Thread Tools

Display Modes

ebott · 03-10-2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hap

can someone seriously give a reason why nash will be fired?

what exactly has he done that would warrant it?

He signed on to be the scapegoat when the three goal rebuilding process failed misserably. Three goals.

1. Improve Character (Miserable failure. Darius and Zach are just as bad as Bonzi and Rasheed)
2. Remain competetive
3. Reduce spending. (This is the only one of these that has actually been improved. But not enough for my taste)

**Dan** · 03-10-2006, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebott

He signed on to be the scapegoat when the three goal rebuilding process failed misserably. Three goals.

1. Improve Character (Miserable failure. Darius and Zach are just as bad as Bonzi and Rasheed)

I don't think Zach is just as bad as a "character" as Sheed and Bonzi were.

Quote:

2. Remain competetive

within the confines of not over-spending. To remain competeitive, tehy would've had to spend a lot more than the team was willing to, and take on talent they didn't deem worth spending for.

and please don't bring up carter as if thats proof of someone they could've had had they been willing to spend money. That argument has been done to death, and no matter how many times Rod Thorn's quote is brought up, no one will believe it because it means that maybe they don't know all.

Quote:

3. Reduce spending. (This is the only one of these that has actually been improved. But not enough for my taste)

If there's ever an example of fans needing patience, it's right now. Either that, or start realizing that the team is what it is, and not rooting for/pining for/*****ing about the players they don't have/didn't draft/didn't trade for.

chromekilla · 03-10-2006, 04:01 PM

Thats good.

Utherhimo · 03-10-2006, 04:32 PM

would u rather have zeke?

mook · 03-10-2006, 04:33 PM

I guess by Hap's reasoning, the surest way for any GM to make sure he doesn't get fired is to draft kids as young as possible. That way you have at least three years of guaranteed job security, because hey, you have to have patience.

Anyway, aside from our horrific record, I'd say passing on Chris Paul is enough of a reason to fire Nash.

toutlaw25 · 03-10-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hap

Firing him because WE'RE impatient isn't a valid reason. Maybe we should fire Nate, afterall, the teams' record will more than likely be worse than last years.

That's makes absolutely no sense in respect to what Nash has done to this team.

**Dan** · 03-10-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theWanker

I guess by Hap's reasoning, the surest way for any GM to make sure he doesn't get fired is to draft kids as young as possible. That way you have at least three years of guaranteed job security, because hey, you have to have patience.

Let's say you're the owner. And even though I know your first response would be that you wouldn't have done this, buet let's say you did agree to do a rebuild. You knew that the team would take a while to rebuild, and get really good (it's not like you can act like Nash and Patterson and Pritchard haven't said that this will taketime).

So you allow your GM and President to draft certain players who are younger, and you agree to their selections (whether or not YOU, TW the poster and not TW the owner, agree doesn't matter). You realize that it'll take a while for these guys to mature and show their worth, and are willing to take them over maybe "better" talent now, because you think they'll make a better team later.

You realize that patience is needed, and that it'll take time.

So after the first real season of having a team made up mostly of your GM's players (with the exception of 2), knowing full well that A: the team is young and will struggle B: it's what you agree'd to do and C: you wanted to go this route...The next step in the stair-case is to replace the GM with a new guy?

The thing is, replacing Nash isn't going to change much, unless they totally and completely go away from what they're doing (meaning, clean house management wise). And what exactly would that do?

Make the small # of fans who actually know enough about the management happy? Thats a stupid way to run a team.

Lets say they do let Nash go and appoint pritchard as the GM. What exactly is he going to do different? All the sudden our players are going to mature a whole lot faster? Our pick is going to be a whole lot better? Not likely.

Only allowing those players to mature as players, and not heaping unrealistic expectations on them will.

Am I saying that Nash is the best GM? Nope. But that considering the parameters of the teams situation (ESPECIALLY considering them) it's not like another GM could've done a whole lot more.

