good drafter, and a mediocre at best trader. This team has a lot of young pieces mostly thanks to his work, perhaps its time to move on to a new GM who is more of a "closer" so to speak and can make the right moves to mold the team into a championship. Just something to consider.


It really appears to me that Pritchard is being groomed to take over the position, he is the one who really pushed for the new evaluation software. In addition the Blazers have really gone out of their way to make sure his name is heard often.

It wouldn't surprise me if Kevin is hired as GM after this year and Nash is made Head Scout, and I would imagine that Nash is probably already on board with this concept.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

From the O'live forum; Seems Mr. Mix doesn't just post his diatribes here and is a master of the copy/paste function. This look familiar? They seem more tolerant there then we are, but as we all know the O'live forum is full of alot of garbage. Mr. Mix why not just post your insulting comments about John Nash and others there where they won't be crossed out and deemed inapropriate. 




> From Courtside and our good friend Jonny Nash..... They want to be optimistic, but have to be realistic. It's hard to come up with a number because on one hand in the final third of the season last year, we won 5 games. 5-22 when we made the coaching change and went with the younger guys. We played without Zach & Theo but played with SAR and Damon. Brought in the new guys, gave the youngsters a season to mature and gain experience. If you extrapilate those numbers, you still wind up with 15 or 20 wins. John and the coaching staff feels like it will be hard to win more than that. We're not in a position to win 35-40 games.
> Wow, that makes me sick as a Blazer fan. Where are all the guys who bashed me for saying the same thing? This current team is garbage and even teh GM admits it. How bad does Nate look for taking this job now? I mean he is gonna be the laughing stock. Ive said it for 3 years now...NASH IS A BORN LOSER, we will never be a playoff team with him as our GM and thats the sad truth. He has already set his sights on a top 2 pick and must have a guy picked out of high scholl with potential which is his favorite word.This was once a proud franchise USE to winning UNTIL NASH came...now you guys accept sucking every year cause we have potential HIGH SCHOOLERS...GIVE ME A FRIGGIN BREAK.
> 
> Also whats more disturbing is the way they talk about Zach...he looks in great shape or hes lost weight but you notice they never say, zach will play in teh season opener. Actually maybe John should shoot to win 5 games, that way he can draft any guy he wants with potential.
> ...


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

The Blazer's have hired a scapegoat. Comapnies do this *all the time* -- when a company's in trouble, they don't make the CEO be the bad guy. They hire a guy right below him, and let him be the bad guy who fires people, cuts departments, and acts as the face of evil for the employees during a very tough time. Then, when the fat has been cut, the company's ship has righted itself, he's fired. Sometimes, it's dramatic, often it's just another firing. But it removes the "bad guy" from the company, letting those workers who remain feel better that he's gone. The guy who replaces him is a good guy, and the company, having survived the surgery, gets better. Morale skyrockets, and everyone's happy for the next cycle.

John Nash is the goat. He's the bad guy. He was hired for that reason: to make the tough moves, the moves that had to be done, take the blame, and when his job was done, another GM could take over the next phase without having to have this legacy of "bad moves" on *his* re'sume'. Players are happier, fans are happier, and the team moves onward and -- because of the tough moves -- upward.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

as tiresome as some find this type of thread, I find the bashing of the poster in thread after thread by the same posters to be much moreso...

...and maybe Schilly or Hap can enlighten me how it's inflamatory to say our current GM is a born loser and OK to say our former GM soiled the club? Seems pretty much like there is a double standard for those in the mod chair only allowing the button pushing language that agree with.

STOMP


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> as tiresome as some find this type of thread, I find the bashing of the poster in thread after thread by the same posters to be much moreso...
> 
> ...and maybe Schilly or Hap can enlighten me how it's inflamatory to say our current GM is a born loser and OK to say our former GM soiled the club? Seems pretty much like there is a double standard for those in the mod chair only allowing the button pushing language that agree with.
> 
> STOMP


Call it repitition.

If a formula works, keep using it.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Call it repitition.
> 
> If a formula works, keep using it.


What?

