# Got a chuckle out of this rumor



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

With a power forward group that includes Louis Amundson, rookie Jason Smith, Shavlik Randolph and Steven Hunter, the Philadelphia 76ers aren't exactly loaded at the position. 
So team president Billy King will try to make a trade. Since quality power forwards aren't in abundance, it won't be easy.
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Frye for Iggy works salary cap wise.......Where do we sign?


----------



## Bob Whitsitt (Jul 12, 2007)

mediocre man said:


> Frye for Iggy works salary cap wise.......Where do we sign?


I'm in. Talk about filling all of our needs and also giving us an electric scorer who works on the run.

*sigh* if only.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

Oh come on man, that isn't even funny.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

different_13 said:


> Oh come on man, that isn't even funny.


Well they do now have Korver, Carney, and Thaddeus Young....

I wish this was remotely a possibility. I'd actually take any of those guys.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Hate to say I told you so, but.....:whoknows: 

The trade market is in a constant state of flux. This is why you don't set arbitrary deadlines for yourself in making trades. (EG there was no reason Zach HAD to be moved by draft day)


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Hate to say I told you so, but.....:whoknows:
> 
> The trade market is in a constant state of flux. This is why you don't set arbitrary deadlines for yourself in making trades. (EG there was no reason Zach HAD to be moved by draft day)



Yes there was.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Yes there was.



To get the trade exemption so they could draft Rudy?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> To get the trade exemption so they could draft Rudy?


So that pile of crap wasn't here anymore. :biggrin: 

Rudy is a bonus.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Let me get this straight.

You have 2 options in front of you: (NOTE, this is a HYPOTHETICAL, not directly related to the Zach situation)

Option A) Trade unpopular player today, for little or no return.

Option B) Trade unpopular player in 6 months, and get valuable asset in return.

Some of you would actually take Option A?????


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Let me get this straight.
> 
> You have 2 options in front of you: (NOTE, this is a HYPOTHETICAL, not directly related to the Zach situation)
> 
> ...


Some of us don't think Option B is anything more than a fantasy. Secondly, we think that getting Frye, Jones, and Rudy is more than "little or no return". Third, we think that Zach, with his slow pace and poor defense doesn't fit with where the Blazers are trying to go with their style of play.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Let me get this straight.
> 
> You have 2 options in front of you: (NOTE, this is a HYPOTHETICAL, not directly related to the Zach situation)
> 
> ...


You are acting like the second possibility is a definitive. You have no proof of such. Secondly, maybe, just maybe management looked at Oden coming in to camp and decided they did not want Zbo around him for one minute to "taint" him and his thinking. 

Remember when Bonzi Wells came into camp and what promise he had? Remember him working hard on his post game with JR Rider? Remember everybody worrying that JR Rider would rub off on him? Well he did. We all know how that turned out, despite the basketball skills he helped develope in Bonzi. 

I honestly believe, that with a draft pick this high, and the few opportunities you have to get such a player, you take no chances of F'n that up. I believe that is what the franchise is doing, and it is the right move.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

we can still deal a pf there if we want, NO ONE WANTED ZBO, or else we could have done better in a trade, obviously.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> You have 2 options in front of you: (NOTE, this is a HYPOTHETICAL, not directly related to the Zach situation)


Some people don't know how to read, OMG. 

To answer your question: clearly Option B is superior, unless the player is dragging your team down AND you can't afford to be dragged down until the trade for value can be made.

Ed O.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

hasoos said:


> You are acting like the second possibility is a definitive. You have no proof of such. Secondly, maybe, just maybe management looked at Oden coming in to camp and decided they did not want Zbo around him for one minute to "taint" him and his thinking.



You shoot down the idea of a "second possibility" because he has no proof, and then you mention a possible mangement mentality that you have no proof of?

Nevertheless, you may be right about management's thinking (it would help explain the trade) . . . but I also think that OMG's analysis has some validity.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Some people don't know how to read, OMG.
> 
> Ed O.


A hypothetical, "not directly related to the Zach situation", but being used in a discussion about Zach, is a little contradictory, don't you think, Ed? 

The hypothetical is also flawed in that it takes the position that you know now that you will be able to get a valuable asset in return in six months time for this "hypothetical" "unpopular player". You can't know that in a real life situation. Attempting to apply it to the Zach situation is also flawed in that it's not simply a case of Zach being an "unpopular player". Zach is a gifted scorer, but everybody knows he has serious weaknesses in his game. He's also got a long history of behavioral issues that make taking a risk on him a real gamble for any GM. Couple that with a bad contract and you have a guy who is extremely unlikely to net you a valuable asset in six months time.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Let me get this straight.
> 
> You have 2 options in front of you: (NOTE, this is a HYPOTHETICAL, not directly related to the Zach situation)
> 
> ...


You forgot 

Option C) Trade unpopular player in 6 months, and get even less in return.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

OR Option D) Keep "unpopular" player and get into the playoffs


----------



## Miksaid (Mar 21, 2005)

Although I have no proof, I am almost certain that we could have gotten more then Channing Frye had we waited 6 months.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> OR Option D) Keep "unpopular" player and get into the playoffs


I at least tried to keep it realistic.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

OR Option E) Trade "unpopular" player, see young PF on team develop into stud and get into the playoffs. 

Gee, this is fun. I wonder how many options we can come up with?


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Miksaid said:


> Although I have no proof, I am almost certain that we could have gotten more then Channing Frye had we waited 6 months.


We did get more than Channing Frye. We also got James Jones and the rights to Rudy Fernandez (who may end up being worth making the deal all on his own).


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

zach's gone, no need to keep bringing the same damn thing up over and over and over and over and over and over.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Miksaid said:


> Although I have no proof, I am almost certain that we could have gotten more then Channing Frye had we waited 6 months.


We did get more than Channing Frye. We also got Rudy Fernandez. And we got another quality player to be named in two years, due to the huge cap space we'll have to sign a free agent thanks to this trade. And we opened playing time for our PF of the future, today: LaMarcus Aldridge. Frankly, I like Aldridge's total game much better than Zach's (and I'm no Zach basher). Also, the team saved $30 million (but who cares? :biggrin: ).


----------



## Miksaid (Mar 21, 2005)

You are right. I am a big fan of Rudy Fernandez and think James Jones will be a lot more solid then a lot of people give him credit for. But I'm sorry if I am in the camp that believes Zach Randolph was worth more then either player. I still think we could have found something better in six months.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> A hypothetical, "not directly related to the Zach situation", but being used in a discussion about Zach, is a little contradictory, don't you think, Ed?


Heh. Nope.

You can discuss the underpinnings of a position without jumping RIGHT into the facts. 



> The hypothetical is also flawed in that it takes the position that you know now that you will be able to get a valuable asset in return in six months time for this "hypothetical" "unpopular player". You can't know that in a real life situation.


It's not talking about process. It's talking about results. OMG's hypothetical isn't, in and of itself, flawed.



> Attempting to apply it to the Zach situation is also flawed in that it's not simply a case of Zach being an "unpopular player". Zach is a gifted scorer, but everybody knows he has serious weaknesses in his game. He's also got a long history of behavioral issues that make taking a risk on him a real gamble for any GM. Couple that with a bad contract and you have a guy who is extremely unlikely to net you a valuable asset in six months time.


I disagree with all of this. All but the top, top, players in the NBA (who have max- or near-max salaries) have flaws. And yet they're traded quite regularly for value.

I'll let OMG expound on the point of his hypothetical... I just found it hilarious that the next THREE posts appeared to ignore the question he was asking and, instead, answered (a) the question they thought he was asking, and/or (b) the question they wanted to answer.

It's cool. Just funny to me 

Ed O.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Miksaid said:


> You are right. I am a big fan of Rudy Fernandez and think James Jones will be a lot more solid then a lot of people give him credit for. But I'm sorry if I am in the camp that believes Zach Randolph was worth more then either player. I still think we could have found something better in six months.


this is the kind of logic that causes people to continue to argue ridiculously about the zach trade.

you say zach was worth more then either player. You also forgot to add in Channing Frye. You also forgot to add in a 2nd round pick next year. You also forgot to add in over 30 million dollars. You also forgot to factor in a period of time when Portland could have major cap space room.

