# Sacramento Rumor



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Read on the O-Live board (I know, unreliable as all hell, but this board needs some spice) that rumors are heating up between Portland and Sacramento in a deal that would go down like so:

Miles for Corliss Williamson and Francisco Garcia.

Thoughts?


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Can't see any reason Portland wouldn't jump on it in a split second.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Pull the trigger. Francisco Garcia is a good player IMO.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

I like the deal for both teams. I'm a little iffy on letting go of Franco so soon however bringing in someone with more proven talent like Miles would be ok.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

http://www.nba.com/media/playerfile/francisco_garcia.jpg










http://www.nba.com/playerfile/corliss_williamson/index.html


I like the deal. I'd even be willing to throw in a 2nd round pick.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

Hmm, great deal for either team. I like it. Garcia is a good player, but you already have two SG's in Martin (starter) and Salmons (who was just given insane money and will be there for awhile). He could play backup SF behind Artest though, since he has height. Losing Corliss is nothing. 

For Portland, I'd jump at the opportunity to rid myself of Miles in any way shape or form. With him gone, they've almost completely reshaped the franchise. They already have Roy, Webster, and Dixon, so either Webster or Garcia will get SF minutes...hopefully behind an Outlaw that steps it up this year.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Can we work Dixon into the deal also?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

et's not get selfish


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Looks like a pretty decent deal to me, I'd do it.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Schilly said:


> et's not get selfish


But I wanta be.......selfish that is 

I hope this happens and this would give us a lot of depth at several positions and makes us better IMO.

gatorpops


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Magloire/Joel/Raef
Zach/Aldridge
Martell/Corliss/Outlaw
Roy/Garcia/Dixon
Jack/Dickau/Sergio

That's dominant.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

BTW I've checked every kings forum I know of...and can't find a thing


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Freak said:


> Magloire/Joel/Raef
> Zach/Aldridge
> Martell/Corliss/Outlaw
> Roy/Garcia/Dixon
> ...


Dominant? Are you serious?

This might be the best deal the Blazers can get, but I'm not that excited about an expiring contract and a guy who's almost 25 and hasn't done anything past the college level.

Ed O.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Once again, if Pritterson can get this done the commish should just send the exec of the year award to Portland and let them decide which one gets the award. 


I haven't heard anything about this trade though, so I'd better do some Magnum PI work.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Blazer Freak said:


> Magloire/Joel/Raef
> Zach/Aldridge
> Martell/Corliss/Outlaw
> Roy/Garcia/Dixon
> ...


That's a large exaggeration. _Maybe_ in a few years.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Dominant? Are you serious?
> 
> This might be the best deal the Blazers can get, but I'm not that excited about an expiring contract and a guy who's almost 25 and hasn't done anything past the college level.
> 
> Ed O.


:laugh: Sorry bout that. I didn't mean like beat every team dominant. 

But looking at that roster over half of it is under 25, and the rest are veterans that could help the team. 

You wouldn't really get how/why I say it unless you knew me. It's hard to explain.

Garcia is a good shooter, and he's cheap. He's still young, and I'd take him as a backup to Roy or Martell any day over Dixon.

Corliss is expiring, IIRC, and getting one of those for Darius is a major plus. It also enables us to start Martell at SF but have a vet behind him so we don't have to put that pressure on Travis.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Garcia is from Spain, right? Gives a buddy for Sergio. 

Nate can have his starting five players but has a whole lot of options as to match ups and who ever is hitting shots on any particular night. This team may not be great but it has flexabilaty. 

gatorpops


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Portland would be nuts not to take this deal, and Sac would be nuts to offer it. From what I could tell, this is just something someone on a Kings forum made up, so I wouldn't get too excited about the idea.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I would probably wet myself if this deal happened. But when I heard about the possible Magloire deal I said the same thing. So I guess I wouldn't be all that surprised if this deal went down.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

gatorpops said:


> Garcia is from Spain, right? Gives a buddy for Sergio.


Garcia went to Louisville, and I believe he's from NYC. The Bronx, now that I look it up.

And (not responding to you, gatorpops, but generally): where is the evidence he's a good shooter? He shot less than 44% from the field in each of his two years in college (although he shot a decent 36.6% from threes his sophomore year, he'd only shot 32.5% as a freshman

He shot 40% from the field as a rookie, including 28.5% from three point range.

And, as I pointed out earlier: he was a 24 year-old rookie. While there's certainly time for him to improve, he doesn't look like he's anything more than filler in this potential deal.

Ed O.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Garcia went to Louisville, and I believe he's from NYC. The Bronx, now that I look it up.
> 
> And (not responding to you, gatorpops, but generally): where is the evidence he's a good shooter? He shot less than 44% from the field in each of his two years in college (although he shot a decent 36.6% from threes his sophomore year, he'd only shot 32.5% as a freshman
> 
> ...


I'd have to say it's more of a shooting form thing. Joe Johnson was always called a good shooter, even though he was under 40% for a long time. His form was nice, and the FG% caught up with the form. I think people see that Garcia is a good shooter, even if his numbers aren't showing it quite yet. Granted, Joe was much younger.

FG%, then 3PT%

In November .388 .167
In December .263 .150
In January .432 .289
In February .441 .375
In March .533 .400
In April .200 .286

He showed steady improvement through the season, before falling big time in that last month (late rookie wall?). I agree with you though, for his age he should have a better showing next year.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Can anyone substantiate this rumor? Or was it just posted in the oregonlive forum? I haven't seen anything anywhere to even suggest this is being discussed.

-Pop


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I like this deal. Garcia is a decent player, kinda a Brandon Roy lite'. He needs to gain some serious weight though.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> Can anyone substantiate this rumor? Or was it just posted in the oregonlive forum? I haven't seen anything anywhere to even suggest this is being discussed.
> 
> -Pop


I just asked a friend in sac town who sometimes has a little inside scoop but he had not heard anything either way. He has heard the rumor but said that this rumor was floating around months ago, so he thinks it's just rehash. 

Funny, cause I never heard this one.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah sounds ok to me


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I only saw this mentioned several times on O-Live and I didn't really research it anywhere else... nobody mentioned a thing on realgm either.

So, who knows.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

Garcia showed that he could really play defense in limited minutes. Even though most of the time Bonzi missed when he was injured went to Kevin Martin (and rightfully so), Garcia was putting up Gerald Wallace-esque steal and block numbers from the swing position. He still has suspect outside shooting, but given that we are attempting to dump Miles, I wouldn't mind a very decent and young swing player to add to our mix.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Perfection said:


> Garcia showed that he could really play defense in limited minutes. Even though most of the time Bonzi missed when he was injured went to Kevin Martin (and rightfully so), Garcia was putting up Gerald Wallace-esque steal and block numbers from the swing position. He still has suspect outside shooting, but given that we are attempting to dump Miles, I wouldn't mind a very decent and young swing player to add to our mix.


Yeah, I don't really know about Garcia, but I don't have to in order to like this deal. We'd be dumping Miles for an expiring contract that happens to be a SF. Garcia could be the next Richie Frahm, and it would still be a really good deal for us. That said, why would Sacramento do this? Even assuming they assign nearly 0 value to Williamson and Garcia, would they want to take on Miles and pay him for four more years (even discounting the money they already are paying Williamson/Garcia)? Somehow I really doubt it, but I'd love to be wrong on this one.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Yeah, I don't really know about Garcia, but I don't have to in order to like this deal. We'd be dumping Miles for an expiring contract that happens to be a SF. Garcia could be the next Richie Frahm, and it would still be a really good deal for us. That said, why would Sacramento do this? Even assuming they assign nearly 0 value to Williamson and Garcia, would they want to take on Miles and pay him for four more years (even discounting the money they already are paying Williamson/Garcia)? Somehow I really doubt it, but I'd love to be wrong on this one.


Hey, they took Bonzi didn't they? And (I know Artest is more talented) Artest isn't exactly the poster boy for team chemistry.


----------



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

I don't think we need corliss williamson do we? at this point, we need to look at a package that gives us a sf and pg in return. or maybe a draftpick, then try and draft a pg in next years draft. I just hope jack pans out and becomes the next porter.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

tradetheo said:


> I don't think we need corliss williamson do we? at this point, we need to look at a package that gives us a sf and pg in return. or maybe a draftpick, then try and draft a pg in next years draft. I just hope jack pans out and becomes the next porter.


We need a lot, the questions is what can we get for miles. Personally, I would much rather have Miles but then again, I'm not paying his salary or dealing with him in the locker room. 

To me, Miles is worth more, to others, Miles is worth less then nothing. Who knows how much he is really worth to the Blazers Brass.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I'd do the deal, but I don't see Sacto jumping on the trade. Nice rumor, but that's all it is, I'm afraid.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Garcia is Dominican.


----------



## M3M (Jun 19, 2006)

We should do that trade in a heartbeat.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Corliss would be very usefull. He is a veteran SF with an expiring contract, and gives us a inside scoring aspect that we have been missing since Patterson was traded. 

Garcia would be a nice swingman off the bench. He can potentially play positions 1, 2 and 3. He is already a nice defender, and has a well rounded game.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

HKF said:


> Garcia is Dominican.


That's dominant


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

Blazer Freak said:


> Magloire/Joel/Raef
> Zach/Aldridge
> Martell/Corliss/Outlaw
> Roy/Garcia/Dixon
> ...


??


----------



## Justinmoney85 (Apr 10, 2006)

by dominant, do you mean 33-49 for this upcoming year.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Justinmoney85 said:


> by dominant, do you mean 33-49 for this upcoming year.


Did I not explain myself? :laugh: Christ.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

if this is even somewhat true, then WOW.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Yet another talent flush...Sadly, I could see it happening.


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

One of the deals I've seen that seems fair for both sides, surprisngly


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Fork said:


> Yet another talent flush...Sadly, I could see it happening.


I agree that Miles is clearly the best player in this proposed trade. It's sorta like the Magloire trade, in reverse. That said, Garcia _might_ still become a good player and if HQ is really that worried about Miles, it's a trade I like more than many that've been floated.

That said, I still feel like it'd be worth _not_ making any more trades until the guys have had a month or two together. While I'm not at all ready to excuse Miles for things like dressing at halftime, last season was such a train wreck (the losing, the injuries, etc.) I'm inclined to see what kind of fresh start this season might have. Really, _if_ he can get and keep his head screwed on straight, Miles is so exactly the SF this team needs it seems a shame to not at least give it a chance.


----------



## ODiggity (Feb 23, 2005)

Garcia could fit McMillan's plan-- he's been known to drift on defense, but he has long arms, can fill the passing lanes, and likes to run on turnovers.

Williamson is a taller, less-intense Ruben, right?

I guess the biggest question for me would be: why the heck would Sacto want anything to do with Miles? At the 2? No. At the three? Yeah, off the bench. At the 4? No room. I would think this had more of a chance to happen... if there was a third team involved. And this offseason has been devoid of any more-that-two team deals.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

ODiggity said:


> Garcia could fit McMillan's plan-- he's been known to drift on defense, but he has long arms, can fill the passing lanes, and likes to run on turnovers.
> 
> Williamson is a taller, less-intense Ruben, right?
> 
> I guess the biggest question for me would be: why the heck would Sacto want anything to do with Miles? At the 2? No. At the three? Yeah, off the bench. At the 4? No room. I would think this had more of a chance to happen... if there was a third team involved. And this offseason has been devoid of any more-that-two team deals.


Kevin Martin will probably start at the 2 and Darius would be their 6th man.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

I have mixed feelings. Garcia is an ok prospect but nothing amazing. Sure Miles has some issues but nobody questions that he is a basketball talent. With as little talent as the Blazers currently have I don't like "dumping" any of it.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

I say flush away. Miles is a talent? Yeah right, hypothetically he could someday be a good basketball player. Meanwhile, what we saw last year in real life was a guy who hated being in Portland, as he announced to management before the season and publicly after the season, and a guy who showed that he was willing to completely quit as a basketball player when he was discontented. Is he going to cheer up staying in portland and playing for Nate next year? I doubt it. We're not going to get anything out of him except a bad "contagious apathy" attitude. It doesn't matter how much talent he potentially has when the team gets no actual value from his contract. There's no doubt that he is a liability, and if anyone expects to get good basketball out of Miles while he's in Portland or to get back a real talented player in trade, they are expecting to much.

If management could just void Miles's contract, they would. If they could get the next best thing, and expiring contract, they would (no matter what player was attached). If we could get a useful veteran SF with an expiring contract and a young guard with even just middling talent for Miles, it would be a miracle.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

I'd be happy to include money and 2nd round draft picks to make this happen.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Draco said:


> I have mixed feelings. Garcia is an ok prospect but nothing amazing. Sure Miles has some issues but nobody questions that he is a basketball talent. With as little talent as the Blazers currently have I don't like "dumping" any of it.