STOMP


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

STOMP said:


> as tiresome as some find this type of thread, I find the bashing of the poster in thread after thread by the same posters to be much moreso...
> 
> ...and maybe Schilly or Hap can enlighten me how it's inflamatory to say our current GM is a born loser and OK to say our former GM soiled the club? Seems pretty much like there is a double standard for those in the mod chair only allowing the button pushing language that agree with.
> 
> STOMP



This is one of the first times I've seen said poster sensored. He's been pretty lucky if you ask me. It all comes down to how everyone defines "baiting". HTTP and Beez have posted it will not be tolerated anymore. I think there is a huge difference how Hap or basically everyone else conveys their displeasure compared to said poster.


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

You know, everytime I see a post like this it brings me back to what the definition of a successful team is and who is the ultimate judge.

My feeling is that the ultimate judge is the owner. Paul Allen is a businessman, he's not running a charity with tax exempt status. Of course he wants to win but he's also got to look at the bottom line when he writes out the checks. 

The team had been losing money recently because the people/businesses (luxury suite buyers, long time season ticket holders, sponsors, etc.) who were giving the team the most financial support were leaving because they couldn't stand the players. The Blazers had the second highest payroll in the league and wasn't even getting out of the first round anymore. Paul Allen had to do something to stop the bleeding!

So he brought John Nash in. At that point the GM job had changed from the Whitsett days. We were no longer in the open checkbook mode and we had to address the character issues because an NBA team can't survive without it's fans. John had to come in and try to trade guys who had created horrible reputations for themselves and were totally overpaid. None of these guys were hot commodities and we didn't have a single All Star on the team. 

The changes in the salary cap and luxury tax (other teams were no longer willing to take on huge bloated contracts) made it much harder to even make trades in the first place. Comparing John Nash's job with Bob Whitsett's job is comparing apples to oranges. The rules have changed and, in reality, John Nash's job is much more difficult than Bob's was. 

I know I'm making some assumptions here, but I gather from the posts that most of us are not rich. While we're all die hard Blazer fans most of us are watching the games for free in TV, catching a hand full of games in person during the season, and not providing a great deal of financial support to the team.

All that being said, has John Nash been successful the last two years in obtaining the goals of his employer? I say yes.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

mixum said:


> From Courtside and our good friend Jonny Nash..... They want to be optimistic, but have to be realistic. It's hard to come up with a number because on one hand in the final third of the season last year, we won 5 games. 5-22 when we made the coaching change and went with the younger guys. We played without Zach & Theo but played with SAR and Damon. Brought in the new guys, gave the youngsters a season to mature and gain experience. If you extrapilate those numbers, you still wind up with 15 or 20 wins. John and the coaching staff feels like it will be hard to win more than that. We're not in a position to win 35-40 games.
> 
> Wow, that makes me sick as a Blazer fan. Where are all the guys who bashed me for saying the same thing? This current team is garbage and even teh GM admits it. How bad does Nate look for taking this job now? I mean he is gonna be the laughing stock. Ive said it for 3 years now...[strike]NASH IS A BORN LOSER[/strike], we will never be a playoff team with him as our GM and thats the sad truth. He has already set his sights on a top 2 pick and must have a guy picked out of high scholl with potential which is his favorite word.
> This was once a proud franchise USE to winning UNTIL NASH came...[strike]now you guys[/strike] We are all entitled to our opinion, but not entitled to taunt people in this way accept sucking every year cause we have potential HIGH SCHOOLERS...GIVE ME A FRIGGIN BREAK.
> ...


Actually mixum, John Nash forgot to factor in our younger players improving and having Randolph and Ratliff healthy. I'd say we'll win around 25-30 games. Which is bad, but the next year we should be around .500.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Spud147 said:


> You know, everytime I see a post like this it brings me back to what the definition of a successful team is and who is the ultimate judge.
> 
> My feeling is that the ultimate judge is the owner. Paul Allen is a businessman, he's not running a charity with tax exempt status. Of course he wants to win but he's also got to look at the bottom line when he writes out the checks.
> 
> ...


Great post, repped.


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

Blazer Freak said:


> Great post, repped.