Could he have done the carter trade where we gave up more and took back more $$ in return? sure..but only if Patterson and Paul Allen ok'd it..and obviously they didn't.

Also, there's a huge unknown about how Webster and Jack will turn out/turn into, and how much it plays into the "mistake of not taking Paul". Also, the comparison between what they could've gotten for Paul or Telfair in trade, had they drafted Paul and traded him or Telfair, in relation to the future worth of Webster and Jack.

In a nutshell, patience is key. Not "3-4 years patience", but the realization that you're comparing a shiney new apple that the neighbor has, without allowing your own tree to bear fruits first.

While it's true you run the risk of getting a Tyson Chandler instead of keeping Elton Brand type situation, you also run the chance of having a very good outside shooter who could become one of the best deep shooters in the game.

it's a risk you knowingly take, and don't freak out after 1 year if it's not exactly how you want it to be, or as "good as" someone elses situation.

Quote:

Anyway, aside from our horrific record, I'd say passing on Chris Paul is enough of a reason to fire Nash.

yah, because paul is better *now*. How about in 3-5 years? What happens if Webster and Telfair (as a combo) make this team really great?

why, because "I don't see" Webster as being an "all star" and it's certain that Paul will be?

Foulzilla · 03-10-2006, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theWanker

I guess by Hap's reasoning, the surest way for any GM to make sure he doesn't get fired is to draft kids as young as possible.

Worked for Elgin Baylor!

Ed O · 03-10-2006, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hap

You realize that patience is needed, and that it'll take time.

Actually, I see that our plan to remain competitive, which was one of the three points that I hired Nash to fulfill, has gone by the wayside. I see a team stacked with mediocre prospects that don't match the style of play of the coach that I just hired.

I know that losing teams tend to keep losing, and I know that good GMs tend to win.

Nash has lost wherever he's been previously, so it's not like it's a surprise that he's failed to keep his team in the playoffs in Portland.

Hap, you seem to think that GMs don't make a difference. In which case, why SHOULDN'T the team simply let him walk away and hire someone cheaper? Or someone younger, like Pritchard, who might prove himself into a great GM (which you admit Nash is not)?

Ed O.

**Dan** · 03-10-2006, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed O

Hap, you seem to think that GMs don't make a difference. In which case, why SHOULDN'T the team simply let him walk away and hire someone cheaper? Or someone younger, like Pritchard, who might prove himself into a great GM (which you admit Nash is not)?

Ed O.

because to me, it's like trading a 2002 Chevrolet Truck for a 2003 GMC Pickup, when you already have that GMC pickup and don't need to get rid of the 2002.

If they do get rid of Nash and keep Pritchard, I doubt much will change. If you're going to change GM's, it should be because you want to go in a new direction. Not because you're short sighted and want a change not even mid-way through the current change.

Ed O · 03-10-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hap

If they do get rid of Nash and keep Pritchard, I doubt much will change. If you're going to change GM's, it should be because you want to go in a new direction. Not because you're short sighted and want a change not even mid-way through the current change.

I consider this less about patience and more about failure. There's NO REASON to sign Nash to a new contract. It's rewarding incompetence.

Ed O.

BlazerCaravan · 03-10-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed O

I consider this less about patience and more about failure. There's NO REASON to sign Nash to a new contract. It's rewarding incompetence.

Ed O.

While I may or may not agree with the last sentence based on my changing level of drunkeness, I agree we shouldn't resign Nash. And I don't think we will, simply because he's made the moves that -- in Paul Allen's mind -- needed to be made. Nash's purpose has been served. He's made Allen's moves, he's the goat. Now, the Blazers can move on, hire another GM, and move forward with the rebuilding plan. I make no warranties as to whether Allen's plan is perfect or totally flawed.

**Dan** · 03-10-2006, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed O

I consider this less about patience and more about failure. There's NO REASON to sign Nash to a new contract. It's rewarding incompetence.

Ed O.

depends on what you are expecting out of the GM (as the owner).

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes