# From O-Live Blog: SAR trade "could happen any minute"



## Swoosh (May 2, 2003)

> *Abdur-Rahim rumor heating up? *
> sportsline.com's Mike Kahn says the Blazers have no interest in the long term contracts that are hitched to both Antawn Jamison and Keith Van Horn. Does that mean the Blazers have turned their attention to a Rasheed Wallace-for-Shareef Abdur-Rahim swap?
> 
> It doesn't appear they want Zydrunas Ilgauskas since they already did their deal with Cleveland for Miles, so that leaves Shareef Abdur-Rahim coming from Atlanta, possibly with Chris Crawford, Dion Glover or local product Dan Dickau for cap purposes. That could happen any minute.


What do you all think? I know we've already discussed the possibilities of getting SAR to death (with people taking both sides), but here it is popping up once again...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SAR, with the possibility of Dickau, would be a pretty interesting pick-up. I like SAR's ability a lot...and considering the other crap flying around for Wallace, SAR would actually be a relief as the return.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

I would be happy with a SAR trade maybe some way get ratliff or maybe terry but terry contract is too long.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

Where would SAR play though? I don't think he can play center like Sheed can. I'm not sure he could play the 3 as well. I don't know much about him. Then you would have two PF's who deserve to start.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Just foood for thought

Rasheed ranks in the top 20 of the NBA for:
Ranks #17 in the NBA in Minutes Per Game(38.3) 

SAR ranks in the top 20 of the NBA for:
Ranks #19 in the NBA in Points Per Game(19.9) 
Ranks #12 in the NBA in Rebounds Per Game(9.4) 
Ranks #16 in the NBA in Field-Goal Percentage(0.488) 
Ranks #10 in the NBA in Free-Throw Percentage(0.87) 
Ranks #19 in the NBA in Minutes Played(1559.0) 
Ranks #12 in the NBA in Field Goals Made(312.0) 
Ranks #4 in the NBA in Free Throws(227.0) 
Ranks #8 in the NBA in Free Throw Attempts(261.0) 
Ranks #10 in the NBA in Defensive Rebounds(288.0) 
Ranks #14 in the NBA in Defensive Rebounds Per Game(6.7) 
Ranks #8 in the NBA in Total Rebounds(403.0) 
Ranks #11 in the NBA in Points(855.0) 
Ranks #5 in the NBA in Double-doubles(21.0) 
Ranks #17 in the NBA in Field Goals Per 48 Minutes(9.61) 
Ranks #7 in the NBA in Free Throws Per 48 Minutes(6.99) 
Ranks #15 in the NBA in Free Throw Attempts Per 48 Minutes(8.04) 
Ranks #16 in the NBA in Points Per 48 Minutes(26.3) 
Ranks #6 in the NBA in Total Efficiency Points(955.0) 
Ranks #10 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking(22.21) 
Ranks #9 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking Per 48 Minutes(29.4) 

I know Stats don't mean much and Shareef would have more competition for scoring. But I like the Free throw issue, as far as getting to the line a lot, something Rasheed doesn't do.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I like SAR a lot. If we didn't have ZR and we had to move Rasheed, I'd be falling all over myself for this deal.

As it is, though, while my preference is to keep Rasheed, we could do a LOT worse than taking on SAR. He's young, he's a good offensive player, and his contract is a manageable length.

He and ZR would be a nightmare on defense (for Portland fans) and I question how well their offensive games would mesh, but SAR's good enough that acquiring him might some day allow us to move Zach if we got enough talent. SAR is that good.

In the mean time, he could be plugged in at the 3 and most nights do a decent job, I think.

In comparison to Jamison, or KVH, this would be an awesome acquisition for Rasheed. In comparison to keeping Rasheed, it's tough for me to be excited over.

Ed O.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

I have said that if I am forced to give up Rasheed...SAR is about the only one I'd accept. I do not like Dickau or any other person we'd get in that trade though. Terry?????

still makes me want to say "bleck"


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Who is SAR?

Hmmmm too bad he is not in 25 categories?

What team does he play for?

:rofl:

Psssssttttttttttttt, My persistance may pay off !


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> SAR, with the possibility of Dickau, would be a pretty interesting pick-up. I like SAR's ability a lot...and considering the other crap flying around for Wallace, SAR would actually be a relief as the return.


Speaking of SAR, I owe you a response on that subject (cite crashes are an unfortunate thing).

As many know I do not like Raheem, I find him to be overrated and I believe that a combo of he and Randolph at forward would be the worst defensive tandem in the history of basketball.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

By the way, anything off O-Live is not worth repeating IMHO


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Portland could do a real simple Sheed for Shareef and Nazr deal.

Helps portland out at the 3,4,and 5.

Shareef gets more steals per game, but less blocks. Also it is hard to tell how his defense is until you spend a few games watching him play d exclusively.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!
> As many know I do not like Raheem, I find him to be overrated and I believe that a combo of he and Randolph at forward would be the worst defensive tandem in the history of basketball.


My thoughts exactly. I really don't like the tandem of SAR and Z-Bo...too much of the school of fundamental ole' defense.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!
> 
> As many know I do not like Raheem, I fund him to be overrated and I believe that a combo of he and Randolph at forward would be the worst defensive tandem in the history of basketball.


Well, I was going to post this in response to Ed's post, but you make the same point even more emphatically about SAR's "bad defense."

I think Abdur-Rahim's bad defense is drastically over-stated. He's not a great defender, but he's far from terrible. He's got very good lateral quickness, challenges shots and stays with his man well.

He's a downgrade, defensively, from Wallace but I don't think he's really below average.


----------



## Swoosh (May 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> By the way, anything off O-Live is not worth repeating IMHO


It actually came from Mike Kahn on CBS Sportsline...here is the link to the original story LINK 

O-Live just summarized the portion regarding the Blazers.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> He's a downgrade, defensively, from Wallace but I don't think he's really below average.


Huh? Have you watched any Hawk games the past few years?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> 
> Huh? Have you watched any Hawk games the past few years?