Well thank you! :cheers:


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Spud147 said:


> Well thank you! :cheers:


No problem. You should try to post more often, from the the posts I've read of yours you seem to know a lot. It'd be great if you could try, you can really add something to this board. :cheers:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Scout226 said:


> This is one of the first times I've seen said poster sensored. He's been pretty lucky if you ask me. It all comes down to how everyone defines "baiting". HTTP and Beez have posted it will not be tolerated anymore. I think there is a huge difference how Hap or basically everyone else conveys their displeasure compared to said poster.


I found your pic to be waaaaaaay over the line of what constitutes a personal insult... but then you're almost always chiming in like that in response to Mixum's posts... we've been told that that won't be tolerated any more too. 

Whats so hard about taking the high road or simply ignoring him?

STOMP


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

Blazer Freak said:


> No problem. You should try to post more often, from the the posts I've read of yours you seem to know a lot. It'd be great if you could try, you can really add something to this board. :cheers:


I'll try and do better... that darn job of mine totally gets in the way! That whole "make money so I can support myself" concept is extremely inconvenient. :raised_ey 

Fortunately there are a ton of really great posters here (including you). I've been consistently impressed with the insight and quality of posts from so many people.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Spud147 said:


> I'll try and do better... that darn job of mine totally gets in the way! That whole "make money so I can support myself" concept is extremely inconvenient. :raised_ey



If I remember right from the ESPN days, isn't it more like, "make money so I can buy myself more shoes" the concept you live by?


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

everyone has to think of this one thing, how would Nash look if he said the team will win 30 games this season and then they won 20 or less. hed look bad. Now if nash starts off the year setting a lower standard for the team the players see that they arent under pressure to so much win as improve. who here will be mad if Nash predicted incorectly and the Blazers win more games then what he just stated? no one.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> I found your pic to be waaaaaaay over the line of what constitutes a personal insult... but then you're almost always chiming in like that in response to Mixum's posts... we've been told that that won't be tolerated any more too.
> 
> Whats so hard about taking the high road or simply ignoring him?
> 
> STOMP


So the thread title is "straight from the horses mouth" and he posts a picture of a horses mouth and that offensive? Are we all getting so oversensitive to these threads that we miss blatant humor?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Schilly said:


> So the thread title is "straight from the horses mouth" and he posts a picture of a horses mouth and that offensive? Are we all getting so oversensitive to these threads that we miss blatant humor?


Maybe I missed it, but that sure doesn't look to be a horse to me... more like a *******/donkey. Even if it was, I don't find it blatantly humorous, an attempt at being funny maybe.

STOMP


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

STOMP said:


> I found your pic to be waaaaaaay over the line of what constitutes a personal insult... but then you're almost always chiming in like that in response to Mixum's posts... we've been told that that won't be tolerated any more too.
> 
> Whats so hard about taking the high road or simply ignoring him?
> 
> STOMP



Where's the line? Is the yellow tape pic over the line also(no pun intended)? I found the pic kind of funny, and it wasn't meant as an insult. That's YOUR interpretation. We've been told "baiting" will not be tolerated anymore. I don't believe I was baiting. 

So what's wrong with chiming in on certain posters posts? I believe many people here chime in on certain posters.. So, that's just the norm here.

Yes, I suppose I could take the high road and just never respond to said posters posts. But what about all of said posters supporters? They don't seem to take the high road all the time.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

So the thread title is "straight from the horses mouth" and he posts a picture of a horses mouth and that offensive? Are we all getting so oversensitive to these threads that we miss blatant humor?

lol u know it.john should shoot to win 26 2 more then last year but still not to high of a number that the new guys cant acieve it.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Speaking of missing something blatant, thats not a horse, it's a *******/donkey
> 
> STOMP



If you go into google and do an image search for "horses mouth", you will find the pic I posted listed on the first page. I didn't look at it and say, "is that reeeeeally a horse, it kind of looks like a donkey".. Nope.. I said, "that's what I was looking for".. 

I guess if I put more time into it and went to the second page I would have found...









or 










I still think the first one fits better, but that's just me..