I agree. Miles is a starting-level player in the NBA... one of about four currently on the Blazers (and unfortunately, Zach/Jamaal/Joel can only start at two positions). Trading him away for this would be a step back for the Blazers.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Ed O said:


> I agree. Miles is a starting-level player in the NBA... one of about four currently on the Blazers (and unfortunately, Zach/Jamaal/Joel can only start at two positions). Trading him away for this would be a step back for the Blazers.
> 
> Ed O.


How so? Keeping Darius is a step back. Sure Darius has the talent, but in his 5 years in the NBA he has yet to realize his potential. 

Corliss would enable us to start and give valuable experience to Martell and Brandon while having a good backup at the 3, so we dont have to rely on Outlaw developing. 

Garcia would give us another decent prospect who can either come off the bench or be used in a trade down the line.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Blazer Freak said:


> Corliss would enable us to start and give valuable experience to Martell and Brandon while having a good backup at the 3, so we dont have to rely on Outlaw developing.


I don't think Corliss is ready to do anything. He only played in 37 games last season and probably won't manage too many more given his injury problems. Miles, regardless of his 'potential', is a much, much better player now than either of those players.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Ed O said:


> I agree. Miles is a starting-level player in the NBA... one of about four currently on the Blazers (and unfortunately, Zach/Jamaal/Joel can only start at two positions). Trading him away for this would be a step back for the Blazers.
> 
> Ed O.


Come now. If this were a real trade, KP would be idiotic to let it slide. Garcia can be an effective 2-3 and Williamson could get minutes at the 3 this year.

Miles for the expiring Williamson would be a steal for Portland. Garcia is just icing on the cake.

All this is academic since the Kings likely have no interest in Miles. Then again, they did trade for Artest and signed Bonzi last year, so maybe they are willing to take chances.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

wastro said:


> I'd do the deal, but I don't see Sacto jumping on the trade. Nice rumor, but that's all it is, I'm afraid.


I agree. I think you guys are wasting your time talking about this one.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Has anyone been able to substantiate this rumor? Is there a link to somewhere? The original poster was pretty vague.

I think we're wasting our time thinking about this one. Besides, Corliss is not a SF.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Remember, we didn't get anything back for Bonzi. It's called addition by subtraction. We may not get back the same amount of talent, but at least we get rid of a cancer. PS- I don't like this trade.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

At this point, Miles is virtually untradeable. It is laughable to think that equal value will come back in return for his services. His combo of baggage, attitude, and contract limits the options severely. 

Props to Blazer Brass for trying to rid themselves of Miles, and the sooner the better.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Remember, we didn't get anything back for Bonzi. It's called addition by subtraction.


Ah... let's see how we've done before and since the "addition by subtraction" of Wells, shall we?

2001-02: 49-33
2002-03: 50-32
2003-04: 8-7
:: [trade Wells] ::
2003-04: 33-34
2004-05: 27-55
2005-06: 21-60

I see the "subtraction" but I don't see any "addition".

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Freak said:


> How so? Keeping Darius is a step back. Sure Darius has the talent, but in his 5 years in the NBA he has yet to realize his potential.


His potential has NOTHING to do with this. He could realize exactly no more of his potential than he has, and he's still a starting-level NBA player.

And considering he's only about 2.5 months younger than Garcia, I'd much rather gamble on him getting better and being significantly more than a starting-level NBA player than to merely unload his salary and hope that Garcia evolves into something useful.

Ed O.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

edo does finally make a good point


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Ah... let's see how we've done before and since the "addition by subtraction" of Wells, shall we?
> 
> 2001-02: 49-33
> 2002-03: 50-32
> ...


To be fair, dumping Bonzi wasn't the only thing that happened to the team that impacted their record in the 03-04 season. As you know Wallace was also traded midway through that season.

Go Blazers


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Ah... let's see how we've done before and since the "addition by subtraction" of Wells, shall we?
> 
> 2001-02: 49-33
> 2002-03: 50-32
> ...


Ok, so the year we traded Bonzi, we went from 0.5 games over .500 to 0.5 games under. And that proves what? Perhaps you are trying to argue that the change in record from year to year is due to just Bonzi, rather than the other wholesale roster changes that took place? If so, I disagree.

In any case, Miles isn't going to help this team. Did you guys see his rant to Jason Quick after the season? Could he be any more clear about it? He doesn't want to be here and he doesn't take any responsibility for his own play or the team winning, so he's going to play like s*** and be a pain in the coach's backside at least until he gets traded. Did you see him play after the trade deadline? When he found out he was staying in Portland, he turned to mush. That's why we want to dump him, and it's also why no other team wants him. NY doesn't even want to give us a busted-up and overpaid Quentin Richardson for him.

And lest you think the salary doesn't matter because we are already over the cap - it does matter because of the lux tax threshold, that Paul Allen probably isn't going to want to break. That means if we didn't have Miles right now, we could sign a full MLE SF this year, who would probably play better than Miles. Same goes for next year, when the team may again be near the threshold, depending on what's done with Magloire's expiring contract.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Ed O said:


> His potential has NOTHING to do with this. He could realize exactly no more of his potential than he has, and he's still a starting-level NBA player.
> 
> And considering he's only about 2.5 months younger than Garcia, I'd much rather gamble on him getting better and being significantly more than a starting-level NBA player than to merely unload his salary and hope that Garcia evolves into something useful.
> 
> Ed O.


You seem to forget to mention Darius' affect on team chemistry. Sure he is a starter in this league, but he is a cancer to the team, and to Zach. What ever Darius does, Zach follows. 

Darius needs to go, and if it means taking lesser talent back, I'll do it. But with this deal we get an expiring contract, and a 25 year old role player. An expiring contract would enable us to get closer, if not at the cap. 

And about Bonzi, of course our record has decreased since he was traded because 1)We also traded Sheed and let Damon go, and 2) Have been rebuilding since then.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Ok, so the year we traded Bonzi, we went from 0.5 games over .500 to 0.5 games under. And that proves what? Perhaps you are trying to argue that the change in record from year to year is due to just Bonzi, rather than the other wholesale roster changes that took place? If so, I disagree.


The simple fact is that "addition by subtraction" should make a team BETTER. Not worse.

The team has been much, much worse since we traded Bonzi for nothing. Is it *all* because of the Wells trade? Absolutely not.

But is there any evidence that the team is BETTER for having traded him? Not that I can see, and that's the position I was addressing there.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Freak said:


> You seem to forget to mention Darius' affect on team chemistry. Sure he is a starter in this league, but he is a cancer to the team, and to Zach. What ever Darius does, Zach follows.


Chemistry, except in extreme circumstances, is a myth. Or at least an effect, rather than a cause.

Good chemistry comes from winning, not the other way around.

Zach will be happy when he's getting his shots and the team is winning. If the team were good enough to get into the playoffs, a single unhappy camper in Darius Miles wouldn't make a dent in the "chemistry" of the team. 

I always find it a bit odd when people say that Zach will simply do whatever people around him did... it seems like something that people make up to explain away the different between someone they like (Zach) and someone they do not (Darius). Randolph is a grown man and I don't know him well enough to say that he's so impressionable.

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Sure there were locker room (and highway, airport, and so many other) issues with Wells, 'Sheed, Damon, etc. And, I think that when one talks about individuals as "cancers", it needs to be balanced by the "cancer" of losing, particularly when it's on the scale it was here last season -- not just the final win - lose totals but the numerous 30 point blowouts, etc.

My point is that yes, absolutely there are issues with Miles, _and_ he might account for five or six wins nearly by himself next season, even on this roster. I'm not suggesting he shouldn't be traded, or even dumped, but I _am_ saying it's worth really considering his assets and the potential negative effect on the team of moving him. Many people on this forum seem to think moving him for a chair would be great and some are even willing to part with guys like Aldridge to do it. I just think there's two sides to losing Miles.

For myself, I still take the position that I'd rather give this group a month or two together before making any more moves.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Chemistry, except in extreme circumstances, is a myth. Or at least an effect, rather than a cause.
> 
> Good chemistry comes from winning, not the other way around.
> 
> ...


You're right, chemistry is an effect. If you have a player quitting half way through the season like Darius did, it spreads around the locker room. Brian Skinner even said it, that towards the end of the season some players gave up and it affected the younger players on the roster. 

You can't say that Darius' actions, such as cussing out Mo, quitting on the team and getting dressed during a game, etc... don't affect the team. 

Zach is very impressionable, 3 weeks after Darius got dressed during a game, Zach did the same thing. Usually after someone gets in some kind of trouble, Zach will do the same thing. He needs a leader around him. He had Sheed, he taught Zach what he knows, and now that he is gone, he's looking to the wrong people.

And you don't just get Chemistry from winning, if the team is close it shows on the court. They know each other, they know how they play. What they like and what they don't like. Sure chemistry is also gained in leaps and bounds when the team is winning, but they don't go from hating each other to being good friends because they are winning. 

All of Darius' actions are disrespectful to the fans, to the organization and to the NBA. He is a cancer in the locker room, and he can make a dent in the "chemistry" of the team.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Freak said:


> You're right, chemistry is an effect. If you have a player quitting half way through the season like Darius did, it spreads around the locker room. Brian Skinner even said it, that towards the end of the season some players gave up and it affected the younger players on the roster.


Do you understand what the difference between a "cause" and an "effect" is?

In any case, LOSING caused the team's players to give up. Darius didn't cause the players to give up.



> You can't say that Darius' actions, such as cussing out Mo, quitting on the team and getting dressed during a game, etc... don't affect the team.


That has nothing to do with chemistry. It has to do with the team's best player making himself unavailable to play. His lack of availability hurt the team, not that he disrupted the other players.



> Zach is very impressionable, 3 weeks after Darius got dressed during a game, Zach did the same thing. Usually after someone gets in some kind of trouble, Zach will do the same thing. He needs a leader around him. He had Sheed, he taught Zach what he knows, and now that he is gone, he's looking to the wrong people.


I think that some would say that Rasheed was the wrong person to learn from.

If you think that Zach is incapable of being his own man, I'm not going to argue with you. I reject that, though.



> And you don't just get Chemistry from winning, if the team is close it shows on the court. They know each other, they know how they play. What they like and what they don't like. Sure chemistry is also gained in leaps and bounds when the team is winning, but they don't go from hating each other to being good friends because they are winning.


Being "good friends" has nothing to do with winning. Nobody needs to go from hating someone to liking someone... as long as they can play together and win, who cares whether they hang out?

It's all about winning. I don't disagree that some players and team get along with one another better, but I don't believe that they win because they get along well.



> All of Darius' actions are disrespectful to the fans, to the organization and to the NBA. He is a cancer in the locker room, and he can make a dent in the "chemistry" of the team.


You can say it until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make it any more true or relevant. Dennis Rodman did a lot of disrespecting, but he won. Rasheed Wallace was allegedly a cancer in Portland and disrespected fans/the organization/the NBA but he's a champion now. 

Miles is FAR from a perfect player and probably farther from a perfect teammate. But I don't see how he's such a strong personality that he's able to influence the rest of the team and/or bring the season crashing down singlehandedly...

Ed O.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> The simple fact is that "addition by subtraction" should make a team BETTER. Not worse.
> 
> The team has been much, much worse since we traded Bonzi for nothing. Is it *all* because of the Wells trade? Absolutely not.
> 
> ...


Ok, well you posted a trend in winning % that started well before Wells was traded and continued well after he was traded, and there are so many other changes within that timeframe, so that information does little to address the question of whether dumping Bonzi helped the team. Of course, the team hasn't played well at all since then, but could it have been even worse with yet another malcontent at the SG position? Possibly so, but it's tough to say. That's the difference between correlation and causality.

Of course, after watching Bonzi this last year and especially in the playoffs, it seems like a foregone conclusion that he is a good player, but in his later time as a Blazer he just wasn't. There was a noticeable decline in both his attitude and productivity, to the point where management apparently thought his low productivity no longer was enough to justify his attitude, so they traded him for very little (Person and the Monia pick?). It's notable also that the team he was traded to (Memphis), never got to see the previously productive Bonzi either, and eventually exiled him from the team and finally traded him for very little as well (the remains of Bobby Jackson and Greg Ostertag). It seems Jerry West believes in addition by subtraction as well.

I think this example is very relevant to our present situation with Miles. Both Bonzi and Miles had at least some moments in their careers where they were continuously productive players (although Miles was far shorter, only the 15 games at the start of last season). Both players then suffered a noticeable decline in attitude and productivity (although Miles's has been worse), with common delusions of persecution and unfair treatment by the coach/franchise/fans/media, which they both used to further rationalize their bad attitudes and low productivity (Miles more vocally and publicly). Bonzi's productivity never recovered until two trades later, when he was in a contract year.

So the question is: do we expect Miles's production and attitude to improve to the point where he isn't a liability for the team? At the end of last year, he wasn't doing it. He was an 11.7 ppg 3.4 rpg player with terrible defense after the all-star break last year (about when he came back from knee surgery), and was patient zero in the apathy contagion that went through the team. He was hurting the team then. Maybe we expect him to have a healthier knee next year and somehow just have a better attitude, but I'm not buying it. His knee surgery was a simple arthroscopic procedure, and from what I've heard, he didn't come back strong from it, even after missing two whole months, because he ignored his rehab assignments. I think he just hates playing in portland, hates playing for Nate, and the city hates him back. His foolish pride will never allow him to display even the slightest amount of contrition towards anyone, so he will continue to be sullen in character and unproductive as a player. 

Now of course, it's tough for us fans to really analyze a player's personality and make predictions from it. I think Miles is going to pout until he is traded, but I could be wrong. The people closest to the players on a daily basis, like coach and management, are the ones who are in by far the best position to make these determinations. They knew Bonzi, and thought that he was hurting the team, so they dumped him. The same thing happened with Derek Anderson. Looking back, those don't seem like bad moves at all. If management and coach could get through to Miles, get him to buy-in and squeeze some decent basketball out of him, that would be great. But when Miles is soon dumped for an expiring contract or some other overpaid scrub, we'll know that management felt they would never be able to get through to Miles, and I'll be fine with that decision.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Sorry Ed I read your "cause and effect" part wrong. I Apologize for that.

But Darius quitting towards the end of the season does affect the team. We had rookies on the team last year who saw a 5 year veteran just quit during half time and go get dressed. It's never a good thing for a player to quit on their team, for that player or their team. 

Losing and Darius combined caused most of the veterans to quit towards the end of the season. And that's not good for our younger players to see the veterans quitting on the team before the season is over. It's not just all Darius, and it's not just all losing.

I'm not saying that he singlehandly brought the Blazers to a losing season. We are rebuilding and that is to be expected. But his attitude toward the coach and the organization is not something this team needs. He was one of our best players last year, and the younger players look up to the veterans almost, and when they see one of them quitting, that's not a good thing. I don't know how you can say that is a good thing for them...

Now if Darius was a 25/5/5 player, I could live with him, but he isn't. He's 14/6 player, and if you have looked around the NBA lately, there are quite a bit of those, and with a lot less attitude.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Do you understand what the difference between a "cause" and an "effect" is?
> 
> In any case, LOSING caused the team's players to give up. Darius didn't cause the players to give up.
> 
> ...


Have you ever played the game of basketball, or any sport? Having a teammate who is an a-hole and doesn't play hard definitely affects the effort of the team as a whole. They don't need to be friends, but they do need to know that everyone on the court is giving full effort. It's very tough to play with heart and determination if someone on the team isn't, especially when that someone is one of your team's key players.

Basketball players aren't robots of varying skill level, they're humans that need to be inspired to buy-in to a team, and that can be fairly easily disrupted. That's why guys like Darius Miles, Ricky Davis, Danny Fortson, Jeff McInnis, Stephon Marbury and Jalen Rose just aren't highly valued around the league. They all have talent, but their bad attitudes often bring down their own productivity _and_ that of their teammates.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Of course, after watching Bonzi this last year and especially in the playoffs, it seems like a foregone conclusion that he is a good player, but in his later time as a Blazer he just wasn't.


Bonzi shot 44% from the floor and got 15.2 ppg, 4.7 rpg, and 3.3 apg (still his career high) in under 32 minutes a game in his final full season as a Blazer. He shot poorly from the three point line, and he wasn't as good as he was the previous year, but he was still a good player.

The 13 games before he was traded? He was less good, no doubt.

But is 13 games enough to determine that a player is no longer a good player? Of course not.

He was traded because he clashed with Mo Cheeks, who has revealed himself to be an incompetent NBA head coach, and the team wanted to make a PR stand... to sell the "addition by subtraction" nonsense. It was the first step in a strategy that drove the franchise into the ground.



> The people closest to the players on a daily basis, like coach and management, are the ones who are in by far the best position to make these determinations. They knew Bonzi, and thought that he was hurting the team, so they dumped him. The same thing happened with Derek Anderson. Looking back, those don't seem like bad moves at all.


I totally, absolutely disagree. Those moves, particularly Bonzi, were terrible moves. On the DA front, financially, the team saved some money by getting rid of Anderson, but he's just as good as Juan Dixon, who cost us most of what we saved by taking advantage of the CBA allowance... and has a longer-term deal, to boot. By waiving DA we've been unable to get out from under his salary, and it's conceivable we would have been able to do so by now if he were still on the roster.

Secondly, the people that made the decisions to get rid of Wells (Nash and Cheeks) are gone. Discredited. Bonzi's not a saint, and certainly has had his problems on teams since Portland, but only some Blazers fans seem to cling to the idea that getting rid of him for nothing was a good move.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Have you ever played the game of basketball, or any sport?


Duh, no, dudleysghost. What's basketball?



> Having a teammate who is an a-hole and doesn't play hard definitely affects the effort of the team as a whole.


You have no idea what you're talking about. Acting like because you (or I) have played basketball it somehow gives us insight into how grown men who get paid millions of dollars to play in front of tens of thousands of fans each game are thinking... you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it's just that.



> Basketball players aren't robots of varying skill level, they're humans that need to be inspired to buy-in to a team, and that can be fairly easily disrupted. That's why guys like Darius Miles, Ricky Davis, Danny Fortson, Jeff McInnis, Stephon Marbury and Jalen Rose just aren't highly valued around the league. They all have talent, but their bad attitudes often bring down their own productivity _and_ that of their teammates.


Do you have any evidence (a) that they're not highly valued, or (b) that they "bring down the productivity of their teammates?"

I have evidence that you're wrong about the former... just look at their salaries. They've clearly had value around the NBA.

The second question would be easy enough to determine, and since you made the claim it seems you must have something to back it up other than hot air. Do you?

Ed O.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> He was traded because he clashed with Mo Cheeks, who has revealed himself to be an incompetent NBA head coach, and the team wanted to make a PR stand... to sell the "addition by subtraction" nonsense. It was the first step in a strategy that drove the franchise into the ground.


At the time of the trade I posted, "The Blazers backed the wrong horse." I said there was a fight between a sweet, but talentless coach and a sour, but talented player. Talent rules the NBA. Keep the talent.

Not that I had great love for Bonzi. Or hated Cheeks. Niether was the case. But with eyes wide open, it was clear to me who should have won that cat fight.

Now, I also mentioned at the time, what Bonzi did in clashing with the coach was annoying. I personally would have used the incident to fire Cheeks, or make him a lame duck, then after a few weeks, quietly put Bonzi on the block, to see if I could move him for high value.

If the situation was obvious to me (and others) then, why isn't it blindingly obvious with the benefit of hindsight, now?

Let me recap: Moving Bonzi in and of itself is not a good or bad thing. Dumping Bonzi in a fire sale for crap is and was a very bad thing - no matter the reason: They were tired of his crap. They wanted to send a message. They wanted to give a vote of confidence to Cheeks. They wanted to placate the whiny, annoying, backstabbing Derek Anderson. Because the Oregonian told them to. All crappy reasons.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Duh, no, dudleysghost. What's basketball?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You've got to be kidding. 

Having experience playing sports gives you some insight into what it's like playing a sport, and yes, that is my opinion. Being on a HS team or going to the local gym isn't the same as being in the NBA, but some of your comments, such as the no such thing as chemistry hypothesis, seem to suggest that you've never even donned basketball sneakers in your life. That's not an opinion, it's a guess.

Do I have evidence that those guys aren't highly valued, or are damaging to their teams? Well, Darius Miles was given up for basically nothing by two teams now, and soon to be three teams. Jeff McInnis was ditched by plenty of teams, and now New Jersey (is trying to pay him _not to come to work_. Bonzi Wells was ditched not only by the incompetent John Nash, but by Jerry West as well. Do you think he is credible? lol. Larry Brown was publicly begging for Isaiah Thomas to get Marbury off his team. These are all true addition by subtraction moves. Also, Toronto gave NY a pick to take Jalen Rose. One could argue this was more of a salary move, although they still clearly wanted to dump him. Is that enough evidence, or would you still like to deny the obvious and call it hot air?

As for your assertion that the players are valued because at one point they signed big contracts - do you really believe that to be true? Honestly, I don't think it should be necessary to explain the concepts of "past" and "present" to a grown man, and it's pretty hypocritical to argue that Nash and Cheeks are now "discredited" while somehow claiming that other GMs past mistakes are somehow evidence of present value. The same Nash that was discredited for dumping Bonzi is the one that signed Miles to his big contract (did you notice that before you posted?). In any case, it's obvious that signing those contracts I listed were mistakes, so trying to argue that they are indicators of present value isn't going to work.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Continuing on the topic of Bonzi and former Blazers:

Since the year Pippen and Sabonis left our team - it has been in steady decline. I don't think keeping Sheed, Bonzi, Derek, Damon, Shareef, JeffM - would have changed this decline. They aren't (obviously) the kind of players who can lead a team to victories. To his credit (begrudgingly), Sheed filled a nice role on Detroit and helped them secure one championship. He didn't lead them. That was Billups and Wallace and Larry B. Sheed's legacy is tied to what his team does now. Can they come back? Can he lead them in Wallace's absense?

I've noticed that Bonzi is without major suitors as is JeffM. Shareef signed for the MID LEVEL exception last off season. Damon got a little more than that. Derek is in another buy-out with his second team since leaving us. These guys weren't the type of players you could build with. Period.

None of them has done much without Pippen and Sabonis as anchors.

Back to the thread topic: Miles is skilled enough to save and keep. He's not going to give effort or display skills here for our team.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> At the time of the trade I posted, "The Blazers backed the wrong horse." I said there was a fight between a sweet, but talentless coach and a sour, but talented player. Talent rules the NBA. Keep the talent.
> 
> Not that I had great love for Bonzi. Or hated Cheeks. Niether was the case. But with eyes wide open, it was clear to me who should have won that cat fight.
> 
> ...


Well, look what Memphis got for Bonzi later - Bobby Jackson and Greg Ostertag. Now, I know a lot of people like Bobby Jackson after seeing how well he played in Sacramento, but this was the late model Bobby Jackson that couldn't stay on the court more than 8 games in a row, and with just one year left on his contract. Basically, Memphis dumped him for nothing as well.

If "talent rules the NBA", why didn't any team give either the Blazers nor the Grizzlies a better offer for Bonzi? Now this year, except for Sacramento, nobody seems to even be giving Wells an offer, and Sacramento retracted theirs. It seems as though there are other factors besides talent that are taken into consideration when offering contracts, which probably include how well a player plays in a non-contract year, and the player's known attitude issues. It's the same reason that team's interview potential draft candidates and give them long psychological evaluations - teams know that attitude is important for player productivity and team chemistry.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Well, look what Memphis got for Bonzi later - Bobby Jackson and Greg Ostertag. Now, I know a lot of people like Bobby Jackson after seeing how well he played in Sacramento, but this was the late model Bobby Jackson that couldn't stay on the court more than 8 games in a row, and with just one year left on his contract. Basically, Memphis dumped him for nothing as well.
> 
> If "talent rules the NBA", why didn't any team give either the Blazers nor the Grizzlies a better offer for Bonzi? Now this year, except for Sacramento, nobody seems to even be giving Wells an offer, and Sacramento retracted theirs. It seems as though there are other factors besides talent that are taken into consideration when offering contracts, which probably include how well a player plays in a non-contract year, and the player's known attitude issues. It's the same reason that team's interview potential draft candidates and give them long psychological evaluations - teams know that attitude is important for player productivity and team chemistry.


Do you have a point here?

I am not sure how your post relates to mine, and what you want me to respond to - if anything?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Well, look what Memphis got for Bonzi later - Bobby Jackson and Greg Ostertag.


You keep saying that the Grizzlies gave Wells away... but Bobby Jackson is a good player. He started 15 games and played in 71 averaging double digits for Memphis after they acquired him.

They traded nothing, got a year and a half of pretty good play from Wells, and then traded him for another prety good player.

Compare that to what Portland got from the deal: nothing. An expiring contract that they traded along with Rasheed and a low first rounder that was used on a guy that never made an impact on the team.

Good deal for Memphis, bad deal for Portland. That's the point.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Having experience playing sports gives you some insight into what it's like playing a sport, and yes, that is my opinion. Being on a HS team or going to the local gym isn't the same as being in the NBA, but some of your comments, such as the no such thing as chemistry hypothesis, seem to suggest that you've never even donned basketball sneakers in your life. That's not an opinion, it's a guess.


Well... it is an utterly wrong guess. That someone would need to play a sport to understand what it takes to succeed in it is such an antiquated notion... but good for you for hanging on!

Ed O.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Well... it is an utterly wrong guess. That someone would need to play a sport to understand what it takes to succeed in it is such an antiquated notion... but good for you for hanging on!
> 
> Ed O.



Then why is it that so many coaches in the NBA are former players? Why are so many GM's former NBA players? Yeah, you're right. Playing the game has nothing to do with knowing how to succeed at the game. 

Also, Ed O, you state that Marbuy, etc have value in the league because they have high salaries? Was Kemp valued highly when he was being paid $20 million, and not even playing? That is pretty lame evidence.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> Do you have a point here?
> 
> I am not sure how your post relates to mine, and what you want me to respond to - if anything?


Point is, you were saying we should have waited to trade Bonzi, instead of having a fire sale, and I was pointing out that Memphis got bupkus for him as well, and that right now he seems to be getting very little attention on the trade/FA front, which suggests that we likely wouldn't have gotten much more than a pick and an expiring contract if we had been more patient about trading Bonzi.

I also was disagreeing with your assertion that "talent rules the NBA, keep the talent", by pointing out that the free agent market is telling us that GMs generally choose avoid or assign low value to players who are talented but troubled, such as Bonzi Wells, Jeff McInnis, etc.. You can respond or not respond if you wish, I don't have a preference.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

__


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

blazerboy30 said:


> Then why is it that so many coaches in the NBA are former players? Why are so many GM's former NBA players? Yeah, you're right. Playing the game has nothing to do with knowing how to succeed at the game.


Why are so many CEOs of corporations white? Would it be safe to say that being white has something to do with being a good CEO? I should say not.

Former players have dedicated themselves to studying the NBA game. Playing the game is part of their experience set, but it's not necessary.



> Also, Ed O, you state that Marbuy, etc have value in the league because they have high salaries? Was Kemp valued highly when he was being paid $20 million, and not even playing? That is pretty lame evidence.


Lame evidence is better than no evidence, which is what was presented as part of the point that players like Ricky Davis and Stephon Marbury have no value around the NBA.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Very good points Dudleysghost...I agree...But if your waiting for EdO or Masbee to conceed anything to you...you'll be waiting for eternity...

Sorry Ed, but you are wrong...playing a sport ABSOLUTELY gives you certain insights that you cannot get unless you play that sport...I find your opinion on that to be completely off base...

and having a player on the team who is disruptive on and off the floor like Miles is... certainly has an effect on the rest of the team....I can't believe you think that it wouldn't...

and here I was hoping this rumor had some legitimacy....I would do the proposed deal in a minute.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> __



Finally we agree on something  :rofl:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Sorry Ed, but you are wrong...playing a sport ABSOLUTELY gives you certain insights that you cannot get unless you play that sport...I find your opinion on that to be completely off base...


You should take a break from taking shots at me to actually understand what I said.

I said that it's not *necessary* to have played a sport to understand what it takes to succeed. 

Theo Epstein had no experience playing baseball at any significant level, but he built the Red Sox and won a World Series. 



> and having a player on the team who is disruptive on and off the floor like Miles is... certainly has an effect on the rest of the team....I can't believe you think that it wouldn't...


It has a negative effect, sure. But a lesser negative effect than the positive effect he has by being on the team.

Ed O.


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

Ed O said:


> You should take a break from taking shots at me to actually understand what I said.
> 
> I said that it's not *necessary* to have played a sport to understand what it takes to succeed.
> 
> ...


Well it was easier for Theo seeing as he had the second highest payroll. I'm more impressed with his mentor, Billy Beane.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Point is, you were saying we should have waited to trade Bonzi, instead of having a fire sale, and I was pointing out that Memphis got bupkus for him as well, and that right now he seems to be getting very little attention on the trade/FA front, which suggests that we likely wouldn't have gotten much more than a pick and an expiring contract if we had been more patient about trading Bonzi.


First: What is going on this summer is pretty worthless for this discussion. It "suggests" nothing. It is 2 1/2 years later. Lots change. Bonzi could have been worth a MAX deal and that fact wouldn't prove my point. Today's facts don't prove years ago decision skills.

Second: I disagree that Memphis got bupkis for Bonzi. I do think they didn't get full value - though they got much more than we did. 

West was in the middle of a roster overhaul, shopping most of the team not named Gasol, and it wasn't a careful transaction. Whatever. West doesn't always "win" in his deals. In his mind it was a positional adjustment. They needed a combo guard way more than they needed a swing as they just traded for Edie Jones and already had Battier and Miller. To them, the comparative value of one of their swings was lower than that of a decent PG, even if not a 1 to 1 exchange.

And, West is under a very tight budget, which makes carrrying 4 talented swings stupid, and limits his trading partners and causes some of his trades to be unbalanced talent-wise.

Bobby Jackson, though not as explosive to the rim as when he was younger, was an important part of the Memphis roster who was on the floor for the 2nd most minutes of his career - despite your assertions otherwise. 5th most minutes on the Grizzlies. Not sure how that's "Bupkis" going to Memphis. Wes Person and Monia made token appearences on the Blazers and were negative producers on the floor.

Third: If my plan to wait had been followed, it may be that nothing better would have been offered for Bonzi. We will never know will we? However, I find it extremely unlikely that a deal hatched under pressure and consumated in mere days could possibly have been the best available if patience were exercised. If you know even the teeniest bit about sales, marketing and negotions, you would have to agree. "Distress" sales are so named for a reason and cause the vultures and bargain hunters swooping.

Additionally, had my plan been followed, we would have been rid of the mediocrity of the Cheeks era. Something needed badly. Instead we had him for years more due to inertia and the sympathy he had for all that hands in face crap. Getting rid of Cheeks years sooner, by itself, would have a huge value to the franchise.



> I also was disagreeing with your assertion that "talent rules the NBA, keep the talent", by pointing out that the free agent market is telling us that GMs generally choose avoid or assign low value to players who are talented but troubled, such as Bonzi Wells, Jeff McInnis, etc.. You can respond or not respond if you wish, I don't have a preference.


I am sure you are smart enough to know that a statement such as "talent rules the NBA" doesn't literally mean that is the one and only criteria. It is shorthand for that being the most important element. But you knew that.

Of course, I (and those clever GMs) prefer to have the highest character along with the greatest talent - among many other factors considered. Of course, the character of a player can't be too low, or no amount of talent could overcome cetain problems - drug abuse, violence, being in jail, laziness, etc.

You say GMs avoid "troubled" players. Then why did West trade FOR Bonzi? He had all that baggage then. Part of those nasty JailBlazers and all that.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Why are so many CEOs of corporations white? Would it be safe to say that being white has something to do with being a good CEO? I should say not.
> 
> 
> Ed O.



Haha. Absolutely no correlation, but a good effort. No need for more reponse to your terrible argument.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Ok, so the Blazers were wrong to give up on Bonzi, because secretly there were many teams who would have been willing to give us a better deal than a 23rd pick and an expiring contract? Is that the story?

I guess hypothetically, Bonzi's play and/or attitude would have improved over his horrible start to the 2003-2004 year if we had kept him? I noticed that nobody is arguing we should have kept Wells long term, so maybe you think that we could fool some league GM into giving us a good player for Bonzi?