Hey, hey, let's not go there, kiddo. Judging from your comments about Pippen, one might wonder if you've watched Blazer games from the past few seasons. But there's no point using that tack.

Let's keep it civil. There's no worthwhile analysis in implying that the other person simply hasn't watched the other player. It's just a way to disparage the other poster's opinion without having any valid points to make.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I dont know about thsi trade. 

I kinda like SAR, but he IMO is Jamison with a shorter contract. 

He cant play D, and has never lead his team past what, 30 wins?




I wouldnt complain but pickin up SAR would simply be a small bandaid for the franchise, when we actually need surgery not a bandaid.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

I can't really understand the logic of getting SAR for Sheed. Basically, it still leaves Portland with 3 PF's up front with DD, Zach and SAR. Only this trio would be worse defensively. From what i've seen, Shareef is not a SF. He likes to go to the basket and play in the paint. How is he going to open up the paint for Zach ? 

SAR is similar to Jamison. They are both 3/4 tweeners, they put up similar stats (when Jamison was with Golden State), both solid rebounders and they both play really bad defense. You guys hated the Jamison idea, yet you think SAR is a good return ? :uhoh:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> 
> You guys hated the Jamison idea, yet you think SAR is a good return ? :uhoh:


SAR is a superior talent and has a far superior contract status.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

*This had to be concluded...*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Terry is not a top point guard.


Name 10 better.



> And having the league's top shot-blocker is like having the league's stop steal man...a nice trivia point, but not terribly impactful on actually winning games.


That’s absurd.

A shot blocker the caliber of Ratliff anchors a team’s total defense enabling parameter players to concentrate more energy towards contesting shots from the outside, pressuring ball handlers and jumping screens. With a dominant shot blocking presence as the second line of defense parameter players are afforded a safety net if in fact they are beat off the dribble.

In the grand scheme of things this greatly improves a teams overall defense in a way the box score will not readily indicate.

Use that as trivia food if you like but don’t fool yourself, people who actually understand the game of basketball realize what a difference dominant shot blocking makes.

A good read on the issue…
League leaders…
The top shot blockers in the league…



> I've never heard anyone but you describe the Hawks as "talented," including columnists and GMs / coaches that columnists invariably quote on the subject of the Hawks.


I stated that _last seasons_ Hawks were talented and their starting 5 indeed was. In the eastern conference they were predicted by many to make the playoffs while the organization went as far as to guarantee the playoffs. 

The Hawks were a disappointment to many (including myself) as no one predicted them to be as bad as they were. 

This is what ESPN had to say about the Hawks during the preseason of the 2002-03 season:

_“Hawks look like playoff contenders on paper, which is exactly what we wrote last season… “_
…Interesting how things turned out both seasons don’t you think?


Terry/ Dickau/ Davis
Newble/ Glover
Robinson/ Ham
Raheem/ Henderson
Ratliff/ Mohammed

… Not the greatest of teams but certainly talented enough to exceed 35 wins in the eastern conference (on paper that should have been a .500 eastern team).



> That's because ignoring the box score in order to find other, magical reasons to overvalue / undervalue players used to be the favorite game, though lacking in logic.
> 
> "Can't win," "doesn't help his team," "just puts up stats," "isn't clutch," are just nonsensical ways to get around inconvenient facts.


2002-03 statistics…

Study those convenient facts then inform us as to why exactly that team managed to win only 35 games.



> You even choose to ignore the leading "intangibles" measure of +/-, since that also doesn't back up your point except, perhaps, in one season.


I utilized the +/- of his last full season of play (the season I specifically indicated as my point of reference at the beginning of my post) not just "one season". 

Details...



> Essentially, your position is, "Sure he puts up nice production, and sure his team does better when he's around than when he's not around, but he's still a big loser."


My position is that he has little effect on the outcome of games because he concedes as much as he contributes and that his contributions come more so at the expense of those around him (his teammates) then to the benefit of them.



> Because "winning" is not a skill.


Perhaps I can state that better (pardon the confusion)…

A winning mentality is a quality, an intangible (a skill). That is not to say that the player’s team will win but that their contributions greatly facilitate it. There is a difference between a player who produces and one who does what necessary to win.

Bill Russell’s greatest attributes were his hustle, his will to win and his overall winning mentality.

Those my friend are part of a skill set (mental qualities I would term skills).


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> I can't really understand the logic of getting SAR for Sheed. Basically, it still leaves Portland with 3 PF's up front with DD, Zach and SAR. Only this trio would be worse defensively. From what i've seen, Shareef is not a SF. He likes to go to the basket and play in the paint. How is he going to open up the paint for Zach ?
> 
> SAR is similar to Jamison. They are both 3/4 tweeners, they put up similar stats (when Jamison was with Golden State), both solid rebounders and they both play really bad defense. You guys hated the Jamison idea, yet you think SAR is a good return ? :uhoh:


Not really, but he would be easier to move than Jamison. I don't know the numbers off hand, but his contract isn't as long is it? I think that it would be Nash trying to get chips to deal later more than anything when it comes to trading Rasheed Wallace.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Hey, hey, let's not go there, kiddo. Judging from your comments about Pippen, one might wonder if you've watched Blazer games from the past few seasons. But there's no point using that tack.
> 
> Let's keep it civil. There's no worthwhile analysis in implying that the other person simply hasn't watched the other player. It's just a way to disparage the other poster's opinion without having any valid points to make.


I've watched plenty of Blazer games and that's my opinion. I'm not the only one who thinks that way about Pip. I'm not sure where I wasn't civil here...just asking a question. SAR is not known for his defense and he is below average. He puts up good numbers but then again, look at what team he plays for. Do you think Sheed would put up better numbers in Atlanta?...I sure do.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: This had to be concluded...*

This is kind of off-topic, but oh well...



> Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!
> Name 10 better.


Terry is another guy who puts up stats, but he's not a top player. He takes a lot of shots, he's not good at distributing the ball, he gives no effort on defense and he turns the ball over a lot. Basically, Terry is a slightly taller version of Damon. 

I could easily name 10 better PG's than Terry...Kidd, Cassell, Marbury, Nash, Bibby, B.Davis, A.Miller, Payton, Snow, Billups, J.Williams...etc. I would honestly take any one of those guys over Terry.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: This had to be concluded...*



> Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!
> 
> Name 10 better [point guards than Terry].


I'd prefer to have any of these ten:

Jason Kidd
Stephon Marbury
Baron Davis
Sam Cassell
Gary Payton
Steve Nash
Jason Williams
Mike Bibby
Steve Francis
Andre Miller

That's without including rookies from this season like LeBron James (up to now), Kirk Henrich or Dwayne Wade.



> Use that as trivia food if you like but don’t fool yourself, people who actually understand the game of basketball realize what a difference dominant shot blocking makes.


I didn't say shot-blocking doesn't make a difference. I said that a player who's only really value is that he leads the league in blocked shots is too one-dimensional to count as serious talent. Ratliff is hardly considered a major difference-maker...some posters here want him as a "throw-in." Nobody considers him a major piece.



> I stated that _last seasons_ Hawks were talented and their starting 5 indeed was. In the eastern conference they were predicted by many to make the playoffs while the organization went as far as to guarantee the playoffs.


The organization guaranteed the playoffs as a marketing gimmick in to try and drum up interest in a moribund franchise. Yes, the Hawks were considered a possible playoff team which, in the East, is not the same as being "quite talented." The Wizards have been considered playoff contenders...pretty much every Eastern team has. That doesn't make them all quite talented.



> Not the greatest of teams but certainly talented enough to exceed 35 wins in the eastern conference (on paper that should have been a .500 eastern team).


Possibly. Or perhaps Terry is overrated (as I definitely think he is). The bench is very weak, Newble was a pretty terrible shooting guard, in terms of actual production, and Ratliff is a poor scorer (and rebounder, for his size and position).

So SAR and Robinson, with an overrated Terry. 35 wins seems about right. Let's take a gander at the offense of this team:

We have Robinson and Terry as 20 and 17 ppg scorers, but on mediocre shooting. Players who can score 17-20 ppg on 42-43% shooting are no huge value to the team.

Only SAR scored a lot on good shooting (48%).



> My position is that he has little effect on the outcome of games because he concedes as much as he contributes and that his contributions come more so at the expense of those around him (his teammates) then to the benefit of them.


Yes, which is something one can say, unprovably either way, about any player. Clearly some, like Duncan, are reputably good enough that it doesn't matter that you can't prove it one way or the other. But for the vast majority of players, you could claim that "he concedes as much as he contributes and that his contributions come more so at the expense of those around him (his teammates) then to the benefit of them."

I'm not too interested in claims that are totally subjective.



> A winning mentality is a quality, an intangible (a skill). That is not to say that the player’s team will win but that their contributions greatly facilitate it. There is a difference between a player who produces and one who does what necessary to win.


Fine, but that's totally subjective as well. The reason I'm not too big on subjective claims is that one can use totally subjective claims, like who has a "winning mentality" and who's "contributions come at the expense of the team rather than for the benefit," to tear down any player one wishes.

Every single claim you make about SAR, I could make for Dirk Nowitski. But the cold hard facts are what they actually produce, which make them talented assets in this league.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> 
> I'm not sure where I wasn't civil here...just asking a question.


I wouldn't be commenting on his defense if I hadn't seen him play.



> SAR is not known for his defense and he is below average.


And my contention is that his poor defense is overstated. Therefore, I'm saying that, in my opinion, what "is known" is not right.



> He puts up good numbers but then again, look at what team he plays for. Do you think Sheed would put up better numbers in Atlanta?...I sure do.


Perhaps. One can argue either way as to whether being on a good team helps one's stats or whether being on a bad team helps one's stats.

If your contention is that SAR only puts up good numbers because he's on a bad team, that's fine. I disagree entirely, but opinion is opinion.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> 
> SAR is not known for his defense and he is below average. He puts up good numbers but then again, look at what team he plays for. Do you think Sheed would put up better numbers in Atlanta?...I sure do.


IMO Sheed will do exactly the same anywhere he goes. 24 pts one night, 8 pts the next. He has never had the work ethic to be great. SAR will have a bit less in Pt and rebounds because Portland is better than atlanta, but no one has ever questioned his work ethic on all these horrible teams he has been on. Maybe he will be better. Bibby improved coming to Sac.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Well, I was going to post this in response to Ed's post, but you make the same point even more emphatically about SAR's "bad defense."
> 
> ...


He might not be below-average at the 4 spot (although he might be). The issue to me is that he wouldn't be able to play the 4. He'd play the 3, where he'd get toasted I fear.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Swoosh</b>!
> It actually came from Mike Kahn on CBS Sportsline...here is the link to the original story LINK
> 
> O-Live just summarized the portion regarding the Blazers.


Thanks Swoosh.... makes more sense now that you mention it. I should have realized the Blog is a blog after all.

As I have stated in other threads, I think if a deal does go down with Atlanta I can see Sheed and ? for SAR and Ratliff. Maybe even Patterson and some cash to help witht eh trade kicker. I think Ratliff is valuable as a shot blocker.

The main reason I can see this happening is Atlanta's new owner wants to shed salary fast. Both SAR and Ratliff have 2 years left, and getting Sheed's expiring contract allows them to shed about 76% of that all in one year and not haev to wait for 2 years. The remaing can be shed with either Davis, yet another year or taking on a smaller contract longer. It still sheds lots of money quickly for them.


There are a lot of fans who have been saying how much they have liked the increase in hustle and effort from the Blazers the last few games. One of the many things I have always liked about SAR is he gets up and down the court well on the break, he gets to the basket a LOT, thus getting a lot of FT's, and he hustles quite a bit. I have always enjoyed his energy. I think those area all positives for him.

If we had a center who could pass a lot, and put him at the top of the key like Sabas. Randolph and SAR would do wonders as dual PF's on the baseline, cutting to the hoop.

Just MHO....

I would rather have a player such as SAR from the east who IS an all star than one who is not. Even though he is in the east, at least he is an all star level player.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I think a bit too much is made of the need for a 3 that opens up the paint for Zach. Teams can do just fine with two guys roaming the paint, so long as they pass well enough to punish double teams. Focus the perimeter shooting where it should be -- in the back court -- and SAR and Zach should be just fine together (offensively).

Dan


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Communication is everything to them both.... I agree...


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I like SAR a lot. If we didn't have ZR and we had to move Rasheed, I'd be falling all over myself for this deal.
> 
> As it is, though, while my preference is to keep Rasheed, we could do a LOT worse than taking on SAR. He's young, he's a good offensive player, and his contract is a manageable length.
> ...


General agreement from me. This has been talked to death already but here is a recap of my preferences of the main possibilities and recent trade rumors. In order of preference:

1) Crazy long shot, but still first choice: Trade Sheed and more to Orlando for T-Mac and the contract albatross known as Grant Hill.

2) Re-sign Sheed to a 3 year $28mil deal ($8, $9 & $11)

3) Sign and trade Sheed this summer so Portland gets back, among other things, a clear upgrade at PG or Center.

4) If T-Mac as a FA is a possibility (Portland needs to find this out first), trade Sheed for a mid-level talent on a mid-level contract (appx. current market value), plus picks and/or young talent on rookie scale, plus contracts ending no later than 05, so Portland end up with at least $10mil of Sheeds current $17mil off the 05 books.

If, because the Blazers are intent on dumping Sheed, or Sheed has told them he won’t resign, will become a FA and most likely walk, then and only then:

5) Call every team in the NBA (again) and solicit offers. Find out players that are “available”. Try to work a 3 or 4 team trade that makes better sense for Portland than the below. Portland needs a good PG and a young defensive center (to cover for Zach in the post). Portland doesn’t really need another scoring Forward.

6) Trade Sheed to Atlanta for Shareef. Do not include Jason Terry or Nazr Mohammed, unless Atlanta takes back Portland long contracts (DA or Patterson). Shareef’s deal expires 2005. Leaves that opportunity open. Theo Ratliff’s contract also expires in 2005 and if he could be worked in that is fine too.

Why Shareef over the other rumors?
Better contract.
Better player.
More valuable piece to have.
Good enough, might choose him over Zach. Get to audition before choosing. Then trade the other for a valuable piece.	

Why not excited about Shareef?
Not a great match for Zach. Another forward. Yeah. We have forwards already (Zach, Patterson, Q, Miles, Dale)
Not as good a defender as Sheed.
Never been part of a winning team.

97) Trade Sheed to Dallas for Jamison, Howard and Delk.
(note the rumor for the trade was much worse than above)
Not as good as Shareef.
Worse contract. Truly, truly awful contract.
Blazer’s see Sheed 4 times per year instead of 2.

98) Trade Sheed to NY for Keith Van Horn and change.
Not as good as Shareef.
Worse contract. (One extra year, but that makes all the difference because the huge FA year is 05, not 06.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> SAR is similar to Jamison. They are both 3/4 tweeners, they put up similar stats (when Jamison was with Golden State), both solid rebounders and they both play really bad defense. You guys hated the Jamison idea, yet you think SAR is a good return ?


Rahim has two years left at about $28 mill, while Jamison has 5 years left at about $70 mill.....:uhoh: 

If both players are so similar, why would you take the one with an extra 3 years and 42 million on his contract? For a guy who plays really bad defense, 14 mill a season is way too much, so it would be safer to take the player with the lesser contract.


As far as SAR playing SF, he has before in the past, so I don't think that would be that much of a problem.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

ANother thing to keep in mindis Aquiring Shareef keeps our goal of cap space for 2005 intact while not completely mailing it iin for next year. A team witout Rasheed or Shareef is likely worse than ione with eaither, and a team coming off a fairly successful season is likely more attractiver to the likes of McGrady than a team coming off a terrible season.

E.G. See the Chicago Bulls only being able to land Ron Mercer a afew years back.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> I think a bit too much is made of the need for a 3 that opens up the paint for Zach. Teams can do just fine with two guys roaming the paint, so long as they pass well enough to punish double teams. Focus the perimeter shooting where it should be -- in the back court -- and SAR and Zach should be just fine together (offensively).


I agree completely. Just because Wallace, as a big man, has taken on the odd role of being the shooter to open up the paint doesn't mean a replacement "big" should have to assume the same role.

There's some hope Derek Anderson and Wesley Person can do some of that. Portland should definitely be looking for a shooting compliment in the backcourt.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> Snow, Billups, J.Williams...etc. I would honestly take any one of those guys over Terry.


The final three are a stretch.

I see your first eight as being clearly better then Terry.

Snow
Billiups
J. Williams

I disagree. 

Terry possesses an outside shooting ability that Snow lacks he is a far better defender then Williams and simply more talented then Billups (a career 40% shooter). Terry is also the youngest of the bunch. I would not rate them as being clearly better then him and from the perspective of talent I would take him ahead of all three.

Last season Terry averaged more assists then both Snow and Billups and he shot better the both Billups and Williams. 

Terry (last season)
ppg: 17.2... apg: 7.4... rpg: 3.4... spg: 1.6... FG%: (43%)... 3FG: (37%)

Terry (Carrer)
ppg: 16.0... apg: 5.5... rpg: 3.2... spg: 1.4... FG%: (43%)... 3FG: (37%)

Terry proved to be a winner in college and given the right cast I can see him aiding a team winning in the NBA.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

If we could get back Terry in this deal then I would like it, obviously Im a huge fan of Shareef, he's a good Muslim cat. But we lose defensively and the fact that Sheed CAN play center, Reef can't, if we could some how throw in Dale or some other stuff to get back Terry and Nazr Mohammed then this would be a deal beneficial to us.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

One thing just popped up in my mind.

If Atlanta Deals for Sheed by sending Terry and SAR, just so they can cut salary, that means that they would be letting Sheed walk after the season, leaving them with Boris Diaw and Stephen Jackson as their 2 best players.

I don't see them iving away every shred of talent they possess, you think they are bad now...Whew they would need to hand out clothespins at the doors.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> I don't see them iving away every shred of talent they possess, you think they are bad now...Whew they would need to hand out clothespins at the doors.


And an empty, empty, empty payroll. In the "I can amass more cap space than you" game that seems to be so in vogue these days, Atlanta would be the clear winner.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

As best as I can tell Atlanta would only be around 10 mil under tha cap if the got Sheed and let him walk.


----------



## BrooklynBaller (Jun 25, 2003)

Schilly ... dude can you please change your avatar? That's just freaky, man.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to have any of these ten:
> ...


I responded to this in a previous post.

Of your ten I would not place Jason Williams ahead of Terry.
James is not a PG (as evidenced by the acquisition of McInnis) neither is Wade and Terry is far and away better then Hinrich.

Terry puts up statistics comparable to many of these players, only difference being that his teams lose. You seem to give Raheem the benefit of the doubt for this but not Terry.

If winning is a criteria one can compile a grocery list of individuals better then Raheem.



> I didn't say shot-blocking doesn't make a difference. I said that a player who's only really value is that he leads the league in blocked shots is too one-dimensional to count as serious talent. Ratliff is hardly considered a major difference-maker...some posters here want him as a "throw-in." Nobody considers him a major piece.


What you said was “having the league's top shot-blocker is like having the league's stop steal man...a nice trivia point, but not terribly impactful on actually winning games”.

You use the absence of my initial post as an opportunity to skew what is being debated. My point was never that Ratliff was “a major difference-maker” (even though I believe his shot blocking abilities to be), it was that Raheem is benefited by having one of the league top shot blocking presences to cover for him (this was part of a rundown of the talents on last seasons Hawks team).

Your response of individual shot blocking excellence being irrelevant in terms of wins and loses was (simply put) outlandish.



> The organization guaranteed the playoffs as a marketing gimmick in to try and drum up interest in a moribund franchise. Yes, the Hawks were considered a possible playoff team which, in the East, is not the same as being "quite talented." The Wizards have been considered playoff contenders...pretty much every Eastern team has. That doesn't make them all quite talented.


That is an easy assertion to make after the fact. Prior to those seasons it was widely believed that the Hawks were a playoff caliber team. First after the acquisition of Raheem then the following season with the acquisition of Robinson.

I do not have links or clippings to what was being said about the Hawks but if my memory serves me correctly many had them predicted as an eighth seed.

They underachieved both years (meanwhile dropping the perceived talent of the cast surrounding the top players).

In Philadelphia the perception of Ratliff was that he was a beast defensively (he was also being pushed as the defensive player of the year prior to his injury and trade from the sixers). Today he is not thought of as favorably.



> Possibly. Or perhaps Terry is overrated (as I definitely think he is).


How do you substantiate that Terry is overrated (certainly not from his production)? 
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how you reached that position without utilizing the subjective methods of perception.



> The bench is very weak, Newble was a pretty terrible shooting guard, in terms of actual production, and Ratliff is a poor scorer (and rebounder, for his size and position).


With three players averaging around 20 ppg what exactly would you ask of Newbel. He was a role player who defended the opposing teams best perimeter player nightly and he did not require plays in order to contribute to the team. I have already covered the value of a Ratliff (who was second only to Glover on that team in terms of +/-).

The Hawks finished last season relatively strong following an abysmal start that resulted in a coaching change and the insertion of Newbel into the starting lineup. 
His production was rather respectable once he was inserted into the starting lineup (btw).



> Yes, which is something one can say, unprovably either way, about any player. Clearly some, like Duncan, are reputably good enough that it doesn't matter that you can't prove it one way or the other. But for the vast majority of players, you could claim that "he concedes as much as he contributes and that his contributions come more so at the expense of those around him (his teammates) then to the benefit of them."
> 
> I'm not too interested in claims that are totally subjective.


After debating Raheem earlier (as well as reading many calling for his acquisition by the Blazers) I decided to record a few Atlanta games in order to gauge him as a player. That s what I came up with from my observations coupled with the fact that he blocks fewer shots then any other starting PF logging significant playing time and has his shot blocked more then any other player in the league. 

I stated my analysis quite clear in my initial post (which no longer exists). I have not the time to run down those points again.



> Fine, but that's totally subjective as well. The reason I'm not too big on subjective claims is that one can use totally subjective claims, like who has a "winning mentality" and who's "contributions come at the expense of the team rather than for the benefit," to tear down any player one wishes.


Those are rather hollow words coming from one who utilized subjective terms such as “intangibles”, “leadership” and such as a foundation in their well-documented defense of Scottie Pippen.



> Every single claim you make about SAR, I could make for Dirk Nowitski.


Except for the fact that Nowitski wins and that he annually ranks amongst the league leaders in terms of +/-. I have no doubt in my mind that Nowitzki makes those around him better with his versatility and shooting ability.

I do not believe that Raheem benefits those around him (and his career winning percentage indicates as much).



> But the cold hard facts are what they actually produce, which make them talented assets in this league.


I agree with you in regards to the value of production.

In regards to subjective subject matter... that is a staple of good analysis. Those who can evaluate talent and or predict a player’s ability to succeed in a particular system or player grouping do not have a statistic to substantiate what they observe. That is not saying that statistics cannot be utilized (because they can) however much of what’s perceived and covered in sports (as well as the real world) is subjective. 

Much of what is debated on these boards are opinions derived form our perceptions of subjective subject matter. It is a crapshoot and things do not always add up but it is those who are good at gauging intangible qualities and subjective matters that ring prophetic when all is said and done. Typically you hope these individuals to be those in decision-making positions (in regards to your favorite team).

Perhaps my read on Raheem is absolutely wrong, perhaps not. My record in relation to subjective issues has held up rather well in the past.

To promote the subjectivity of a claim as a means of discrediting it is as asinine a practice in terms of sport analysis as measuring the length of nostril hair in correlation to field goal kicking/ free throw shooting accuracy.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Honestly guys, are Terry and Rahim really gonna take this team to the next level or are they just gonna be baindaids to cover up the franchises scar and lead us to a 8th seed 1st round exit. 