This was a complex trade, the full ramifications of which won't be completely known for a few years.

It's possible that Kevin Pritchard isn't a liar, and that when he said this was the best offer it was the truth

It's also possible that Paul Allen decided that saving over 30 million dollars was a very attractive feature of this trade. The average annual profit of an NBA franchise is under 6 million dollars. The savings from this one trade equals 5 years of operating profit for the average franchise. As a Blazer fan, I'd like Allen to be able and willing to spend money when a good opportunity arises. Perhaps this trade will make him more inclined to do so. 30 million dollars saved will enhance the financial health of the blazers, and if you don't think that is important, just ask Seattle fans when the Sonics are playing in Oklahoma city. 

The idea that portland could have found something better in 6 months is totally unsupported by anything but emotion. Zach requires the ball to be effective...for most of the shot clock. He wasn't going to have it nearly as much next season...period. His numbers would have gone down substantially. And so would his "value". The rest of the league is wise to zach's game. That's why he didn't get any consideration for the all-star game, and that's why his value was so low. 6 months would have had no impact on that.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

moldorf said:


> It's also possible that Paul Allen decided that saving over 30 million dollars was a very attractive feature of this trade. The average annual profit of an NBA franchise is under 6 million dollars. The savings from this one trade equals 5 years of operating profit for the average franchise. As a Blazer fan, I'd like Allen to be able and willing to spend money when a good opportunity arises. Perhaps this trade will make him more inclined to do so. 30 million dollars saved will enhance the financial health of the blazers, and if you don't think that is important, just ask Seattle fans when the Sonics are playing in Oklahoma city.



I don't think this trade was about saving money but rather getting rid of Zach for a young prospect, #24 pick and salary cap flexiblity. (The Blazers don't save any money the first two years, in fact they lose money by paying a player serious money who won't even be playing on the team). 

Two years from now the Blazers may save money, but apparently they are gearing up in two years to spend crazy cash (Aldridge resign (max?), Roy resign (max?), sign top free agent).

The Zach trade was a huge trade, not uncommon for fans to disagree about a trade, especially when the team's leading scorer for the past 4 years has been traded . . . in fact many fans and sports writers sees it as a huge win trade for the Knicks, so I don't think it is as clear cut as you are making it.

As far as KP being a liar . . . apparently most agree he is, but it is necessary.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Option B was not realistic in my hypothetical senario so I discounted it. 

I however, would have traded Zack for Rudy straight up if it would have been possible. 

We got Jones and Fry also so I think that we got a great deal not to mention the 30m or so saved for another player. 

If, at the trade deadline, hypotheticly, it would have been apparent that Zack did not work in the new scheam of things, we may not have been able to trade him for much of anything because other teams would know that we were having a hard time moving him. 

gatorpops


----------



## Miksaid (Mar 21, 2005)

In my defense, I did mention Channing Frye in my initial post (where I subsequently failed to specify the inclusion of James Jones and Rudy Fernandez). In actuality, I understand your argument and did indeed comprehend all the pieces of the trade including the second round pick and the supposed savings it gives the franchise. I stand firm in my belief, that while the argument is legit, it is one that was made by people trying to give the most comfortable spin in an otherwise unbalanced trade. Sorry. I don't think Zach Randolph walks on water but I do think that he is worth more then a multitude of smaller bits and parts. I also don't really think we saved a net worth of 30 million dollars. But if that is the case (and I would like an explanation), more power to your argument. Cheers! I am not down at all with the Blazers, in fact I am as optimistic as any and all of you. I just want to point out a poor exchange of talent when I see it. Go Blazers!


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

We got worse with the Zach trade in the short run. He would've continued to play well next year and probably could have gotten us more direct talent value in trade than the relatively little we got. I know everyone loves to love the young and the unknown, but some of you guys totally overvalue youth and mystery and undervalue guys with proven ability. How many times have you guys seen Fernandez play ever, 0 to 1? Frye is charmin soft and Jones is decent, but nothing more. There's no doubt we could've gotten more talent for Zach at another time, or even now, although we would have had to take back more long term salary. Everyone says he wouldn't fit in, but he had his best year as a Blazer last year, and Nate is still our coach, so the team isn't going to change much. Dreams of us becoming a real run and gun team are going to go unfulfilled.

I'm not totally upset with the trade, but the biggest asset we got in it is probably the cap space. Let's hope we actually get to do something great with it.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I agree with you Duds (and others) at a certain level. Normally, you want to receive the single best player in a trade, no matter how many subs are going out. Maybe the mysterious Rudy will turn out to be that player. Maybe not. Zach was kind of a special case though, for reasons that have been hashed to shreds. I've indicated the factors that I have to tell myself to be ok with the trade. :biggrin: I really am ok with the trade overall and I look forward to seeing how Rudy does in '08/'09 and if we can in fact snag a quality FA with the savings and cap room in '09/'10.

:cheers:


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

So this dead horse gets brought up again all because Philadelphia wants a PF?... Umm, did they have a complete roster over-haul immediately following the Zach deal that I'm not aware of? They'd be no more interested in Zach now than they were earlier.

So for all you Monday morning quarterbacks out there, your arguing over hypotheticals and wishful thinking. For those who say there was no reason Zach had to be dealt by draft day, you're wrong. For those who say we could have gotten more talent in return A)You won't know that till you see Rudy, Frye, and Jones in a blazer uniform and see how the cap mess turns out in two years, and B)You have nothing but your own imagination to back you up. 




Oldmangrouch said:


> Let me get this straight.
> 
> You have 2 options in front of you: (NOTE, this is a HYPOTHETICAL, not directly related to the Zach situation)
> 
> ...


Okay, where do I start... First, it's pointless and misleading of you to pose a "hypothetical" during a discussion of the trade and present choices that don't mirror reality. Of your two choices OBVIOUSLY B) is better... Who cares? It has nothing to do with anything... 

Here, I can do it too. Here's my hypothetical (not directly related to the Zach issue, of course):

A)Trade unpopular player now and get three superstars in return.
B)Trade unpopular player in 6 months for a bag of potato chips.

Some of you would actually take Option B???

...Your gutless disclaimer doesn't fool anyone. If you didn't really mean for it to be directly related to Zach, then why bring it up at all? Clearly, you did. Not to mention that B) may very well not exist. Don't hide behind these thinly veiled lies. (Here's my gutless disclaimer: )

If ya'll think you can do better at player personnel moves, submit your resume to the Blazer front office today. I hear they're really down on their current staff and really need some young and energetic new GM to bring life back into the franchise... Oh, wait...

I know we all love to bang on GM's for the decisions they make but damn, we haven't even gotten to training camp yet. For all we know there might be another trade that Pritchard wouldn't have done if the Zach deal hadn't gone down. This is all so premature and retarded.


----------



## YoungBlazers (Feb 5, 2006)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Let me get this straight.
> 
> You have 2 options in front of you: (NOTE, this is a HYPOTHETICAL, not directly related to the Zach situation)
> 
> ...


Depends on what happened during those 6 months. If he kept his nose clean and worked hard then B would be the right choice. But if he corrupted the players and gave the franchise a black eye, A would be a better option.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Some people don't know how to read, OMG.
> 
> To answer your question: clearly Option B is superior, unless the player is dragging your team down AND you can't afford to be dragged down until the trade for value can be made.
> 
> Ed O.


No kidding.

Actually, the reaction just proves my point. The level of negative emotion directed at players for often trivial reasons never fails to amaze me. 

Why can't people grasp that this should be a *business* decision for the team?