And while the 23rd pick in the 2004 had little value compared to the great Bonzi Wells, the last year of Bobby Jackson's contract did? Did I understand all that correctly?

Ed O: I never said that it is absolutely necessary to have played basketball to form a coherent hypothesis of what an NBA team dynamic is like, just that it is helpful (and I later explicitly confirmed was just an "opinion", which is a pretty silly thing to have to do on an internet forum). I also said that from the nature of your statements about what it's like being on an NBA basketball team (e.g. chemistry being a myth), I would guess (not the same as an opinion, although you aren't the only one to conflate the two) that you never have played basketball.

Now look again. That's not saying that must play basketball to understand, just that I though your error was the result of having never played. Not the same thing, are they? With your absolutist interpretation of my statements you commit the same offense that you complain about others doing to you.

And by the way, my guess was right, wasn't it? I'll take your lack of a denial as an affirmation, unless you want to dispute it.

Masbee: The offers that the Blazers and Memphis actually did receive do give us some insight into the actual trade value of Bonzi Wells at the time he was actually traded by the Blazers, and at some hypothetical timepoint in the future (still presumably less than 2 years) you think we should have waited until.

We can assume the Blazers took the best offer on the table at the time. Monia doesn't seem like anything right now, but at the time it was a 23rd pick. The fact that the pick was later bungled doesn't itself make it any more or less valuable at the time of the trade. Delonte West, Beno Udrih, David Harrison, Anderson Varejao and Chris Duhon were all picked later, so it's not as though that draft was tapped of talent by #23. We ended up getting nothing, but that's a different issue.

Just like the fact that Mo was a bad coach was a different issue as well. It wasn't an either or choice between dumping Bonzi or firing Mo. In hindsight it looks like both would have been good.

Now of course, just from knowing what the Blazers did get for Bonzi, we of course don't know what they could have gotten if they had waited. You assert that they could have gotten more, which isn't unreasonable, although I disagree.

One thing that does _suggest_ the hypothetical later value of Bonzi was well he performed in Memphis. During the exact time period when you think he would have increased his value if he had stayed a Blazer, it seems to me like he didn't as a Grizzly. He continued his relatively low production and poor attitude, culminating with the 2005 playoffs, when he was actually told to stay home rather than suit up for his team. You didn't mention that one in your reasons why West traded Bonzi, so I feel the need to point it out.

But they did get Bobby Jackson. Was he a valuable player for the Grizzlies? I think so, but only marginally. Maybe you guys have a higher estimation of the value of Bobby Jackson, but I saw a guy that was just a fill-in at backup PG who only started after Damon Stoudamire broke his leg and before they got Chucky Atkins off waivers to start ahead of him. That is a backup PG who wouldn't even beat out a mediocre waiver PG for the starting job, and one who shot 38% on his way to "double-digit" (that's 11.4 ppg) scoring. That kind of player can often be had for the vet minimum or some other low number, which means that when factoring in opportunity costs he shouldn't have much trade value. Is an aging backup PG with an expiring deal worth so much more than a #23? Yeah right.

Of course that was well after the Blazers traded him, and this summer's free agent market is even farther after, but they are relevant because they are the only data points we have for Bonzi's future value after the time the Blazers traded him. You want to assert that the offers would have eventually gotten better at some point in time, but from the only data points we have, they didn't. Perhaps the Blazers traded him too early and the Grizz traded him too late, and we just missed the sweet spot?

The free agent market for this season, specifically the lack of offers for Bonzi, is also relevant because it's shows what GMs around the league are willing to pay/trade for him, given all his known character issues and level of play, which honestly haven't seemed to change much since the time right before the Blazers traded him. Is he that much of a different player now? Of course it's not a perfect indicator of what we could have gotten previously, but again it's suggestive that few teams seem to even want him, despite his very solid play just last year. We don't know for sure what the Blazers could have gotten if they passed on the Person-#23 deal, but from what we do know about how much the league has been willing to offer at various timepoints, it doesn't seem like we could have done much better.

As for your "plan" that we should have fired Cheeks and kept Bonzi, I don't see how that's possibly less "worthless for this discussion" than the mention of the actual offers that Bonzi and Sacramento are getting right now. We could have fired Cheeks and traded Bonzi, and drafted Varejao or Kevin Martin instead of Monia, how about that? In hindsight, that seems like it would have been the best plan, but so what?

As for the point about the "talent rules ... keep the talent" issue - I wasn't trying to say that you think that's the only factor, but rather only that I think Bonzi's talent wasn't enough to overcome the liabilities created by his attitude. You ask why I think Jerry West traded for Bonzi (right after you talk about how little he gave up for him), while trying to imply that I'm being internally inconsistent? All I said was that "GMs generally choose to avoid or assign low value to players who are talented but troubled. I didn't say "GMs avoid 'troubled' players", as you paraphrased my words. Like Ed O, if you want to alter my statements and remove the qualifiers, they will sound more absolute, but it still isn't what I said.

Jerry West thought it was worth the risk when he traded for Bonzi, since he only had to give up Person and the pick. However, by most accounts, that deal never paid off for him. I'm fairly certain that he was upset when the team had to suspend Bonzi during the 2005 playoffs, and my guess is he would rather have had his pick back. The first line of the ESPN story regarding the Wells-Jackson trade reads "Bonzi Wells is no longer Jerry West's headache".

You guys think Jerry West is glad he traded for Bonzi Wells? You think we could have done so much better than Person and #23? I disagree, and I think that the Bonzi Wells story is relevant to the Darius Miles question. They are very similar situations, except Bonzi was probably the better player and possibly had a less offensive attitude compared to Miles. We shouldn't wait to get "value" for Miles, we should dump him for an expiring contract if at all possible, or if that's not possible just another player who isn't as much of a salary liability.


----------



## rtg (Aug 17, 2006)

I can not think of anyone I would not take for Miles right now so this would be a great trade for the blazers imo but I don't think sac does it.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

This rumor has now made its way to realgm... poster says he found it on hoopworld's message board. So far, I haven't found anything outside of message board fodder... still, it got this board atalkin'


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

One guy claims it was all started by a some troll... wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

rtg said:


> I can not think of anyone I would not take for Miles right now so this would be a great trade for the blazers imo but I don't think sac does it.



Even for Lonny Baxter? 


I'd rather gamble on Miles a little longer. Doing this deal is just a salary dump. I don't see Garcia or Williamson going anything.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

deal done they could give us a bag of rocks as long as they take miles.


----------