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Scout226 said:


> Yes, I suppose I could take the high road and just never respond to said posters posts. But what about all of said posters supporters? They don't seem to take the high road all the time.


I wish you and the rest of the board would. I think you'd actually find that to be a more effective way to getting him to tune the tone of his posts down. I find the personal attack pigpile that happens in response to nearly every new Mixum thread to be really immature and tiresome. 

STOMP


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> wish you and the rest of the board would. I think you'd actually find that to be a more effective way to getting him to tune the tone of his posts down. I find the personal attack pigpile that happens in response to nearly every new Mixum thread to be really immature and tiresome.


Well if you are so exhausted by it...simply don't read it.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Nash is only being very realistic. He is not "calling it a season", as we will still play all 82 games. Your assessment is not correct.

Nash has done a good job in changing this team in two seasons. He took over a bloated salary structure - with over-paid players at EVERY position including the bench. He has quickly turned over the roster and now has reasonable contacts to play with, and players with promise. 

Allen, Patterson, Nash and McMillan are all on the same page. Develop these players and continue to teach them how to play NBA ball. Wish for luck, in getting one or more to EXCEED expectations and become a star.

And to the originator of this thread, may I suggest TV Land channel.


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

Scout226 said:


> If I remember right from the ESPN days, isn't it more like, "make money so I can buy myself more shoes" the concept you live by?


Oh come on Scout! I'm not THAT shallow!!!

It's "Make money so I can buy myself more shoes and go on vacation in sunny places". :biggrin:


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

STOMP said:


> I wish you and the rest of the board would. I think you'd actually find that to be a more effective way to getting him to tune the tone of his posts down. I find the personal attack pigpile that happens in response to nearly every new Mixum thread to be really immature and tiresome.
> 
> STOMP


I agree with you somewhat. I also wish you and the rest of the board would also. History has shown just ignoring isn't going to get the posts tuned down. It's like telling everyone to stop buying gas and maybe the prices will drop. We will never get the whole board to ignore certain posts to make a difference. I think it just comes down to a lot of people find the constant baiting and hatred really immature and tiresome as well.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

> damn we had such a good team- Nash just ruined it.


The team Nash inherited was a .500 club. It's not like he tore down a dynasty.


----------



## chula vista blazer (Jul 13, 2005)

Schilly said:


> I think what Nash was trying to do last night is set an expectation level with the fans, something I commend, because even though I personally think they will be better than 20 games, if Nash were to come out and predict 30+ games and the team were to come up short of that, then people would regurgitate it as something he failed at once again.
> 
> It's all about makeing exccedable expecatations for the team.


Amen! I completely agree with this. There is no way we have a 20 win team, Nash is just playing the expectations game. I do this with my clients- never promise the moon, so they'll be happy when what they didn't expect comes to pass.

By the way, it would be nice if the moderators allowed a tiny bit of give and take when it comes to Mixum. I don't see why the "move on, nothing to see here" post was lined through. Personally, I doubt even Mixum minds this comment.

I, for my part, remain proudly optimistic about the season and would happily bash the negative posters....were I not afraid that my words would be stuck down forever!!!


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> Nash has done a good job in changing this team in two seasons. He took over a bloated salary structure - with over-paid players at EVERY position including the bench. He has quickly turned over the roster and now has reasonable contacts to play with, and players with promise.


and how many of those overpaid players did he manage to trade away (to save money) before their contracts expired? he turned bonzi wells to khrijapa (or was it monija, don't remember), but that's about it. webster and telfair were portland's own picks (webster not technically, but anyway), so he did nothing to get them (except drafted them of course). outlaw and randolph were drafted by whitsitt.

I just don't get it how managing to wait for contracts to expire is some kind of an accomplishment. especially if allen told him to do so. 

and the contracts he has given to miles, randolph and especially ratliff are a bit questionable...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Goldmember said:


> The team Nash inherited was a .500 club. It's not like he tore down a dynasty.


A dynasty? Certainly not.

A .500 team? Certainly not.

Nash created a .500 team for us on his path to the bottom of the league.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> A dynasty? Certainly not.
> 
> A .500 team? Certainly not.
> 
> ...


i'll re-insert my car metaphore, which is a lot like ABM's garage sale metaphor.

sure, when you were 17 (10+ years ago) you bought a really nice Camaro. Let's say it was a decent 1968 Camaro SS, but nothing ever special. You drive it, and over time it wears down..you swap out some parts (cheap parts) and are able to impress a lot of people with it. 

But the older you got (and the car got) the more you saw people getting newer, sportier modles that wouldn't break down, handled better, and got much better gas mileage. But you keep your Camaro, because afterall, you've had it for 10 years and you really can't aford to replace it with something of equal "value".

But as you're driving to Montana one summer, the thing takes a crap on I-84, and you're standed out in the middle of nowhere (between The Dalles and Boardman). You get a tow, and you limp into Boardman. It turns out you've blown your water pump, cam-shaft, carb, and you have a cracked header.

Here you are, looking at what once was a very very nice car. It had a strong 350 in it (it's now a worn out, gas guzzling, oil belching, back-firing, hard to start 350)..you had nice bucket seats and a nice stereo..and now it's worn out uncomfortable seats, and the stereo doesn't play home-made cd's..and the paint..oooh the paint...

so you think to yourself.."hey, I'm pretty handy..I could re-store this camaro to it's former glory! Yah!" Then you dance like Napoleon Dynamite..

Then the tow guy gives you the bill (150 bucks!)..and you start pricing what it'd cost to get this once fancy car back to it's prime...and your eyes role. You would love to get this car back to the car you were once proud to drive (and now you realize you're embarassed to be seen in public with it unless you hhave to)..but you realize that it's a lost cause. 

Even if you fix it up nice, it's still going to be an old Camaro, that isn't as safe, efficient and realiable as a new car. So you buckle down, and sell your camaro, and buy a new Saturn.

Sure, the Saturn isn't as fast as the Camaro *once* was, but it starts. It runs, and it saves you a LOT of money on gas.

And that money you've saved on gas (and insurance..and repairs...and oil...and other things) you can actually save up to upgrade your saturn into a nicer car..and so on and so on.

Or you could just dump 15K into a 47 year old car that's still getting bad mileage, handles bad, and costs you a lot of money to insure.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> i'll re-insert my car metaphore, which is a lot like ABM's garage sale metaphor.


Great. But it still doesn't make a Blazers team that had won 149 regular season games over the previous three years (with a winning % no worse than .598 over those three years) a .500 team.

Portland was two-deep at almost every position and had Zach Randolph just emerging as a force. It had almost all its core in their prime years and a ton of expiring contracts.

It was not inevitable that the team was going to become a .500 team before Nash took it over, and it was inconceivable that it would become a .329 team.

I'm not trying to open up a big discussion here about whether the team would have been better off staying the course... but it's clear to me that the Blazers were not a .500 team when Nash took over and I find it hard to see how anyone could present any reasonable evidence that that was the case.

Ed O.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

el_Diablo said:


> and how many of those overpaid players did he manage to trade away (to save money) before their contracts expired? he turned bonzi wells to khrijapa (or was it monija, don't remember), but that's about it. webster and telfair were portland's own picks (webster not technically, but anyway), so he did nothing to get them (except drafted them of course). outlaw and randolph were drafted by whitsitt.
> 
> I just don't get it how managing to wait for contracts to expire is some kind of an accomplishment. especially if allen told him to do so.
> 
> and the contracts he has given to miles, randolph and especially ratliff are a bit questionable...


He traded only 3. McInnis, Wells, and Wallace before their contracts expired. Miles, Monia, Theo the result. He resisted the suggestion by some to re-up Damon, SAR, and NVE. From what they got on the open market - he made the correct decision not to give them more than what they *ultimately *received. Going from payroll of over $100M to $62M in two seasons. It's too early to tell if those other contracts are bad contracts. Zach might still be a near-All-Star player. Miles might develop, Monia might be a player, and Theo's is absolutely in line with other Centers on the FA market.

He also got rid of the cancers that have plagued this franchise. Wallace, Wells, McInnis, Damon, NVE (and SAR's agent) WON'T BE MISSED.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Portland was two-deep at almost every position and had Zach Randolph just emerging as a force. It had almost all its core in their prime years and a ton of expiring contracts.
> 
> It was not inevitable that the team was going to become a .500 team before Nash took it over, and it was inconceivable that it would become a .329 team.


Are you talking about the 2002/03 roster? I'm just taking a guess that's the year you are referencing, but if you look at what happened the next year, I don't think the team would have done so hot. We ended up losing Pippen, but the following year he played 23 games. DA played only 51 games the following year. When it comes to Sabas, he might have come back, but I'm not sure if it would have been a given. Antonio Daniels would have left because we had Damon and Jeff. So, that would leave DD at C with no real backup and a huge hole at SG again. 

The team would still have a huge PR problem and the winning percentage wouldn't cover up all the other problems that were sure to come up. I think this is evident in the beginning of the 2003/04 season. Besides the nice little win streak when Sheed was moved to C, the rest of the first half was just disappointing. At least is was for me. We might have made the playoffs that year if we kept it together, but I'd gaurantee a 1st round exit. 

I know record wise we are worse off now then if we tried to keep that other group together, but I'm guessing in a couple more years we will be better off. We can only guess, but my guess is we would have gone into the lottery anyways, and probably stay there for a long time just fluttering in the middle of the pack.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> He traded only 3. McInnis, Wells, and Wallace before their contracts expired. Miles, Monia, Theo the result.


miles trade was a good one when it was done, agreed. BUT, at this moment, mcinnis' contract has been expired and the blazers pay quite a lot for miles, who is still just potential. as is monija. and imo the blazers would probably be better off without ratliff. or at least his contract, which was given to him by nash.

he traded wallace before his contract expired yes, but it really doesn't count as reducing bloated payroll, as the blazers ended up adding salary as a result of the trade. and a bad-fit player who never did anything for the team and was worthless (for nash at least) on the trading block.



> He resisted the suggestion by some to re-up Damon, SAR, and NVE. From what they got on the open market - he made the correct decision not to give them more than what they *ultimately *received.


someone actually wanted to resign these guys?



> Going from payroll of over $100M to $62M in two seasons. It's too early to tell if those other contracts are bad contracts. Zach might still be a near-All-Star player. Miles might develop, Monia might be a player, and Theo's is absolutely in line with other Centers on the FA market.


allen must be happy to save ~$80M, agreed. but the point still stands. I don't think his moves saved any of allen's money when compared to doing nothing. and with ratliff's and miles' contract, the blazers aren't even that much better positioned for the future than in a case where they didn't have a GM at all (and thus wouldn't have done any moves except some drafting).


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

el_Diablo said:


> miles trade was a good one when it was done, agreed. BUT, at this moment, mcinnis' contract has been expired and the blazers pay quite a lot for miles, who is still just potential. as is monija. and imo the blazers would probably be better off without ratliff. or at least his contract, which was given to him by nash.


That's a pretty good point. I know Ed has mentioned something similar, but I didn't go and check the numbers until now. 

If we didn't extend Theo, didn't trade/re-sign Miles, and taking out the contracts for Dixon and Smith, we would have been sitting at about 37 mil in salary. This would have given us enough cap room to go after Joe Johnson, maybe Larry Hughes, or at least a quality FA. Even with Miles we would have been at about 44 mil, which is still under the cap. 

I knew the Theo contract would come back and haunt us later on. The only way for him to live up to the contract is if he was healthy 100% and let the lead in blocks each year. hmm, it makes me think of a few other options we could have had now.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

I really think that, even if we had money to go after FA's, most would not have wanted to join the team because of its situation. Except maybe Joe Johnson, because he obviously was about being The Man for a bad team. But would we have been able to offer more than Atlanta?


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

*edited: look below*


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

whats wrong with being realistic?

you cant say he's giving up on a season that realistically has no chance in being successful from a winning point of view.

like it was said, its better to aim low and achieve high than to shoot for the stars from the beginning...from a PR prespective. fans are already concerned. we dont need out GM telling us we will win 35 games, when in actuality we end up winning 18.