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I don't think this trade was about saving money but rather getting rid of Zach for a young prospect, #24 pick and salary cap flexiblity. (The Blazers don't save any money the first two years, in fact they lose money by paying a player serious money who won't even be playing on the team).


why are you excluding the possible saving of money as a reason? I listed those other factores as reasons, but i also didn't discount the effect of a 31 million difference in contract obligations between the Francis and randolph contracts. I doubt that Paul Allen discounted 31 million dollars either. 



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Two years from now the Blazers may save money, but apparently they are gearing up in two years to spend crazy cash (Aldridge resign (max?), Roy resign (max?), sign top free agent).


they'd be "gearing up" to re-sign those players whether the trade occured or not. And I'm also not convinced their cap space plan has much to do with a free agent. Cap space is also a very effective tool in trading, and considering the talents of pritchard and penn, I'd say trading is what they have in mind for the cap space.



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> The Zach trade was a huge trade, not uncommon for fans to disagree about a trade, especially when the team's leading scorer for the past 4 years has been traded . . . in fact many fans and sports writers sees it as a huge win trade for the Knicks, so I don't think it is as clear cut as you are making it.
> 
> As far as KP being a liar . . . apparently most agree he is, but it is necessary.


are they the same fans and sportwriters who spent a great deal of time yapping about how little value zach had before he was traded? And I damn well guarantee that almost none of them understand that portland couldn't have landed Jones and Fernandez without doing this trade.

and your "most agree KP is a liar" remark is assinine....just who are the "most"?


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Miksaid said:


> In my defense, I did mention Channing Frye in my initial post (where I subsequently failed to specify the inclusion of James Jones and Rudy Fernandez). In actuality, I understand your argument and did indeed comprehend all the pieces of the trade including the second round pick and the supposed savings it gives the franchise. I stand firm in my belief, that while the argument is legit, it is one that was made by people trying to give the most comfortable spin in an otherwise unbalanced trade. Sorry. I don't think Zach Randolph walks on water but I do think that he is worth more then a multitude of smaller bits and parts. I also don't really think we saved a net worth of 30 million dollars. But if that is the case (and I would like an explanation), more power to your argument. Cheers! I am not down at all with the Blazers, in fact I am as optimistic as any and all of you. I just want to point out a poor exchange of talent when I see it. Go Blazers!


you have 2 connected points...the trade was "unbalanced" and zach was "worth more"

I am one of those that think zach isn't worth nearly as much as you credt. I believe his big numbers came in no small part at the expense of the team. I simply don't think he is a good player and I think it's obvious he does little to make his teammates better. Accordingly, the "balance" in the trade in my view favors portland a bit now, and I believe it will favor them even more in the future. I think people are underestimating both Frye and jones and the impact they will have on portland. And Fernandez is a wild card.

the 31 million dollars is directly the difference between the Francis contract and the balance left on zach's contract. The contracts of Frye and Jones will be to a substantial degree offset by the removal of the f.jones and dickau contracts.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Wow.

First, I don't understand why some of you refuse to see that this issue is *bigger* than Zach Randolph. The trade market is always in flux. The relative value of a player does not always move in the same direction. Every time we have a trade discussion on this board, some people declare that "players X's value can only get worse!" Sorry, but that claim can't ALWAYS be true.

Second, why are the defenders of this particular trade so damn angry?? You got your way. Why all this hostility towards a guy who isn't here anymore? Why so much hostility towards fans who just don't happen to like the trade?


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Wow.
> 
> First, I don't understand why some of you refuse to see that this issue is *bigger* than Zach Randolph. The trade market is always in flux. The relative value of a player does not always move in the same direction. Every time we have a trade discussion on this board, some people declare that "players X's value can only get worse!" Sorry, but that claim can't ALWAYS be true.


Of course not. If the Blazers had kept Zach, he could have had his best season ever, kept his nose clean, and seen his trade value increase. However, you can't simply assume that would be true and use that possibility as a reason to blast the trade that Pritchard pulled off.



> Second, why are the defenders of this particular trade so damn angry?? You got your way. Why all this hostility towards a guy who isn't here anymore? Why so much hostility towards fans who just don't happen to like the trade?


I'm not sure if you're directing this at anyone in particular, but as for me, I'm not angry in the least. Initially, when I first heard of the trade, I thought we got hosed. After learning more about it and seeing how the pieces fit together, I can see the logic of what KP is trying to accomplish with this deal and I think it makes sense. In that sense, I'm a happy camper. I've never had any anger towards Zach, in fact, I actually like the guy. I'm disappointed that he's made some bad decisions that have hurt his reputation and have diminished his trade value, but I still like him and respect what he can do on the court. As for directing hostility towards fans who feel otherwise about the trade, I would just point out that you're the one who posted a "hypothetical" that implies one is a simpleton if he supports the trade. That may have been somewhat responsible for the response you got.

For what I hope will be the last time, I'll just summarize why I think this is, in the long run, a very good deal for the Blazers:

1. KP has made it very clear that his primary objective is to bring the team along and position it to challenge for a title in about a three year time frame. That objective supercedes concerns about making the playoffs the next couple of years.

2. In order to be in the position to achieve the primary goal, the core of Oden, Aldridge, and Roy have to get as much time together on the court as possible to gain as much experience as quickly as possible. Having Zach here needing playing time to increase his trade value is contrary to this objective.

3. Cutting Zach's contract, together with avoiding other long term committments to other players, will enable the Blazers to be in the position to get another needed major player prior to the big salary increases for Aldridge and Roy in 2010 that will close that window for the forseeable future. Whether through free agency or through a trade where a team is looking to offload a big contract, the Blazers will have an opportunity that they wouldn't have if Zach had stayed or if they had taken back another bad contract in a deal for him.

4. The Blazers picked up some valuable players in Frye, Jones, and Rodrigues that meet the team's needs far better than Dickau and Freddie did.

I think KP took the best trade available and that it advances the Blazers position in terms of their ultimate goal. That's why I support the trade.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

e_blazer1 said:


> For what I hope will be the last time, I'll just summarize why I think this is, in the long run, a very good deal for the Blazers:
> 
> 1. KP has made it very clear that his primary objective is to bring the team along and position it to challenge for a title in about a three year time frame. That objective supercedes concerns about making the playoffs the next couple of years.
> 
> ...



All those points make a lot of sense and I agree that is where the Blazers are going. I wasn't around here much during the big debate about the trade, so let me throw my two cents out there about why to be skeptical about the trade or at least question the move:

My big issue is did they have to pull the trigger now? Couldn't they have given Zach a shot with LA, Oden and Roy. I get the idea of developing the "big three" together, but I'll give the "big three" more credit that they can do it with Zach around. As fast? Maybe not, but I beleive these kids can adjust pretty quickly and having Zach around doesn't interfer that much with their chemistry.

Now if the idea is this is all for the long term (championship), then yes why even have Zach around. But this organization has asked us to exercise patience for many years, too many for me. For management to get the #1 pick and then trade away the Blazers most productive player and tell us to exercise more patience . . . makes me want to . . . #[email protected]#!!!! . . . !#@!# . . . all I can say *as I clinch my fist and grit my teeth* is KP better be fuking right!(I saw Lewis Black when he was in town and that was my internet impression of him . . . I guess i could say why didn't KP just knock on my door and piss right there on my feet)

Because if Zach had fit with Oden, Aldridge and Roy, that would be something to watch. If Zach went back to getting all his points off garbage . . . if he swarmed the glass while the opposing team all concentrates on Oden . . . if Aldridge doesn't prove to be what we all think he will be . . . . . . . . . . I don't know, I guess as a major investor in Blazer entertainment, I just wanted to see a little instant fruits of my labor.

In the end, I just want a winning team again, so I'll jump on board KP's magical ride and hope his ego hasn't taken over his decision making. But I was one of those who spent more than I should have after Blazers won the lottery . . . and now I have this empty feeling I just dropped a lot of cash on another rebuilding, lottery season.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Aaargh...where did my long and analytical post go? Damned computer.

since I'm not writing another book- here's what I think in a nutshell- rumor sucks! The trade sucked!

Go Blazers!!