I love the Blazers just as much as anyone else on this site, but i can honestly say it is time to rebuild this team. 

Terry is a very selfish player that is not a true PG. He isnt a bad player, but his FG% is alwasy low and he isnt much of a passer. He also isnt a good defender. A Terry/Damon backcourt would be almost as bad defensivley as a SAR/Zach front court. 

Ya, SAR is a leader in like 25 categories, but can he play next to Zach. No. He is a decent outside shooter, but by no means can he guard or probably even keep up with alot of SF's out west. 

Dont forget we just got miles. I want to see what a starting lineup of Damon/DA/Miles/Zach/Wallace can do before i consider trading him.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ThatBlazerGuy</b>!
> Honestly guys, are Terry and Rahim really gonna take this team to the next level or are they just gonna be baindaids to cover up the franchises scar and lead us to a 8th seed 1st round exit.


Who knows? Maybe they'd do both. Terry, after all, is only 26 and SAR is only 27. They could each be pieces in the youth movement without having to go all the way to a team full of 22 year-olds.

I don't think we'll be able to get our hands on a veteran PG better than Terry in the next couple of years (it's possible that we could get a crack at a good PG prospect in this year's draft, but he'll probably be a couple years away from being a big help), and SAR's ability to play with ZR is questionable but his skill and talent level overall are not.

As far as your critique of Terry, I think you're overstating things to his detriment on almost every front. The fact is that he's a 43% career FG shooter. That is NOT a low FG% for a guy who shoots as many 3's as he does (over 1500 in his 4+ NBA seasons). If he were given the PG spot that Damon holds, I would guarantee the Blazers would be much better off (how's that for damning by faint praise?)

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!
> 
> 
> I responded to this in a previous post.
> ...


And yet his play at point guard is still better than Terry's. In reality, I would say that Terry is not a point guard, either, but a player too small for shooting guard, shoehorned into the point guard role.



> You seem to give Raheem the benefit of the doubt for this but not Terry.
> 
> If winning is a criteria one can compile a grocery list of individuals better then Raheem.


You're making a random guess as to my thinking and then arguing that I'm inconsistent. I'm not using "winning" as a criteria. More on Terry further down when you ask me about my "overrated" tag.




> You use the absence of my initial post as an opportunity to skew what is being debated. My point was never that Ratliff was “a major difference-maker” (even though I believe his shot blocking abilities to be), it was that Raheem is benefited by having one of the league top shot blocking presences to cover for him (this was part of a rundown of the talents on last seasons Hawks team).


No, that's incorrent. I'm not using the absence of the initial post to skew anything. My comments regarded your initial position that Rahim was on a "quite talented" team and that Ratliff was a significant reason why. I don't believe Ratliff is any major talent, any more than Camby is. Camby has been among the league-leaders in shot-blocking before, but neither he nor Ratliff had huge impacts on seasons and thus were not pieces that, in any great measure, helped make their teams "quite talented."



> Your response of individual shot blocking excellence being irrelevant in terms of wins and loses was (simply put) outlandish.


First, I didn't say it was irrelevant. Secondly, your use of "league-leader" makes him sound like a big star, which is misleading in its implication. A scoring leader, an assist leader...even a rebounding leader can be a major star and a *huge* difference-maker to the team.

I was noting that the league-leader in shot-blocking was in no way as impactful as the league leaders in those categories.

It's an incredible third ability to have, like Olajuwon had it on top of being a great scorer and rebounder, same for Mourning. It's also great if you have it on top of being a dominant man-defender. But team shot-blockers, like Ratliff and Camby, are nowhere near as impactful *on defense* as true great man defenders like Duncan or Garnett.

Therefore, I'm still afraid that your "league leading shot-blocking" gambit is still not terribly impactful. It's nice thing to have, in a player who does other things. In a player who's a weak scorer, weak rebounder for his position and not a dominant man defender, it doesn't make a major talent.



> That is an easy assertion to make after the fact. Prior to those seasons it was widely believed that the Hawks were a playoff caliber team.


Your writing is as if I disputed this but, if you read what I actually wrote, I didn't. I said being a playoff contender in the East does not make a team "quite talented." Just about every Eastern team has had it's turn at being called a "playoff caliber team on paper." That doesn't make every Eastern team "quite talented."



> How do you substantiate that Terry is overrated (certainly not from his production)?
> Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how you reached that position without utilizing the subjective methods of perception.


Sorry, buddy, but it *is* from production. His assist totals are just terribly weak for a point guard. Last year he had his only solid year for assists. Outside of that, he's put up the following per game numbers for assists: 4.3, 4.9, 5.7, 5.0 (this season).

For a shooting guard or a small forward, those are pretty nice. For a point guard, those are pretty weak.

But he was on a bad team, right? He can't be expected to create for a bad team? Mike Bibby's assist totals for a very bad Memphis team: 6.5, 8.1, 8.4.

The fact that even a few (fortunately only a few) people talk about Terry as though he were a top point guard shows that he's overrated. He's a small shooting guard, who scores at a pretty unremarkable efficiency and doesn't play-make all that well.



> Those are rather hollow words coming from one who utilized subjective terms such as “intangibles”, “leadership” and such as a foundation in their well-documented defense of Scottie Pippen.


Not hollow or inconsistent at all. I don't argue that Pippen is better than his numbers suggest, just that a team with absolutely no direction could still use someone with offensive intelligence and leadership. I was quite agreeable that Payton would make Pippen's departure unimpactful, since Payton had that intelligence and leadership *and* better numbers.

I say that Pippen has been a leader through his career and that he knows how to run an offense. But I've never argued that he deserves more money or that he's actually better than players who are producing more.

So that's a far cry from your attempt to devalue actual production due to "lack of winning mentality" or "producing in ways that hurt his team."



> Except for the fact that Nowitski wins


If we want to discuss "asinine" practices, as you seem to want to, discounting talent around a player in evaluating his "winning" ability is pretty asinine. Nowitski surrounded by much more talent than Abdur-Rahim is, and Nowitski wasn't a winner until the last few years when the talent coalesced around him. Fascinating how one's "winning metality" increases when one gets better teammates.



> and that he annually ranks amongst the league leaders in terms of +/-.


In your initial post, you noted grudgingly that SAR fares quite well in +/- over his career.

Out of curiosity, where do you find +/- stats over the years? 82games.com seems that have their own version (in which SAR is #30 in the league this season) but only for this season and last.



> I have no doubt in my mind that Nowitzki makes those around him better with his versatility and shooting ability.


Great, I have no doubt in my mind that Rahim makes those around him better with his versatility and inside game.



> I do not believe that Raheem benefits those around him (and his career winning percentage indicates as much).


His career winning percentage also indicates he's had bad talent around him.

Your position simply isn't logically tenable. There are three inter-related variables here, if we want to really look at this issue: a player's "winning" ability (the one we want to discover), the player's team's winning percentage and the player's team's talent level. We know team winning percentage. In order to know the other two, we need to *know* one, hold it constant and solve for the third.

You, completely invalidly, hold "team talent" constant, saying completely arbitrarily that his team was "quite talented." Thus the third variable, player's "winning" ability, must come out badly for the player.

The reality, of course, is that we don't know the team's talent. You say it's high because of the team production? Guess what, then I say that Rahim's level is high, due to his production. So we're still either stuck saying that either SAR's nice statistics are misleading or the decent team statistics are misleading.

There's still no compelling case you've made that it's actually SAR's numbers that are misleading. You pooh-pooh production when it comes from him, but play up production from everyone else to try and suggest he's on a pretty good team.

Suppose Terry and Robinson are actually the ones holding the team back? Or suppose no one's "holding team back," but it simply isn't / wasn't overall talented enough to make the playoffs? Or suppose the chemistry is bad between those players?

There are so many intervening variables you choose to arbitrarily and implicitly suggest are constant, isolating Rahim as the reason the team slumped from some people's predicitions for the team's winning percentage.



> In regards to subjective subject matter... that is a staple of good analysis. Those who can evaluate talent and or predict a player’s ability to succeed in a particular system or player grouping do not have a statistic to substantiate what they observe.


It's a staple of good analysis when reliable statistics are not available. When studying a high school or even a college player, differing levels of competition make the numbers they put up pretty worthless in determining the best players. Thus, you need to subjectively evaluate them to make any meaningful decision.

The NBA pretty well evens out competition any individual player faces over the course of a season. Therefore, the numbers are very reliable and far more reliable than observation over a small sample size of a player's games.



> To promote the subjectivity of a claim as a means of discrediting it is as asinine a practice in terms of sport analysis as measuring the length of nostril hair in correlation to field goal kicking/ free throw shooting accuracy.


That's not precisely what I did. I said that subjective opinions formed over a small sample size of a player's games is pretty worthless compared to analysis based on the reliable statistics that have been tallied over all the games.

Read "Moneyball" sometime. Also bear in mind that casual fans consider Derek Jeter a great defender based on their subjective experience of having seen him dive to make a play here or there and having made some few, key plays in the playoffs. However, those that study these things carefully and actually see how many plays Jeter makes compared to everyone else and how much range he has to get to balls consider Jeter one of the defensively weakest shortstops in the game. Every sophisticated defensive measure shows it, and measures are getting more and more sophisticated each year.

Fans simply don't see enough of a player for their subjective opinions to be terribly valid. So yes, while I agree that there's lots of subjective analysis on boards like these, that doesn't make much of it all that useful.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

I could break this down point by point but I do not feel a need to.

My initial point is that Raheem is an overrated player and you’re tooth and nail defense of that assertion only further strengthens my position on the subject. 

I will however highlight a few inaccuracies...



> I don't believe Ratliff is any major talent, any more than Camby is. Camby has been among the league-leaders in shot-blocking before, but neither he nor Ratliff had huge impacts on seasons and thus were not pieces that, in any great measure, helped make their teams "quite talented."…
> 
> I was noting that the league-leader in shot-blocking was in no way as impactful as the league leaders in those categories.


Shot blocking is an extremely significant individual category. As much as any other statistical category leader a dominant shot blocker can change the complexion of a game (perhaps more so).
One great shot blocker can have a significant effect on a game (both physically and mentally). I covered this in my previous post. 

How do you substantiate that Camby (like Ratliff) are not impact players for the teams they play for?

Seems to me that you’re using the same subjective means you just wrote a post novel against. 

Camby is an impact player (btw). He is not a star by any stretch of the imagination but he is an impact player. He has been known to change games with his shot blocking, offensive rebounding, and hustle. As a matter of fact, take a look at the winning percentage of his past teams when he plays and when he is lost to injury (you may find his “impact” rather interesting).



> In your initial post, you noted grudgingly that SAR fares quite well in +/- over his career.


I did no such thing.

I pointed to his last full seasons plus minus and stacked it against that of other 20/10 caliber players. He rated very low on that list I believe (I conceded that this season has been higher).



> It's a staple of good analysis when reliable statistics are not available. When studying a high school or even a college player, differing levels of competition make the numbers they put up pretty worthless in determining the best players. Thus, you need to subjectively evaluate them to make any meaningful decision.
> 
> The NBA pretty well evens out competition any individual player faces over the course of a season. Therefore, the numbers are very reliable and far more reliable than observation over a small sample size of a player's games.


Excellent point.

However there is still a great deal of subjectivity that goes into determining how that production will mesh with others already in place (as well as the various immeasurable qualities worth factoring).

This was my point and that remains unanswered. My method of speculation is what one would hope a GM would employ when building a team.

Simply stacking productive ingredients fails to address the immeasurable quantities I pose (winning mentality, work ethic, player compatibility, philosophical compatibility, etc.). 

There is a certain chemistry that goes into play.



> Nowitski wasn't a winner until the last few years when the talent coalesced around him. Fascinating how one's "winning metality" increases when one gets better teammates.


Dallas wasn’t a winner until Nowitzki matured and the team gelled. The core of that team has been in place for quite a wile now.