THEN we would have some problems.


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

We've set NBA records for continual mediocrity, and we've also enjoyed some years where we've been serious contenders. Can you now handle a few seasons being under 500? It happens to every franchise.

Lighten up! It's just a game. There is no pressure and no expectations this season, just enjoy watching the young guns..even if they lose alot.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

CelticPagan said:


> We've set NBA records for continual mediocrity,


do you mean that as in we made the playoffs 21 straight year and had 30 years straight of at least 37 wins a season? 

Or am I missing what you mean (by missunderstanding what you meant by mediocrity)?


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Now Hap, let's not just take the negative out from CelticPegan's post. The rest is some very good advice... lighten up about the wins for a little longer!


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

bad post count, sorry.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Now Hap, let's not just take the negative out from CelticPegan's post. The rest is some very good advice... lighten up about the wins for a little longer!


I was trying to decipher if CP was saying the "mediocrity" in the manner I associate with it (1st and outs for 10 of 12 years) or if he meant it on a grander scale. that's all.

I too agree that some people need to get go of the "wins at all costs" mentality (altho to degree, they have).


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

By mediocre, I mean we've haven't been a team to miss the playoffs or stink it up like the Clippers or Warriors.

Making the playoffs so many seasons in a row is an accomplishment in it's own right. But it's not really a glowing accomplishment because over that time frame between 50-66% of all teams made the playoffs. 

Mixum is acting like the sky is falling on his head because we are missing the playoffs. The title run seasons are actually more painful because the Blazers, like the Buffalo Bills, always came up short. I consider the losses to SA and LA in the Western Conference Finals championship losses as well.

I enjoy watching young teams, because there isn't a sense that the door is closing soon.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

CelticPagan said:


> By mediocre, I mean we've haven't been a team to miss the playoffs or stink it up like the Clippers or Warriors.
> 
> Making the playoffs so many seasons in a row is an accomplishment in it's own right. But it's not really a glowing accomplishment because over that time frame between 50-66% of all teams made the playoffs.
> 
> ...


thats what I thought you meant, but I wasn't sure. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

el_Diablo said:


> miles trade was a good one when it was done, agreed. BUT, at this moment, mcinnis' contract has been expired and the blazers pay quite a lot for miles, who is still just potential. as is monija. and imo the blazers would probably be better off without ratliff. or at least his contract, which was given to him by nash.
> 
> he traded wallace before his contract expired yes, but it really doesn't count as reducing bloated payroll, as the blazers ended up adding salary as a result of the trade. and a bad-fit player who never did anything for the team and was worthless (for nash at least) on the trading block.
> 
> ...





el_Diablo said:


> he (Nash) traded wallace before his contract expired yes, but it really doesn't count as reducing bloated payroll, as the blazers ended up adding salary as a result of the trade


Of course it counts. The other result would have been signing Wallace to another $12-$15M/YEAR contract or losing him for nothing. We got Shareef and Ratliff for Wallace. Ultimately, Shareef didn't net a return - but at the time we were not heading toward a full-on youth movement. We were trying to assemble another playoff team. The NET affect of the trade (to date) was less salary - not more. Nash had to TRY to get a return for Shareef - rather than do nothing. PR wouldn't have been pretty if he had let Wallace go for nothing.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Of course it counts. The other result would have been signing Wallace to another $12-$15M/YEAR contract or losing him for nothing. We got Shareef and Ratliff for Wallace. Ultimately, Shareef didn't net a return - but at the time we were not heading toward a full-on youth movement. We were trying to assemble another playoff team. The NET affect of the trade (to date) was less salary - not more. Nash had to TRY to get a return for Shareef - rather than do nothing. PR wouldn't have been pretty if he had let Wallace go for nothing.


so let me get this straight. $17M + $8M ( = 1 year of wallace and person ) > $25M + $25M ( = 2 years of reef and ratliff )

with luxury tax that's $50M more out of allen's pockets.

to say the NET effect of that trade was less salary is a bit of stretch to me...


----------