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> I'm not sure if you're directing this at anyone in particular, but as for me, I'm not angry in the least. Initially, when I first heard of the trade, I thought we got hosed. After learning more about it and seeing how the pieces fit together, I can see the logic of what KP is trying to accomplish with this deal and I think it makes sense. In that sense, I'm a happy camper. I've never had any anger towards Zach, in fact, I actually like the guy. I'm disappointed that he's made some bad decisions that have hurt his reputation and have diminished his trade value, but I still like him and respect what he can do on the court. As for directing hostility towards fans who feel otherwise about the trade, I would just point out that you're the one who posted a "hypothetical" that implies one is a simpleton if he supports the trade. That may have been somewhat responsible for the response you got.


For the record, the comment wasn't directed at you.

As for the hypothetical - I was trying to make a point. The NBA is a game, but it is also a business.

Some fans take the attitude that once a player has worn out his welcome (in *their* minds), he must be traded immediately for whatever offer is out there. This kind of impatience is not good business. Nor is it good business to always sell low.

The hypothetical tried to cast that issue in the starkest possible terms. What's done is done. Any mistakes made during the Zach negotiations have already been made. My concern is for the NEXT time.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Oldmangrouch said:


> ...
> 
> Some fans take the attitude that once a player has worn out his welcome (in *their* minds), he must be traded immediately for whatever offer is out there. This kind of impatience is not good business. Nor is it good business to always sell low.....


two or three problems with that paragraph

for one, there are several reports that the final impetus for the trade occurred when a "prominent" blazer met with KP ostensibly representing some other teammates, and expressed concerns about zach and his impact on the team. The implication being that he was a divisive influenece. This wasn't the fans providing the push...it was zach's teammates.

and secondly your comment about "selling low" is not a fact, it's just an opinion on this one trade. It requires that the holder of the opinion has a high regard for zach's game....many blazer fans don't hold that regard and i count myself among them.

furthermore, your statement implies other instances of "selling low" on the part of KP....I'd say it's incumbent on you to elaborate on those other instances in order for that statement to have any meaning at all.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> For the record, the comment wasn't directed at you.


I also hope you weren't directing your comments at me, since I'm far from angry (I even added a smiley face to prove it!) and I always liked Zach, so I have no animosity against him either. And honestly, I didn't see any anger from anyone else. Maybe it's just the way you're reading the text, you expect anger. You are after all, an old grouch. 



Oldmangrouch said:


> As for the hypothetical - I was trying to make a point. The NBA is a game, but it is also a business.
> 
> Some fans take the attitude that once a player has worn out his welcome (in *their* minds), he must be traded immediately for whatever offer is out there. This kind of impatience is not good business. Nor is it good business to always sell low.





Oldmangrouch said:


> Why can't people grasp that this should be a *business* decision for the team?


Nothing personal, but I find it amusing that you're lecturing others about the business side of the NBA, yet you come across as completely incapable of seeing the business benefits of the Zach trade. There are many. You just happen to disagree with it, so therefore it's not good business...


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

I can understand how some are making the case that the Blazers got CF, JJ and SF for Zach. What I don't get is how is it that we got Rudy in the Zach deal. Without the Zach deal, wouldn't it have been the same as last year....$3M for a late first round pick?

Go Blazers


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BealzeeBob said:


> What I don't get is how is it that we got Rudy in the Zach deal. Without the Zach deal, wouldn't it have been the same as last year....$3M for a late first round pick?


The thinking is that Phoenix wanted more than just $3m for the pick... they wanted both the money AND to unload Jones's salary.

Without the trade exception, we could not have absorbed his salary without sending a very similar contract back.

So Phoenix actually got about $9m ($3m cash, $3m over two years on Jones' contract) for the Fernandez pick (and, of course, Jones, but they seemed to see him as a negative given their salary structure).

Ed O.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Ed O said:


> The thinking is that Phoenix wanted more than just $3m for the pick... they wanted both the money AND to unload Jones's salary.
> 
> Without the trade exception, we could not have absorbed his salary without sending a very similar contract back.
> 
> ...


furthermore, in one of their press conferences, it was eithe KP or Tom Penn who stated Phoenix wouldn't have done one without the other.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

moldorf said:


> furthermore, in one of their press conferences, it was eithe KP or Tom Penn who stated Phoenix wouldn't have done one without the other.


If that's how they phrased it, it's very odd.

Phoenix would not do EITHER deal without the other? Like keeping each of them are positives for the team (in that they wouldn't do either alone) but they WOULD do both together?

Ed O.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Ed O said:


> If that's how they phrased it, it's very odd.
> 
> Phoenix would not do EITHER deal without the other? Like keeping each of them are positives for the team (in that they wouldn't do either alone) but they WOULD do both together?
> 
> Ed O.


I'm not sure of course I quoted verbatim. The "impression" I got(and yes...I'm reading between the lines) was that there were some simultaneous converstions going on with NY and Phoenix. Phoenix was extremely reluctant to sell their 1st round draft choice for the 3rd consecutive year. They were however desperate to save money. The trade on the table with NY was zach and webster for francis and frye. Penn got the notion of swapping jones and dickau for webster to build the exception and offering that exception to Phoenix. That brought Phoenix back to the table because it saved them TWICE Jones's salary (luxury tax) plus around 7-8 million for the pick (3 million cash and relief from the guaranteed contract for 1st round pick + tax). The fairly direct implication was that the Suns weren't willing to part with the pick for 3 million, but they were willing (obviously) to part with the pick and Jones for essentially 16-18 million over 2 years and over 20 million over 3 years.

The trade exception was critical


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

ProZach said:


> Nothing personal, but I find it amusing that you're lecturing others about the business side of the NBA, yet you come across as completely incapable of seeing the business benefits of the Zach trade. There are many. You just happen to disagree with it, so therefore it's not good business...



No offense, but you are confusing 2 separate issues.

Yes, I believe it makes more sense to build thru the draft and trades than to chase future free agents. I know some folks will never agree with that POV, so let's set it aside for the moment.

Even if you agree 100% with the idea of chasing cap space, KP's tactics weren't conducive to getting the best deal.

First, why throw Zach on the market at a time when KG, Marion and JON were being shopped around? Even if you disregard Marion as a PF, that still leaves Zach a distant 3rd on other teams' shopping lists.

Second, in almost any negotiation, the winning party is the one that was willing to get up and walk away from the table first. When the other guy thinks you are desperate to make a deal, of course they are going to try to rip you off!

All of which brings us back to the original point: even in the NBA, patience can be a virtue. :bsmile:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

moldorf said:


> two or three problems with that paragraph
> 
> for one, there are several reports that the final impetus for the trade occurred when a "prominent" blazer met with KP ostensibly representing some other teammates, and expressed concerns about zach and his impact on the team. The implication being that he was a divisive influenece. This wasn't the fans providing the push...it was zach's teammates.
> 
> ...


As to your first point, there is a big difference between saying "Let's look for a trade" and saying "We MUST make a trade ASAP!" My argument is with the latter, not the former.


As for the 2nd point, no KP *personally* may not have made this mistake. How is that relevant to my statement? I can cite any number of cases where the Blazers (and NBA teams in general) HAVE made this mistake.

It is only "incumbent on me to elaborate", if you believe KP has no responsibility to learn from the mistakes of those who have held the job before him.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Oldmangrouch said:


> As to your first point, there is a big difference between saying "Let's look for a trade" and saying "We MUST make a trade ASAP!" My argument is with the latter, not the former.
> 
> 
> As for the 2nd point, no KP *personally* may not have made this mistake. How is that relevant to my statement? I can cite any number of cases where the Blazers (and NBA teams in general) HAVE made this mistake.
> ...


you're very clever at dodging the issue. I ask you again to prove the existance of any mistake before launching any more essays based on the assertion of the unspecified mistake. I'm saying no mistake was made with this trade. I'm saying that it was a good trade for portland and that some blazer fans are ridiculously overvaluing zach's value to the blazers and the rest of the teams in the league. I'm saying the reasons why KP decided draft day was the time to make this trade, and that he was backed in that decision by paul allen are superior to any vague unsupported reasons you have offered.