You can ridicule the notion of the winning mentality if you like. 
Some play to win, some play to produce, and some produce in a manner that deters winning. You need not buy into this notion but it is a reality.

_Pippen accused Garnett of this very thing (btw)._

Every quality cannot be measured; every assessment need not come in increment. 
Some judgments can only be made by eye.

----

You are well thought out, you make good points and you are well versed in the art of debate, but this debate will lead nowhere.

My position is fixed.
_Raheem is an overrated player who has yet to prove he can help a team win and through my observations I see no logical reason pointing to he and Randolph being a successful tandem.

In the event of such a pairing I foresee dark days for the faithful (loads of losing in the midst of fantasy league jubilation). 20/10, 20/10 as far as the eyes can see 25-35 wins (woe is me/ woe is you)._


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*I would almost just*

People didn't post anything from the Oregon live page here. Its always just a bunch of crap, and that's why I left the message boards over there in the first place. THe only good stuff the paper post is after the fact, the rest of it is the biggest bunch of shinola i have seen shoveled in the blazer rumor control arena.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!
> I could break this down point by point but I do not feel a need to.
> 
> My initial point is that Raheem is an overrated player and you’re tooth and nail defense of that assertion only further strengthens my position on the subject.


Well, but of course the inverse is also true: I believe that non-statistical virtues like "winning ability" are overrated in player evalutation, and your tooth and nail defense of that assertion only further strengthens my position on the subject.



> How do you substantiate that Camby (like Ratliff) are not impact players for the teams they play for?
> 
> Seems to me that you’re using the same subjective means you just wrote a post novel against.


I believe that they are not the impact players that league leaders in other major categories (other than steals and possibly rebounds) are.

I substantiate this by history...I don't think Camby and Ratliff have made their team forces.

Whereas, scoring leaders like Jordan and Iverson and all have had enormous effects. Assist leaders like Stockton and Kidd have had enormous impact.

Further, I substantiate this by the fact that NBA teams, themselves, do not value the Cambys and Ratliffs like they do the Iversons, Kidds and Marburys, the guys who rack up numbers in the more impactful scoring and assist categories, as evidenced by lower salaries and much greater willingness to trade the Cambys and Ratliffs.

Great man defenders are on par with scoring leaders and assist leaders...but those are rare and not the same as the blocked shot leaders. Sometimes they correlate, like Olajuwon or Mourning...sometimes they do not, like Camby or Ratliff.



> I pointed to his last full seasons plus minus and stacked it against that of other 20/10 caliber players. He rated very low on that list I believe (I conceded that this season has been higher).


You made some comment about "I will admit that SAR fares well in +/- but look at his last season" (perhaps you said last healthy season as you recently contended, I can't recall precisely). Some statement of that general idea.



> However there is still a great deal of subjectivity that goes into determining how that production will mesh with others already in place (as well as the various immeasurable qualities worth factoring).


I agree that chemistry matters. Certain player combinations simply may not interact well together. But that's a very different thing from a player like SAR just being a loser. That places it all on him; that no matter what players he's with, he'll drag them down rather than assist them in doing better.

It's that second concept that I disagree with, the idea of certain players as "winners" and certain players as "losers," inherently.



> _Pippen accused Garnett of this very thing (btw)._


Pippen said Garnett was not being used in the way that would maximally benefit his team, which was as a game-changing point guard. While he might have been right or wrong, he wasn't casting any aspersions on Garnett's mentality or winning character.



> You are well thought out, you make good points and you are well versed in the art of debate, but this debate will lead nowhere.
> 
> My position is fixed.


Well, thanks, and certainly you express your opinions well with good supporting evidence. I got the sense your position was fixed  and I'm sure you can tell mine is, too.

It sounds like you feel the debate has run its course, and I'd agree. I can't say that I want to spend much more energy on defending SAR, whom I don't care much about one way or the other, though I do enjoy watching him play when I can.

Good discussion. Even if we disagree, it was interesting to explore.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> ...Mike Bibby's assist totals for a very bad Memphis team: 6.5, 8.1, 8.4. ....


This is one of my points for SAR. Many say, he is on a bad team, or he has not lead any team to the playoffs, or he is only in the east...

I ask you this.... what was your perception of Mike Bibby when he was with the Grizzlies??? maybe the same... he had not led his team to the plyoffs, and every team he was on (only one) was a loosing team.

Well look at Bibby now. He was unleashed in Sacramento. Maybe SAR can do that for us as well!

Maybe I am all wrong with my desire to see SAR in a Blazer uniform. But getting a near 20-10 guy who is an all star for Sheed if we deal him, is not bad at all. His hustle and desire to win I think will be consistant and a joy to watch. He takes it to the hole.

We could do lots worse... e.g. any Dallas or NY deal.... IF we deal Sheed, make it Atlanta on its own


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ThatBlazerGuy</b>!
> Honestly guys, are Terry and Rahim really gonna take this team to the next level or are they just gonna be baindaids to cover up the franchises scar and lead us to a 8th seed 1st round exit.


Good ?

But since the Blazer brass are in the know and we are not... IF and I say IF Sheed is dealt they are going to try and get the best deal they can.

But if he is dealt, it may be because he asked to be traded, or told them he will not resign with us (Mrs Wallace will have her say), or we decided not to keep him around for this and that reasons.

They are in the know.... so if he is dealt, it will be of benefit. We are not going to just give away Sheed and his D


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

A lot can happen in the next three weeks or so, but these stories coming out of New York are just silly. If Wallace is traded you can bet that it is going to be for something that is going to help the Blazers out. John Nash is working on a puzzle here; he is looking at what he needs to finish the puzzle. He could be looking for a player, picks, or a combination of the two. If Rasheed is traded I would think that it would be for a player(s) that fits into what Nash is doing. SAR just might be that player, young and productive, but would he be as productive on a Portland team?


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

*ABM, How 'Bout A Little Help?*

You attend some Hawks games, and you must see more of them on TV than most of us. What do you think of SAR's defense?

Go Blazers


----------

