# ESPN reports Nets/Blazer trade all but done



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

Espn Insider reports today that SAR for Kittles, Aaron williams and the #22 pick is all but done. I think we could do a little better, but the number #22 pick makes it a ok trade. Aaron williams IMO is a good back up PF/C, has a good contract. Kittles has one year left and won't be able to get big money when his contract expires.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I doubt you can do that if you have already submitted Kittles to the unprotected list for the expansion draft

I would be more interested in Jason Collins instead of Williams, but always respected Williams efforts

Link???

can we throw in Stepania too???


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

PUKE.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> I doubt you can do that if you have already submitted Kittles to the unprotected list for the expansion draft


Well, even if the trade is agreed to, it doesn't have to go down before the expansion draft. I doubt the Bobcats would be taking Kittles, and even if they had interest, the Nets could offer the Bobcats some chump change to go a different direction as to not mess up the deal.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I'm gratified that I along with a few others were correct on SAR's trade value. LOL so much for Ray Allen. If this is true, I don't think it's that bad. The draft pick is yet another asset. Williams is a solid guy and tough player, and Kittles is adequate. The best part is next year we will have a bazillion dollars of cap room. Now if we can just convince someone to come here. Hopefully T-Mac Likes the rain.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Peaceman</b>!
> _Driving across the Ross Island bridge you see a haggard homeless man with a long beard and is faithful dog. He carries the a sign. It says " Love the peaceman"_


Actually, it says, "Love the piece, man." He was referring to his smoking utensil.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

It doesn't read to me that the deal with the _Nets_ is all but done. It reads to me that SOME deal is all but done, and some sources indicate that Portland's been talking to the Nets.

It's hard to say because the blurb isn't necessarily written with much precision.

IF a deal goes down with Portland and NJ, doesn't it seem like Charlotte could be involved? With Woods being unprotected and Kittles being unprotected and Portland allegedly ending up with 3 first round picks...

Ed O.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

Maybe we are leaking it out there to get a better deal from Utah. That is the other team that has interest in SAR. Maybe we want Giricek and the 14 and 16 pick. That trade couldn't happen until July when Utah gets all there cap room. I don't think it is a great trade, but I trust Blazer management. Maybe there is two players they really like at 22/23.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Well, I'm happy that someone is gratified at the prospect of trading Sheed for Kerry Kittles and a late first rounder, but I'm not...

That said, I seriously doubt that if the pickings are this slim that Nash wouldn't wait around till later in the offseason to make a deal.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

why in the world wouldn't you want Kittles...i actually think you guys would get a great deal...we would only get the same problem you guys had last year and we lose our only shooter.


----------



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

*Yep......if the kittles deal goes down...we will enjoy the lotto...AGAIN!*

This trade makes me wanna puke...looks like Nash is continuing his ways of losing. 

ya know first we missed the playoffs...now we get worse because of bonehead trades......tell me this, how do you trade Sheed, Wells and get a #23 draft pick, kittles, aaron williams, and theo ratliff? THATS UGLY!!!


NASH IS A FRIGGIN MORON


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> Well, I'm happy that someone is gratified at the prospect of trading Sheed for Kerry Kittles and a late first rounder, but I'm not...
> 
> That said, I seriously doubt that if the pickings are this slim that Nash wouldn't wait around till later in the offseason to make a deal.


You have forgot Theo Ratliff! I don't think there are to many Blazer fans who didn't think Theo was a good addition to our team. If you think Theo, Kittles, Aaron Williams and the #22 pick is a bad trade for sheed, some or many might agree.


----------



## DariusMiles23 (Aug 29, 2003)

If you want to comment on a person's motivation or implore them to behave differently, please take it to PMs. Thanks!

Sorry, a lil cranky today


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

wouldn't the Nets have the same power forward logjam that we have if they do this trade??


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

yes, I think this could be a step #1 trade

with step #2 being the #13, #22, #23 to Charlotte or another team to get in the top 5

I still would prefer to keep #13 and deal #22 and #23 plus a player for a top 5 pick



We can do better than this trade, unless there is a follow up trade for a higher pick


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> 
> Link???


http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&id=1823641

It says (can't quote from ESPNInsider per board policy):

-- a deal for SAR is just about done, according to several sources.
-- "The question is to where?" 
-- several sources claim Portland is talking to NJ about the package mentioned above (it does NOT say those are the same sources that said the deal for SAR is just about done...)

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yangsta</b>!
> wouldn't the Nets have the same power forward logjam that we have if they do this trade??


They could let Martin walk and have a replacement in SAR, I'd guess. The Nets have been reportedly in financial straights for some time, and this kind of deal could help them financially in that respect.

Ed O.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

If this deal does go down... I'd be happy with it... I trust Nash.
Getting Kittles, Theo, Williams, and the 22nd pick for Sheed is pretty good IMO.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Dont forget Dickau :rofl:

Next week is sure going to be interesting.....

give it 2 weeks or so Mixim... you know all the rumors we had heard this year form ESPN... none were ever true... so why now?


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DariusMiles23</b>!
> If you want to comment on a person's motivation or implore them to behave differently, please take it to PMs. Thanks!
> 
> Sorry, a lil cranky today


I see nothing mixum has posted here as being against the board rules. Whining is allowed.  (that is, unless it's about me.   )


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> The Nets have been reportedly in financial straights for some time, and this kind of deal could help them financially in that respect.


yeah that Zo signing last offseason sure was a boon... The 4 year guarenteed deal he recieved worked out to about $1,700 per second he played. Not a bad gig eh?

I agree that the Insider report was very speculative/vague. I wouldn't put much stock in it.

STOMP


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

and ESPN Insider has always been correct?

Sorry, but I'll beleive it WHEN IT HAPPENS. I can believe that POR has interest in Kittles, looking at the FA SG available, he iw one of the better ones out there that COULD BE attainable & Aaron Williams would be a decent b\u PF\C, and in this years draft, I think obtaining a 3rd pick is not a bad idea. 

However, I would be a little dissapointed if a trade like this went down, I do think POR could get more. It is not a horrible deal, but it isn't a great one either.

I agree with Ed on this, how do we know that this is the deal though? We are going to have to just wait and find out.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

All this is intruiging to me, though - to the extent that I've been wondering if Nash will ulitmately use SAR as part of a bigger deal which includes moving up in the draft.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I didn't forget Theo - nor did I forget Wes Person, who was an 8 million dollar expiring contract that helped make that deal possible.

Anyway, calling Nash an idiot and things like that is giving this lame ESPN insider article a bit too much credit, in my opinion.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Now someone mentioned that a deal is alomst done with Shareef, but noone indicates for sure wht the other team may be. The earlier rumors of Kittles is easy to fall back on.

There has been talk that Orlando is very interested in trading the #1 pick, and there are 2 teams that are being very active in pursuing that pick.

Shareef in a Magic uniform could be just what McGrady ordered. Why? 

Orlando has Gooden and Howard. Gooden still has good trade value as he is young and is a pretty good baller. IT would allow them to move him for another piece.

Shareef is IMO the perfect compliment to McGrady.

The Magic can ditch Hills contract.

Portland could maybe swap SAR and #13 for Hill, Gaines and the #1 pick.

Just speculation of course.


----------



## lalooska (Jan 17, 2004)

Interesting idea about Woods, Ed O. Didn't we try to send him to the Nets at the deadline last year?

Also, what about Nash's man-crush on Martin? Why wouldn't he be one of the principle's?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

WOULD YOU DO THIS TRADE?

Sheed and Wells for Ratliff, Kittles, Williams, Dickau and the #4 pick????


I would... 
might have happend like this...

Wells for Person and the #23
Sheed and Person for Ratliff, Rahim and Dickau
Rahim for Kittles, Williams and the #22
#13, #22, #23 for the #4


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm all for getting more draft picks. I'd rather have 3 1st rounders actually, it allows you to draft wise, draft crazy, and draft "wth?" all in the same day.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Even if this is a bunch of hogwash... at least its given us something to chat about!!!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I think I'm gonna go with Hap here, Although I would look at #13 and #22 for #4. LEaving us #4 and #23.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

I wonder what Nash is demanding for SAR. This rumor, if true, might be interpreted to imply that he wants:

1) At least half of the incoming salary must be expiring (to keep options open for next summer)
2) At least one young prospect/first round draft pick
3) Then whatever filler (reasonable contracts only) is necessary to match


That being said, this trade standing alone makes no sense. Remember, Portland already has 13 players under contract, now that Stepania has opted in. Even if they lose a player to Charlotte, that's 12.

This trade would leave Portland with 13 players under contract, 3 first round draft picks and Darius Miles as a RFA. Since the Blazers can't carry 17 players, I would assume that such a move would only be the precursor to at least one other deal to trim down the roster.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Then a 3x first rounds for 1 would make even more sense besides from a talent standpoint


18 - (3 for 1) = 16

- exp draft player = 15 
*Give Charlotte cash to take a player...


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> Then a 3x first rounds for 1 would make even more sense besides from a talent standpoint
> 
> 
> ...


Just to be clear, the 17 assumes that Charlotte takes someone. If they don't take any Blazers, that number becomes 18.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Let's not forgt that Cook, GIl and Ferguson are all Team Option Players for next year. On top of that factor that Charlotte will take either Woods or Stoep in all likelyhood.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> I wonder what Nash is demanding for SAR. This rumor, if true, might be interpreted to imply that he wants:
> 
> 1) At least half of the incoming salary must be expiring (to keep options open for next summer)
> ...


Who cares?

Woods will be taken in the expansion draft, and Gill and Cook both have non-guaranteed contracts and they will be cut. If necessary, Stepania can be cut too.

Every year it's out with the old and in with the new. You have to get rid of some old players to make room for rookies, and that's why the NBA careers of Gill, Cook, and maybe Stepania are over.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

just curious... why are you guys against Kittles being our SG??
If he works on his shot a little more, I think he'd be a solid SG for us.

REBOUNDS PER GAME 
YEAR TEAM G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG 
96-97 NJN 82 57 36.7 .426 .377 .771 1.30 2.60 3.90 3.0 1.91 .43 1.55 2.00 16.4 
97-98 NJN 77 76 36.5 .440 .418 .808 1.70 3.00 4.70 2.3 1.71 .48 1.38 2.00 17.2 
98-99 NJN 46 40 34.1 .370 .316 .772 1.10 3.00 4.20 2.5 1.72 .57 1.43 1.80 12.9 
99-00 NJN 62 61 30.6 .437 .400 .795 .70 2.90 3.60 2.3 1.27 .31 .90 1.90 13.0 
01-02 NJN 82 82 31.7 .466 .405 .744 .80 2.50 3.40 2.6 1.59 .38 1.33 1.30 13.4 
02-03 NJN 65 57 30.0 .467 .356 .785 .80 3.10 3.90 2.6 1.55 .46 .85 1.70 13.0 
03-04 NJN 82 82 34.7 .453 .351 .787 .70 3.30 4.00 2.5 1.52 .49 1.16 1.80 13.1 
Career 496 455 33.6 .439 .378 .781 1.00 2.90 3.90 2.6 1.62 .44 1.24 1.80 14.3 
Playoff 54 54 32.1 .424 .337 .742 .90 2.70 3.60 2.1 1.61 .48 .96 2.10 12.3


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Interesting idea, would Kittles really be worst than Anderson or really be a huge upgrade?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> Just to be clear, the 17 assumes that Charlotte takes someone. If they don't take any Blazers, that number becomes 18.


Yes, thank you... I sit corrected

15 would still work, but that is a lot of guarenteed money



Howie,
I think Kittles and DA together would be a good thing. We would have at least one complete guard with the 2 of them together :rofl:

Actually Kittles has been pretty healthy the last few years. If the 2 together can get along and accept roles, it would be nice. Both are fairly good shooters when on. Chances are one will be on for the game


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Kittles work on his shot? You make it sound like he's a young player...

Anyway, Kittles would be fine but I don't think he'd be much better than a healthy-ish DA if at all. 

He's a solid role player, but SAR is worth more than an aging role player SG and late first rounder, IMO.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Kittles has a better 3FG% than both DA and Paul Pierce, yet is still a bit shy of Ray Allen and Michael Redd

Kittles has played in a lot of games in his 7 year career. 3 years he was in 82 games nad one year in 77. He also played in 65, 62 and 46 games the other three. Teh year of 46 games was in the shortened season.

With all that said, his $9.8 mil expiring contract is fairly high


Career stats
Derek Anderson
Age: 30 on July 18
Height: 6'-5" tall
2FG%: 41.3
3FG%: 33.8
FT%: 84.7
Steals: 1.27
Rebounds: 3.5
Assists: 3.7
PPG: 13.5

Kerry Kittles
Age: 30 on June 12
Height: 6'-5" tall
2FG%: 43.9
3FG%: 37.8
FT%: 78.1
Steals: 1.62
Rebounds: 3.9
Assists: 2.6
PPG: 14.3


DA and Kittles are similar


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> Kittles work on his shot? You make it sound like he's a young player...
> 
> Anyway, Kittles would be fine but I don't think he'd be much better than a healthy-ish DA if at all.
> ...


if Kittles is an aging role player, what does that make Derek Anderson, who's older, and has a worse shot?

The last 3 years with Kittles have been well above anything DA has ever dreamed of. Of course, one might say that Jason Kidd had something to do with that.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> 
> Kittles has played in a lot of games in his 7 year career.


but his minutes per game isnt that high.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

He is a much better defender and is quiker IMO.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

And he takes it strong to the rim, he plays a relentless style similair to Ruben... very different from Mr. Softy Anderson.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Hap - 

I think it's a bit extreme to say that last bit when you look at the career stats posted by TBob.

Regardless, like I said, he might be a bit of an upgrade over DA - so what?

Rahim is a career 20-9 PF in his prime. Kittles is a 30 year old 14-4-3 SG...

The #22 pick and a scrub big man doesn't make up that disparity.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JohnnyCash</b>!
> but his minutes per game isnt that high.


Cause of his injury (knees, the Nets tried to limit his minutes).

-Petey


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> if Kittles is an aging role player, what does that make Derek Anderson, who's older, and has a worse shot?
> ...


I actually think his first 2 years with Cassell were his greatest; it was also before he hurt his knees and was very agressive offensively and defensively.

-Petey


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

By NJ adding the #22, it's palatable.

Fair trade, IMO. I don't see it happening though. Just an attempt to get more out of another team.

I want more!


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

kittles is a shooter? I guess maybe in the Eastern Conference a guys that shoots better than 42% is a "shooter". I hate this trade--kittles will never beat out DA at the 2. DA aint the best shooter in the world, but he's a better athlete, ball handler, etc. Kittles is a weak starting #2 and good back up #2 at this point and Aaron Williams is ALL LEFT HAND. This trade sucks!!! Keep SAR on the bench if nobody wants him.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

*Deal is not with the Nets...*

my buddy works at the Rose Quarter answering phones and he told me that the feeling there is that Utah is the other team.....he says they are obviously not sure but thats the "feeling"


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> my buddy works at the Rose Quarter answering phones and he told me that the feeling there is that Utah is the other team.....he says they are obviously not sure but thats the "feeling"


I hope that "feeling" is correct, maybe a 3-way deal including UTA, NJ and POR?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> if Kittles is an aging role player, what does that make Derek Anderson, who's older, and has a worse shot?


See my posted stat comparison... Kerry is 1 month and 6 days older by the NBA.com stats



I still think there may be better offers out there than this one. Unless its followed up by a draft pick upgrade


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> ...


Honestly, I believe the front office of the Blazers cares.

They showed this season - for the first time in memory - that they are unwilling to "carry" extra and unnecessary players on the IR for long stretches of time.

I really believe that they are looking to "trim down" the roster to 12-13, not expand it so that they have to cut players.

I also believe they'd rather let Gill and Cook slug it out in training camp for a roster spot (and cut the loser with no cap ramifications) than cut both.

All the moves you mention COULD be done (assuming Woods is taken by Charlotte - personally I'm still holding to the Stepania idea for the Bobcats), I just think the front office would prefer NOT to make them if they have other options.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Deal is not with the Nets...*



> Originally posted by <b>riehldeal</b>!
> my buddy works at the Rose Quarter answering phones and he told me that the feeling there is that Utah is the other team.....he says they are obviously not sure but thats the "feeling"


If the idea behind the NJ rumor is to get an expiring deal and a draft pick, then Utah can use their cap space to give an even better deal. Portland wouldn't have to take back much salary (they actually wouldn't have to take back any, but there's no way IMO that the Blazers make the deal just for a draft pick) and could get a better pick than #22.

I'm still not convinced that SAR couldn't return more, but this idea is more appealing to me than the NJ idea.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> 
> 
> See my posted stat comparison... Kerry is 1 month and 6 days older by the NBA.com stats
> ...


Im not sure why I transversed the ages like I did.

Maybe it's because I just heard Robert Stack say "double you double you dubble you.unsolvedmysteries.com"


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Kaydow,

Last year Kittles shot over 45% from the field and 35% from 3 point land. That's not bad shooting at all in today's nba. Derek shot under 38%, bad by any standards! What's more, Derek Anderson played pitiful defense(along side damon stoudamire) letting defenders penetrate at will.

Now I think Shareef is worth more than Kittles, but I'd be happy just getting DA out of the SL.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

As long as Rahim somehow nets us a top 5 pick, I am all for it, justp lease don't trade Darius or Zach.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

I don't mean hate on Kittles so much. However, by the same token, I think people are way to hard on DA. He missed all of camp and 1/4 of the year and from what I heard his back was hurting--that didn't stop him from having to play 40 mn/night because of no depth. He'll never be Steve Kerr from 3, but he does have some skills and can take over a game at times. I haven't seen Kittles take over a game in years. Even on a bad year DA had some moments (remember his 12 pts in O/T to beat Sacramento in Sac after Brad Miller hit a 3 to tie at end of reg? ) I bet DA plays better this year, even if it isn't here. I also think Kittles is on his way down with creeky knees.


----------



## -James- (Apr 27, 2004)

cud this be a sign that kmarts days are done in new jersey?


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Does NJ think K-Mart is a franchise guy? I know he wants a max out deal. I would trade him or let him walk. To me he is a high energy player that 1) has limited pereimeter game 2) doesn't dominate in the post. He's no KG and he shouldn't be asking for KG money. I wouln't mind having K-Mart on my team, but not for $10 + in Salary cap space--NO WAY!! His game is just too limited.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Everyone's favorite, Chad Ford, is reporting that the Nets have canceled all pre-draft workouts, hinting that they are trading their draft pick... hmmmm.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Or they know who they want and aren't at all excited about the guys left on their agenda...

I don't like these articles... Something happens for what could be a host of reasons, and X columnist comes along and uses the event as proof of one of their wild speculative guesses.

Chad should add a one page preamble to all of his articles saying, "I know I was wrong about... ,but...".


----------



## CrGiants (Dec 4, 2003)

"Or they know who they want and aren't at all excited about the guys left on their agenda..." Blazer Ringbearer


That could be, but I wouldn't think a team with a late first-rounder would cancel workouts because someone could come in and surprise. There are always many sleepers. 

I would think either New Jersey is planning to deal the pick, or they are going to reach big-time for someone who is considered a second-round pick.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> Or they know who they want and aren't at all excited about the guys left on their agenda...
> 
> I don't like these articles... Something happens for what could be a host of reasons, and X columnist comes along and uses the event as proof of one of their wild speculative guesses.
> ...


Its a columists job to speculate.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>JohnnyCash</b>!
> Everyone's favorite, Chad Ford, is reporting that the Nets have canceled all pre-draft workouts, hinting that they are trading their draft pick... hmmmm.


He also said the players we like wont be available at #13, so we will package a few picks. ... I wonder what players Nash and the scouts have their eyes on. 

Our draft could look like this:

#13 Kirk Snyder
#22 Sabastian Telfair
#23 Peter John Ramos

Or if we package a few picks:

#? Say we package the #13 and # 23 to Washington for the # 5

#5 Andre Iguadala
#22 Sabastian Telfair


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lakota_Blazer</b>!
> 
> 
> He also said the players we like wont be available at #13, so we will package a few picks. ... I wonder what players Nash and the scouts have their eyes on.
> ...


I'd have to believe that Portland would package a couple picks and trade down for somebody like Livingston, Iguodala or Devin Harris. So I'd have to agree with ya on that assesment; 3 draft picks just seems like way to many.


----------



## KIDBLAZE (Jul 8, 2003)

why are we are we trying to get kittles anyway. I thought the blazers we're going to draft luke or kirk. In that saying if this trade went down we would have a log jam at the 2 spot.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Interesting little tidbit here from Draft City.

Draft City 



> A source in Portland approached Paul Allen the other day to ask what his feelings about Kerry Kittles were, and all he could do was stutter confusedly, which seems to indicate that this trade is in the books already.


IF that trade went down, my bet is Telfair @ #13, then either POR keeps the #22 and #23 (I find that unlikely) and takes a JR Smith (or Dorrell Wright) and a Ha-Seung Jin? (I can't believe they would, but in for a 2nd workout? something is up there IMO)

or trades them both to a team like ATL, NO or MIA to move up a few spots? hmm... that seems awfully steep for a mid round move of (at most) 5 spots. Maybe both picks and a player to a team like TOR? Philly? or GS? Whatever they decide to do, IF POR really wants Telfair (and it sure seems like they do - a 2nd workout?) it is looking like they will have to take him at #13, IF he is there. CLE, IMO is the team ahead of our pick to be wary of, maybe GS.

I can't see POR bringing in Kittles, already having DA and THEN drafting a guy like Jackson or Snyder, it just doesn't make sense. Now a young HS kid @ SG like a JR Smith or Dorrell Wright? That makes a little more sense to me. 

It will be real interesting to see if the NJ\POR deal does go down, just what POR decides to do with those 3 picks.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> Interesting little tidbit here from Draft City.
> 
> Draft City
> ...


Kittles has 1 year left on his contract, and it's possible that they try to trade him later at the deadline. I don't think it means you have to pass on Luke Jackson, if he is there.

-Petey


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Is this really the best we can get for Rahim? A former all-star, and is still pretty young....Why would we trade him for 2 average players and a low 1st round pick? 

Maybe they have a plan to move up in the draft using the #22 and #23? To get Kittles, we can use the picks on a PG (Telfair) and a bigman (Ramos,Pavel?) We have been connected with Telfair and Ramos for a while, maybe it was more than just speculation by draft sites?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lakota_Blazer</b>!
> Is this really the best we can get for Rahim? A former all-star, and is still pretty young....Why would we trade him for 2 average players and a low 1st round pick?


yes, that is probably the best the blazers can get for SAR.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Lakota_Blazer</b>!
> Is this really the best we can get for Rahim? A former all-star, and is still pretty young....Why would we trade him for 2 average players and a low 1st round pick?


SAR was never an All Star, but he is good and still pretty young. That said, I think Portland can make better use of him then this. It seems every offseason (and midseason trade deadline) the national media has the Blazers getting the short end of a hypothetical deal with some East Coast team benefiting... I think that boy is crying Wolf! again. 

We'll see...

STOMP


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> A source in Portland approached Paul Allen the other day to ask what his feelings about Kerry Kittles were, and all he could do was stutter confusedly, which seems to indicate that this trade is in the books already.


1) I find it unlikely a source would simply approach Paul Allen, the king of recluses even when making a point to make more public appearances.

2) That conclusion regarding Kittles is extremely shaky. Paul's not the world's greatest public speaker... Could simply be his normal stammering self. The guy's also a rather skilled business man, so he probably knows how to put on his poker face when needed.

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> A source in Portland approached Paul Allen the other day to ask what his feelings about Kerry Kittles were, and all he could do was stutter confusedly, which seems to indicate that this trade is in the books already.


who can approach Paul Allen?

And maybe he's like "Kerry Kittles? who the hell?"


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

It seems that the SAR trade is off and the Nets are going to trade #22 for cash considerations instead. Portland would have to throw in one or more players with non-guaranteed/cheap contracts to make it work.


----------



## Leroy131 (Mar 11, 2004)

> And maybe he's like "Kerry Kittles? who the hell?"


:laugh: Yeah, really...

Talk about jumping to a ridiculous conclusion...


----------