I'm also saying all your mini-lectures about business principles, while quaintly amusing, are not specifically relevant to the trade, because I don't believe you were a participant in the discussions between KP, PA and their staffs, nor are you able to judge whether they had compelling reasons or not. I'm also convinced that you have no ability to peer 3 or 4 years into the future and determine how all the varied components of this trade will have played out.

I know that a lot of blazer fans are still upset about this trade. Some, because they had an absurd notion of how much value zach should bring in return. And others because they had an affection for randolph and that affection blinded them to the simple fact that the chances of zach fitting in and playing well with the developing young core were almost nil.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Moldorf, you confuse your own opinion for "fact", and accuse others of having the same false certainty about the future that you show yourself. Quite ironic.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

moldorf said:


> I know that a lot of blazer fans are still upset about this trade. Some, because they had an absurd notion of how much value zach should bring in return. And others because they had an affection for randolph and that affection blinded them to the simple fact that the chances of zach fitting in and playing well with the developing young core were almost nil.



So basically any Blazer fan who is upset about the trade is absurd or blind. And you say this based on your opinion that you say is a fact, yet you jump on others for stating thier opinion to be fact????

Edit: OK DG said it better than me . . . but he usually does which is why I hate when I disagree with him. : )


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> No offense, but you are confusing 2 separate issues.
> 
> Yes, I believe it makes more sense to build thru the draft and trades than to chase future free agents. I know some folks will never agree with that POV, so let's set it aside for the moment.


I actually totally agree on your thoughts of building a team with trades/draft as opposed to free agency. In fact, I'm far from sold that this 'cap thing' will land us anything even resembling a big-time free agent in two years. 



Oldmangrouch said:


> Even if you agree 100% with the idea of chasing cap space, KP's tactics weren't conducive to getting the best deal.


But again, how do you know that? Did you sit in on all their meetings and phonecalls for the last six months? How do you know all his tactics, motivations, etc.? How do you know he didn't try other things? How do you know Zach's trade value would be better in 6 months? 12 months? 24 months? Trading Zach wasn't a spur of the moment thing. It's not like they woke up on draft day and said we have to get rid of him now, at all costs. Trading Zach rumors/wishes have been around for years, and I'm sure they've been well aware how the majority of fans view him for some time.



Oldmangrouch said:


> First, why throw Zach on the market at a time when KG, Marion and JON were being shopped around? Even if you disregard Marion as a PF, that still leaves Zach a distant 3rd on other teams' shopping lists.


Because the circumstances dictated it. When you have a 'prominent' player on your team (who figures to be one of our big 3) ask for you to trade Zach, waiting around for 6-12 months isn't going to help matters much. Especially when there's no gaurantee that the offers will improve. It also doesn't help our youth development during that time. It's too bad other bigtime big men were also being shopped at that time, but that seems to happen every offseason, and much more often than not, those big names end up staying put. Minnesota has played your patience game with Garnett for years now, hasn't really helped them much. 



Oldmangrouch said:


> Second, in almost any negotiation, the winning party is the one that was willing to get up and walk away from the table first. When the other guy thinks you are desperate to make a deal, of course they are going to try to rip you off!
> 
> All of which brings us back to the original point: even in the NBA, patience can be a virtue. :bsmile:


If teams believed we were desperate to move Zach now, with Aldridge entering his 2nd year, imagine how they'd view us later, when Aldridge is even more worthy of starting, and it becomes more public that a prominent player on our team wants Zach out? Or when his productivity declines because of Roy, Oden, and Aldridge? Or when he gets in mild trouble again?

Patience may indeed be a virtue, but in certain lines of work, having a go-getter mentality is as well. As last years draft quickly told us, Pritchard figures out who he wants, and then goes and gets them. Even if it means trading #4 and Kryapa to Chicago for the #2 and getting a player who might have been available at #4 anyways. 

It's not good to do things half-assed. I used the Minnesota/KG situation earlier. That franchise can't decide whether to rebuild or not. The Blazers have. They've almost entirely purged themselves of their past and have probably the most highly regarded youth in the league. And again, I'd at least wait and see how Frye, Jones, and Rudy pan out before saying categorically that we could have gotten more in return.

Of course that would require some... patience, of all things...


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

dudleysghost said:


> Moldorf, you confuse your own opinion for "fact", and accuse others of having the same false certainty about the future that you show yourself. Quite ironic.


nope...I'm saying right now that it's my opinion it was a good trade for portland. Right now portland's roster is better then before the trade. lol....it's certainly a fact that's my opinion.

everybody in these forums dispenses declaritive sentences based upon their opinion....you for instance have just declared me confused. I submit that is exactly the type of transposition you're accusing me of.

but if you believe what you imply by your statement, that the future is uncertain, then I'm sure you have not offered any opinions on the trade to this point since so much of it is dependant on future events. Would that be correct? You have no opinion on the trade and have made no declaritive statements about it?


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> So basically any Blazer fan who is upset about the trade is absurd or blind. And you say this based on your opinion that you say is a fact, yet you jump on others for stating thier opinion to be fact????
> 
> Edit: OK DG said it better than me . . . but he usually does which is why I hate when I disagree with him. : )


since when does some + others = all? I did not once say that what I outlined was the totality of reasons for opposition to the trade.

your reaction...make that over-reaction...is misplaced

and I responded to "DG" on the fact vs opinion thing


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

moldorf said:


> since when does some + others = all? I did not once say that what I outlined was the totality of reasons for opposition to the trade.
> 
> your reaction...make that over-reaction...is misplaced
> 
> and I responded to "DG" on the fact vs opinion thing



You're right (my bad) . . . I orginally read your post as you either don't like the trade for reason 1 or 2. Re-reading, you didn't make it exclusive to those to group (but it does read like that when reading quickly)

But you give OMG a hard time for supporting his position as though it is fact and then you say:

And others because they had an affection for randolph and that affection blinded them *to the simple fact *that the chances of zach fitting in and playing well with the developing young core were almost nil.

Sound like you'r trying to state a fact that is really your opinion. Many do, but you're accusing others of doing what you are doing.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> You're right (my bad) . . . I orginally read your post as you either don't like the trade for reason 1 or 2. Re-reading, you didn't make it exclusive to those to group (but it does read like that when reading quickly)
> 
> But you give OMG a hard time for supporting his position as though it is fact and then you say:
> 
> ...


are you suggesting that every opinion has to be prefaced with the IMO disclaimer?...that a common figure of speech ( and what you bolded is quite common) can't be used in an informal internet discussion?

in the post that got your dander up, I was responding to OMG who has repeatedly asserted a "mistake" was made. I would like him to prove the existence of the mistake as I can't discern one.

upon reflection; twice you have accused me of "Sound like you'r trying to state a fact that is really your opinion. Many do, but you're accusing others of doing what you are doing" . I re-read my post and I sure can find that specific crime, maybe I'm blind to it...would you enlighten me please?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

moldorf said:


> are you suggesting that every opinion has to be prefaced with the IMO disclaimer?...that a common figure of speech ( and what you bolded is quite common) can't be used in an informal internet discussion?



Nope, use whatever common figure of speech you want, I just found it funny you state something as a "simple fact" when I've been reading post from you saying that a poster is claiming his opinion is a fact. Come on that was pretty funny.

Just an ironic "figure of speech" to use in this circumstance . . . IMO. :biggrin:


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

ED O and Moldorf,

Thanks for the quick and thorough answers. Much appreciated.:cheers: 

I'm glad they didn't send Zach and Webster for Fry and Francis....I might thrown the remote through the TV screen. I about went off the deep end as it was, with ZR, DD and FJ for those two.

All in all, I can live with the final package we got for Zach (like it really matters), but I still think we might have done better by waiting.

I don't know for a fact Zach would bring more, but consider a scenario where a playoff team is approaching the trade deadline, when their starting PF is seriously injured. Not that far-fetched, and the Blazers would be in a better bargaining position, imo.

I have to say, the Suns considering Jones a negative at $3M per isn't too comforting. I wonder if KP sees something in Jones that the Suns don't, or if he just wanted Rudy bad enough to risk taking on a (smallish) bad contract? Guess we'll see.

Go Blazers


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

moldorf said:


> are you suggesting that every opinion has to be prefaced with the IMO disclaimer?...that a common figure of speech ( and what you bolded is quite common) can't be used in an informal internet discussion?
> 
> in the post that got your dander up, I was responding to OMG who has repeatedly asserted a "mistake" was made. I would like him to prove the existence of the mistake as I can't discern one.


You are certainly free to refer to your opinion as "fact" and then deride others for not being able to "prove" their opinions and assertions about the future, if that's what you want to do. I'm suggesting that it sounds hypocritical, but not that anything "has to be" done about it.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Nope, use whatever common figure of speech you want, I just found it funny you state something as a "simple fact" when I've been reading post from you saying that a poster is claiming his opinion is a fact. Come on that was pretty funny.
> 
> Just an ironic "figure of speech" to use in this circumstance . . . IMO. :biggrin:


ok...I could respond or concede the point if I knew specifically what it is your were referring to


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

BealzeeBob said:


> I have to say, the Suns considering Jones a negative at $3M per isn't too comforting. I wonder if KP sees something in Jones that the Suns don't, or if he just wanted Rudy bad enough to risk taking on a (smallish) bad contract? Guess we'll see.


It's not that Jones has a bad contract, it's just that the Suns have orders from management to reduce salary, because they have a relatively cheap owner. Jones earned his money, but they had to dump someone to reduce their tax payments. We gave them not only immediate salary and tax relief, but cash as well, and that was enough for their owner to approve. I bet secretly inside Mike D'Antoni resents how strict Sarver is about the lux tax threshold.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

dudleysghost said:


> You are certainly free to refer to your opinion as "fact" and then deride others for not being able to "prove" their opinions and assertions about the future, if that's what you want to do. I'm suggesting that it sounds hypocritical, but not that anything "has to be" done about it.


ok....we're getting somewhere now.

I will assume your emphasis on "prove" is referring to my request for OMG to prove the existence of a mistake. Read his posts, he's not referring to the future. He's saying...or at least resolutely implying the mistake has been made. I'm not asking him to prove a damn thing about the future. I want to know what the mistake is that has already been made.

You've twisted what I said and you have used the end product of the twist to accuse me of appearing hypocritical, that's "sounds" dishonest.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

BealzeeBob said:


> ....
> I have to say, the Suns considering Jones a negative at $3M per isn't too comforting. I wonder if KP sees something in Jones that the Suns don't, or if he just wanted Rudy bad enough to risk taking on a (smallish) bad contract? Guess we'll see.
> 
> Go Blazers


actually, since the suns are in luxury tax hell, Jones's remaining 6 million dollars will cost them 12 million, or 6 million per.

and the draft pick would have the same adjusted impact. I'm not sure what the guaranteed contract for the 24th pick is, but assuming over the next 2 year it's say..2.5 million, then doubling that and adding in 3 million that portland paid for the pick it's 8 million.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

moldorf said:


> ok...I could respond or concede the point if I knew specifically what it is your were referring to


"and secondly your comment about "selling low" is not a fact, it's just an opinion on this one trade"

"The idea that portland could have found something better in 6 months is totally unsupported by anything but emotion"

"I'm also convinced that you have no ability to peer 3 or 4 years into the future and determine how all the varied components of this trade will have played out"


I read your posts as you calling posters out because they can't prove their opinion. If you didn't mean for it to read like that, then maybe I'm misreading your posts. 

I guess another "over-reaction" by me.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> It's not that Jones has a bad contract, it's just that the Suns have orders from management to reduce salary, because they have a relatively cheap owner. Jones earned his money, but they had to dump someone to reduce their tax payments. We gave them not only immediate salary and tax relief, but cash as well, and that was enough for their owner to approve. I bet secretly inside Mike D'Antoni resents how strict Sarver is about the lux tax threshold.



I agree with a lot of this. But I don't see D'Antoni being upset with this particular trade because it could be viewed that they exchanged Jones for Hill and got Portland to "foot" the bill to "boot"

Unless D'Antoni saw a #24 who could contribute right away . . . I think coaches look even more short term than fans.

But I agree, and have previously stated, Jones contract isn't bad and currently the Blazers need a consistent SF . . . (assuming JJ a consistent SF)


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> "and secondly your comment about "selling low" is not a fact, it's just an opinion on this one trade"


he was specifically referring to the trade, and that KP could have got more...if he didn't sell low. It is an opinion, not a fact

but I will concede the point on that one



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> "The idea that portland could have found something better in 6 months is totally unsupported by anything but emotion"
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm also convinced that you have no ability to peer 3 or 4 years into the future and determine how all the varied components of this trade will have played out"


those don't fit your criticism....I'm not claiming to prognosticate the future, just pointing out that nobody else can either

One future will never happen and will never be known. 

The other future will and that's the one that will add or detract from the quality of this trade for portland




Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I read your posts as you calling posters out because they can't prove their opinion. If you didn't mean for it to read like that, then maybe I'm misreading your posts.
> 
> I guess another "over-reaction" by me.


I believe I only requested one item of proof...the mistake that KP is supposed to have made. Mistake has a fairly specific meaning. So does proof. So yes, you're misreading my posts if you think I required proof of anything else.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

moldorf said:


> he was specifically referring to the trade, and that KP could have got more...if he didn't sell low. It is an opinion, not a fact
> 
> but I will concede the point on that one
> 
> ...


Yea, I'll take your one concession :biggrin: . . . and I will try to read your post slower and more carefully in the future.

FYI-it's not just your posts . . . I read quickly to try and get the gist of the post without spending too many hours on this board.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Yea, I'll take your one concession :biggrin: . . . and I will try to read your post slower and more carefully in the future.
> 
> FYI-it's not just your posts . . . I read quickly to try and get the gist of the post without spending too many hours on this board.


Awright... get a room, you two.



PBF


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

moldorf said:


> ok....we're getting somewhere now.
> 
> I will assume your emphasis on "prove" is referring to my request for OMG to prove the existence of a mistake. Read his posts, he's not referring to the future. He's saying...or at least resolutely implying the mistake has been made. I'm not asking him to prove a damn thing about the future. I want to know what the mistake is that has already been made.
> 
> You've twisted what I said and you have used the end product of the twist to accuse me of appearing hypocritical, that's "sounds" dishonest.


OMG claimed that trading Zach was a mistake (truth to be proved or disproved more or less in the future), which you somehow found fault with simply because it wasn't "fact". That's how I claimed, quite honestly, that you were willing to deride others for not being able to 'prove' their opinions and assertions about the future.

As for the mistake that had been made, OMG already amended his previous statement that the "mistake" made wasn't Pritchard's directly, but rather simply the common mistake of "selling low", for which you conceded the point.

You also previously called something a "simple fact" that was in fact, not a fact. You can play it off by calling that a figure of speech, but the word "fact" has a literal meaning in this context, which should have been especially apparent when you were berating someone else for supposedly confusing fact with opinion. For all your nitpicking, I don't think you've found anything of yours that I actually twisted around.

And I'm going to also have to disagree with your first sentence as well. I don't think this conversation is getting us _anywhere_, other than the place where you prove I can be suckered into the most inane possible conversation... LOL


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I agree with a lot of this. But I don't see D'Antoni being upset with this particular trade because it could be viewed that they exchanged Jones for Hill and got Portland to "foot" the bill to "boot"
> 
> Unless D'Antoni saw a #24 who could contribute right away . . . I think coaches look even more short term than fans.
> 
> But I agree, and have previously stated, Jones contract isn't bad and currently the Blazers need a consistent SF . . . (assuming JJ a consistent SF)


Yeah, D'Antoni is a coach, so he probably sees little past next year. But after last season, when his top 7 players pooped out in the playoffs, I bet he would love to have more depth on his team. Having guys like James Jones, Stephen Hunter, Sergio, Q-Rich, Tim Thomas... they aren't great, but they could each have helped the Suns next year IMO, if Sarver was willing to bust the cap. Hopefully for D'antoni's sake, he doesn't keep that at the top of his mind... :cheers:


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> As for the mistake that had been made, OMG already amended his previous statement that the "mistake" made wasn't Pritchard's directly, but rather simply the common mistake of "selling low", for which you conceded the point.


Stat-wise it was Randolphs best year. How is that selling low? Maybe it just so happens that even his 'high' market-value isn't what most of us wanted/thought it would be.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

dudleysghost said:


> OMG claimed that trading Zach was a mistake (truth to be proved or disproved more or less in the future), which you somehow found fault with simply because it wasn't "fact". That's how I claimed, quite honestly, that you were willing to deride others for not being able to 'prove' their opinions and assertions about the future.


show me where I ever asked anybody to prove assertions about the future. 

If you care for the "facts" what OMG said was:

"Some *fans* take the attitude that once a player has worn out his welcome (in *their* minds), he must be traded immediately for whatever offer is out there. This kind of impatience is *not good business*. Nor is it good business to *always sell low*....."

he then went on to morph what some hypothetical fans desired into what KP actually did and classified it as a mistake because somehow KP had violated business principles. The fans, hypothetical or not, didn't make this trade. The GM did, and bouncing back and forth between the reasoning of make-believe fans and the motivations of the Blazer FO while trying to weld them together is either subterfuge or bad reasoning.

That isn't some generic opinion offered about the future but rather a specific criticism about past action and I still want to know what the mistake was.

all your attempts to distort what I said doesn't change that.



dudleysghost said:


> As for the mistake that had been made, OMG already amended his previous statement that the "mistake" made wasn't Pritchard's directly, but rather simply the common mistake of "selling low", for which you conceded the point.


that's BS. I didn't concede any point OMG made, especially about the "selling low". I conceded darius's claim that sometimes, I...like everybody else here....state things as fact that is simply opinion.



dudleysghost said:


> You also previously called something a "simple fact" that was in fact, not a fact. You can play it off by calling that a figure of speech, but the word "fact" has a literal meaning in this context,


do you have any proof that it wasn't a figure of speech? If you don't, then your little lecture about literal meaning is...meaningless.

I say it was a figure of speech and since i was the author I can speak with some authority.



dudleysghost said:


> . For all your nitpicking, I don't think you've found anything of yours that I actually twisted around.


LOL...no, except of course just about everthing you've interpreted me as having said.

and you're busy picking your share of nits as well.



dudleysghost said:


> And I'm going to also have to disagree with your first sentence as well. I don't think this conversation is getting us _anywhere_, other than the place where you prove I can be suckered into the most inane possible conversation... LOL


LOL back atcha....as if I haven't seen this ploy before in internet discussion. Somebody, gets in a series of digs and insults, and then expresses dismay that they have stooped so low as to engage in the inanity...after all they are better then this...they have better things to do....it's beneath them...but only after trying to get in the last word of course.

careful now...don't get suckered again. Maintain your dignity and walk away!....:cheers:


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

moldorf said:


> show me where I ever asked anybody to prove assertions about the future.


You asked someone to prove that a recent trade was a mistake. It's not possible to even discuss it, much less prove it, without projecting the future of the players involved. Past performance doesn't matter in evaluating a trade, future performance does. 

barfo


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> It's not that Jones has a bad contract, it's just that the Suns have orders from management to reduce salary, because they have a relatively cheap owner. Jones earned his money, but they had to dump someone to reduce their tax payments. We gave them not only immediate salary and tax relief, but cash as well, and that was enough for their owner to approve. I bet secretly inside Mike D'Antoni resents how strict Sarver is about the lux tax threshold.


Yeah, Hoopshype shows the Suns 07/08 payroll at about $76M. I didn't realize that their owner was willing to pay any lux tax. I can see where the savings and cash from moving Jones might look pretty good to him.

Sometimes I loose sight of the fact that not all owners are like ours. When Paul is lov'n the team, I don't think money matters too much, judging from the way he's been spending, and positioning himself to spend a TON when/if the times comes. Man, it's nice to have a good owner.

Go Blazers


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

moldorf said:


> show me where I ever asked anybody to prove assertions about the future.
> 
> If you care for the "facts" what OMG said was:
> 
> ...


It's not a ploy dude. I really am honestly dismayed that I got suckered into this line of conversation. Read into it whatever you want. Do I have proof that when you say "fact" you weren't using a figure of speech? Uhhh... yeah whatever. Great convo there... :raised_ey 

Anyway, all I'm saying is that you seem to have habit of calling people out for not using "facts" or having "proof" when they never claimed to, and that's especially striking when you call your own opinion "fact" (figure of speech or not).

I'm sure you've seen all sorts of rhetorical gymnastics in various internet forums, but since you appeared to be new to this one, I just wanted to tell you that it seems like you're just looking for the tiniest things to argue about. Not that others don't frequently do that here, but it isn't the norm. Keep it up, and your bound to run into more pointless conversations with people like me, who feel the need to inform you of how unfair your criticism appears. If that's what you want, that's fine, but I honestly don't see why you'd want that. You probably don't care what I think anymore, except for the opportunities it provides for you to argue with something, but I just wanted to share my unproven opinion FWIW.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

ProZach said:


> Stat-wise it was Randolphs best year. How is that selling low? Maybe it just so happens that even his 'high' market-value isn't what most of us wanted/thought it would be.


It's arguable. My thinking is that Zach is worth more than an (eventually) expiring contract and a soft big man, and that he would have raised his "market value" next year by posting fewer ppg, but more apg and a higher FG% next year. He also would raise his value just by putting up the same stas while being on a team that is winning and with national exposure, rather than losing and virtually unknown nationwide. The latter is the same reason IMO why Steve Blake was a no-name after his year in Portland but a hot PG commodity after putting up nearly the same numbers in half a season in Denver. I'm thinking that if Zach just kept playing the same as he was last season, or better yet played like he did his last month of the season (3.9apg in March), his value would go up just because he would be doing it for a better team and proving his consistency.

I also believe that talent-wise, we could have gotten more for Zach _now_. There's no way to know for sure what deals Pritchard was allegedly offered, but I think he took the one he did for the salary relief more than the talent, and I'd bet there were offers with more talent coming back to us than Channing Frye, but it would have had more salary attached. There's a lot of different ways of estimating "value", and potential future cap room is worth something, but from a talent standpoint it looks like we lost out big. Maybe we'll get a great free agent in 2009 though, and there won't be any doubt that we made the right choice. Or, maybe Zach will play great the next few years, make an all-star team or two and show the league that he has a lot more value than they previously believed. Or, maybe both will happen.

I'm not totally unhappy with the trade, but it's a risk. Instead of taking or waiting to take a trade with an expensive proven talent coming back, we opted for the mystery free agent prize behind door number 2009. If we're fortunate and smart, it might work out very well.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

barfo said:


> *You asked someone to prove that a recent trade was a mistake. *It's not possible to even discuss it, much less prove it, without projecting the future of the players involved. Past performance doesn't matter in evaluating a trade, future performance does.
> 
> barfo


NO....I did not

I asked someone to prove what the mistake was KP had made. He was talking about business principle's like market timing and such. When I pressed, he then backpedaled and said that *maybe* KP hadn't made a mistake but, you know, other GM's had.

Of course if KP hadn't made any of the mistakes that he'd spent so much time talking about, then there was no relevance to the Zach trade.

Anyway, if you're going to tell me what I said, you should try to get it right.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

dudleysghost said:


> It's not a ploy dude. I really am honestly dismayed that I got suckered into this line of conversation. Read into it whatever you want. Do I have proof that when you say "fact" you weren't using a figure of speech? Uhhh... yeah whatever. Great convo there... :raised_ey


sheeeesh...what I was referring to...in an exchange with someone else...was a sentence in which I didn't say "fact", but said "simple fact". The 'fact' that you omitted half of the phrase in characterizing what I said, and followed by implying I'm a liar leads me to conclude that "simple" honesty is either beyond your comprehension or not your intent



dudleysghost said:


> Anyway, all I'm saying is that you seem to have habit of calling people out for not using "facts" or having "proof" when they never claimed to, and that's especially striking when you call your own opinion "fact" (figure of speech or not).


habit? I asked Darius to list instances of that exact 'sin' that I had commited. He came up with one. Perhaps since you have now classified it as a habit, you'd care to show me other such errors on my part.

to paraphrase your pompous line..habit has literal meaning in this context.

you said in one of your posts in this thread:

"We got worse with the Zach trade in the short run. He would've continued to play well next year and probably could have gotten us more direct talent value in trade than the relatively little we got."

several declaritive statemnts, all of them unprovable, and no disclaimer by you of opinion only. I guess my "habit" needs some refining since I didn't challenge you on those statements...none of which I agree with.

I got engaged in this thread because someone was talking about business principles and managerial mistakes at the same time he was listing "desires" of hypothetical fans and trying to attach it all to Pritchard and this trade. I thought it was BS and I still do. Your attacks on my character because of a couple of rhetorical phrases I've used haven't changed that.



dudleysghost said:


> I'm sure you've seen all sorts of rhetorical gymnastics in various internet forums, but since you appeared to be new to this one, I just wanted to tell you that it seems like you're just looking for the tiniest things to argue about. Not that others don't frequently do that here, but it isn't the norm. Keep it up, and your bound to run into more pointless conversations with people like me, who feel the need to inform you of how unfair your criticism appears. If that's what you want, that's fine, but I honestly don't see why you'd want that. You probably don't care what I think anymore, except for the opportunities it provides for you to argue with something, but I just wanted to share my unproven opinion FWIW.


well...thanks for sharing?...is that what you expect?

above you said :

"I really am honestly dismayed that I got suckered into this line of conversation."

I understand that. However you keep coming back and instead of trying to disengage you take things out of context, distort what I say, and insult me. In a previous post you called me a hypocrite, in this one you imply I'm a liar. I don't believe you when you say you're "dismayed" by this exchange...if you did you'd scale back the personal rhetoric directed at me and leave at 'we agree to disagree'. And that's what I will do because unlike you I actually am weary of beating this dead horse.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

moldorf said:


> NO....I did not
> 
> I asked someone to prove what the mistake was KP had made. He was talking about business principle's like market timing and such. When I pressed, he then backpedaled and said that *maybe*KP hadn't made a mistake but, you know, other GM's had.


What you said was this:



moldorf said:


> furthermore, your statement implies other instances of "selling low" on the part of KP....I'd say it's incumbent on you to elaborate on those other instances in order for that statement to have any meaning at all.


So, what were you talking about if you weren't talking about trading? Is there some other way KP can "sell low"? 

barfo


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

barfo said:


> What you said was this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


and where in that did I say "prove" there was a "mistake"?

some people have called me to task in this thread for being imprecise in my use of language. Your first post said "prove" and "mistake" with those two terms being the basis for your dispute. 

Now to buttress your argument, you post a quote of mine where niether word was used. 

I would point out, that when I pressed on this specific point, the original poster backed-off in his assertion, at least in relation to the Blazer FO. When I said "prove" and "mistake" they were used specifically and directly in the context of managerial moves made by KP and in the context of some amorphous business principles he may or may not have violated in this particular trade. You may want to argue their wider meaning but that was never my intent.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

moldorf said:


> and where in that did I say "prove" there was a "mistake"?
> 
> some people have called me to task in this thread for being imprecise in my use of language. Your first post said "prove" and "mistake" with those two terms being the basis for your dispute.
> 
> Now to buttress your argument, you post a quote of mine where niether word was used.


Yes, I realize that you didn't use those exact words in that quote. And I realize that some people not named barfo may have called you to task in this thread for imprecise language. That's not germane to the discussion you and I are having. 



> I would point out, that when I pressed on this specific point, the original poster backed-off in his assertion, at least in relation to the Blazer FO.


And that's totally irrelevant to the discussion you and I are having. 



> When I said "prove" and "mistake" they were used specifically and directly in the context of managerial moves made by KP and in the context of some amorphous business principles he may or may not have violated in this particular trade. You may want to argue their wider meaning but that was never my intent.


The first time you used the words prove and mistake in this thread was here:



moldorf said:


> I ask you again to prove the existance of any mistake before launching any more essays based on the assertion of the unspecified mistake. I'm saying no mistake was made with this trade.


What does the word "again" in that statement refer to? I thought it was a reference to the text I quoted earlier:



moldorf said:


> furthermore, your statement implies other instances of "selling low" on the part of KP....I'd say it's incumbent on you to elaborate on those other instances in order for that statement to have any meaning at all.


So, it would seem that you are objecting to my characterization of the quote above as asking for proof of a mistake, but it seems to me you characterized it that way yourself. Or did I miss a post somewhere?

barfo


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

barfo said:


> Yes, I realize that you didn't use those exact words in that quote. And I realize that some people not named barfo may have called you to task in this thread for imprecise language. That's not germane to the discussion you and I are having.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL...basically, what you and Dudley are attacking me for is stating as fact that which is only my opinion.

Now you categorically state some things are not relevant and some things are not germane. Seems quite similar to my supposed crime, and it won't surprise you when I say I reject your notions of what is relevant or germane. However it's possible that moderators here have a transcendant power I'm not aware of.

Another transgression I've been accused of (besides hypocracy and lying) is nitpicking. IMO, Dudley and you are leading the league right now in nitpicking. It wouldn't surprise me, by the way, if one of you objects to my use of that sports metaphor.

I leave it to you guys to nitpick till you're blue. You're free to view that as having "won" the argument if you choose. You're also free to stir the lint around in your own navel without my participation.

Returning to a larger issue: In my view, as it stands right now, portland got the better of this trade. In the future, I believe it will be viewed even more favorably. And IMO, people who pretend they know the full reasoning and motivations of the blazer FO on the particulars of this trade are simply pulling things out of their sphincters.

But then, some people liked zach as a player, and some believe he could have fetched more value in return. I never shared those views, before or after the trade.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

moldorf said:


> LOL...basically, what you and Dudley are attacking me for is stating as fact that which is only my opinion.


Nah. I was attacking you (if you want to call it that) for a statement that I believe was incorrect - that you hadn't asked anyone to prove things about the future. 



> Now you categorically state some things are not relevant and some things are not germane. Seems quite similar to my supposed crime, and it won't surprise you when I say I reject your notions of what is relevant or germane. However it's possible that moderators here have a transcendant power I'm not aware of.


The fact that I'm a moderator is also not germane to this discussion. I'm also shorter than Greg Oden, perhaps we should work that in somehow. 



> Another transgression I've been accused of (besides hypocracy and lying) is nitpicking. IMO, Dudley and you are leading the league right now in nitpicking. It wouldn't surprise me, by the way, if one of you objects to my use of that sports metaphor.


The metaphor doesn't bother me any. Nor does the accusation of nitpicking. 



> I leave it to you guys to nitpick till you're blue. You're free to view that as having "won" the argument if you choose.


Indeed, I shall.



> Returning to a larger issue: In my view, as it stands right now, portland got the better of this trade. In the future, I believe it will be viewed even more favorably. And IMO, people who pretend they know the full reasoning and motivations of the blazer FO on the particulars of this trade are simply pulling things out of their sphincters.
> 
> But then, some people liked zach as a player, and some believe he could have fetched more value in return. I never shared those views, before or after the trade.


That's fine with me. Others may want to argue some of those topics, but I don't. 

barfo


----------

