ebott

Kind of makes me hope that the new owners will keep Nash on so we can see how he'd do without the cloud of Paul Allen hanging over him. Not like I'd expect much since Nash has been so unsuccessful everywhere else he's been. But it'd be kind of neat.

SheedSoNasty

It's interesting that you mention that drafting those players were just "decent moves" yet it is a FACT that he's done more harm than good. Both are very subjective issues and are definitely not factual points, but if you consider what Nash was working with in terms of reworking team salary and having Paul Allen shoot down trade after trade, he hasn't done a bad job at all.

__________________
We Believe In Brandon Roy (PM to Join!):

~ SheedSoNasty ~ BlazeTop ~ handclap problematic ~ Draco ~ Target ~ drexlersdad ~ Stugots ~ PhilK ~ bruindre ~ ehizzy3 ~ dwood615 ~ GottahaveyourPAUGASOL ~ Benis007 ~ dudleysghost ~ TheBigDonut ~ MAS Rip City ~ Blazers2121 ~ Trailblazed&Confused ~ ProudBFan ~ Utherhimo ~ Stanthecaddy22 ~ ThePrideOfClyde ~ Talkhard ~ Blazer Freak ~ LameR ~ OnTheRocks ~ BiggaAdams~ ptownblazer1 ~ B_&_B ~ ChadWick ~ World B. Free

BBert

It has been my impression that Nash has operated within the guidelines, parameters, and directives set out for him. Based on that assumption, it seems to me he's done a pretty good job. Is he GM of the year? Not. Neither is Kiki.

The Theo/Zach/Darius contracts seem completely unlike Nash moves, so I also don't hold him even remotely responsible for those.

Without getting into the "Paul" argument, I think Nash has done a pretty good job on draft day. I'm still excited by his draft picks and remain hopeful they are a good starting point for rebuilding this team.

I've seen no evidence Kiki would do a better job than Nash has done. Nash still strikes me as a hard bargainer, with a good eye for talent. I like that. I like Pritchard too.

The Blazers have made a lot of tough moves (and non-moves), many that I hated, to purposely tear down the team to build it back up with a specific philosophy and strategy in mind. It seems crazy to me to essentially abandon the current mind-set and strategy, and switch gears AGAIN with a new GM at the helm, just when the team is poised to start moving forward.

Unless we can get Petrie, or someone at least as good, I'd just as soon stay the course with Nash a little longer. If he gets another top draft pick next year, and Oden or another gem falls into his lap, in a couple of years people will be talking about what a genius Nash is.

__________________
In KP I trust.

STOMP

what facts are you speaking of B&B?

To the best of my knowledge, other then Canzano crap and like speculations, we haven't been privy to anything solid that points to Paul Allen making the calls on those deals. I'd love it if you could shed some light on that grey area, but I'm pretty sure you're just accepting speculations (from those with an extremely poor track record) as fact. While that may be good enough for you, I'd hope you can understand why others are not so trusting.

STOMP

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaQprMCe20A&NR=1

ProudBFan

Nash is just one piece of the Blazers' decision-making machine (along with Allen, Patterson, Pritchard, and now Nate). I can't think of a single move that's been made since his arrival that wasn't concocted or - at the very least - approved by the rest of the decision-makers.

Therefore, Nash can't take all the praise for moves that have turned out to be "good" moves. Nor can he tak all the blame for moves that have turned out to be "bad" moves. Also, a good number of moves that have been made under his watch have yet to be determined as "good" or "bad" (although most generally seem to feel that bringing in Sebastian, Jack, Blake, and Przybilla will turn out to be "good" moves, and that dumping money on Zach, Theo, and Darius will turn out to be "bad" moves).

So, what has Nash really done for the Blazers? Would the Blazers not be in the same situation - and with the same roster - with someone else sitting in Nash's chair? In other words, as long as the rest of the decision-making machine stays put, does it really matter whether Nash or someone else plays the role of GM? I don't think so.

HOWEVER, if Allen sells the team, and for whatever reason the new owner decides to break up the decision-making machine, THEN I think it will matter a TON who is sitting in that chair, manning that phone. That guy will need to have his finger on the pulse of today's NBA, its players, and the other GM's around the league. He will also need to have the cojones to make decisions - sometimes risky ones - that will have long-ranging impact on the team and all those who care about it.

So assuming ownership, presidency, scouting, and coaching don't change, I don't see that it matters whether Nash or someone else is GM. But if Allen sells the team, I don't *think* Nash is the right guy.

But then again, we can't really tell can we.

THAT's the problem.

PBF

__________________

wastro

I think something that's been overlooked in the Nash situation is that, if someone like Porter (who doesn't have a ton of money to throw away like PA) took over the team, Nash would fit in ... kinda.

Nash brought in Blake, Joel and Juan as role players - collectively, they made $5 million last year. It would be hard to argue that any of those players has been a "bust," considering what they made. It's the whole "bang for your buck" argument: overachievers making next to nothing vs. high-paid underachievers.

So with financial constraints, Nash has demonstrated he's able to bring in key role players. That ability to sign guys on the cheap and get the most out of them will help him out tremendously if and when he leaves Portland, especially as GMs realize that teams like SA and Detroit don't ride the back of one dominant superstar.

Nash would fit in if Terry ended up taking over; he doesn't have Allen's millions to throw away, so Nash's skills (bringing in good guys on the cheap) would be used best in that situation.

That said, role players don't win championships. Nor do they lead your team to .500. Millions were committed to three "stars" who were supposed to lead Portland back to glory. And there are all kinds of reports out there that Nash didn't have the final say in those signings.

If Nash wasn't overruled by the Three Amigos, I think this team would be in a much better position to win. With new management around him, Nash could probably be an effective GM. But, with new management not looking likely in the near future, he's as good as gone, and it doesn't matter who gets brought in to replace him - Kiki, Petrie, Pritchard or Isiah Thomas.

Patterson and Allen, as long as they're at the top, will look for guys who share their vision, NOT "Moneyball" devotees.

tlong

Not drafting Al Jefferson or Chris Paul? Not so good.

Dan

when jefferson shows he's more worthy of the 13th pick, maybe someone will take your claim seriously.

__________________
A Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and says "Make me one with everything".

when will the loss of life end?

The world respects the power of our example, not an example of our power.

I'd like to say I made this, but I didn't

gambitnut

Nice post overall, but I'm wondering if these sentences don't contridict eachother a little bit?

__________________
Have an old computer you don't need anymore? If you live in or near Portland, Oregon, Chicago, Illinois, Columbus, Ohio, South Bend, Indiana, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, Orlando, Florida, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota or Keokuk, Iowa, Free Geek can help! For the first time, There are even two Free Geek locations starting up in Canada, in Vancouver, British Columbia and Toronto, Ontario!

Blazer fans unite!

Fan of Baseball? Talk about it here!

Building a computer? I can help! Also, learn about where I work, talk about chess, vote in my poll, pick your favorite songs, ask me questions and check out the rest of my forum!

It's_GO_Time

I see a trend . . . Nash supporters blame all bad moves on others and give Nash credit for the good moves. Nash bashers blame the bad moves on Nash and don't give Nash credit for the good moves. Do any of us really know who is responsible for the moves?

I have a different take and my opinion stems from the fact that this organization has experienced an historical downward plunge. It went from 20= consecutive playoff apperances to the worst team in the league in less than three years. So my question is what good moves? Telfair, Jack and Webster? It may be too early to determine if they are good or bad moves, but at this point if anything they were bad moves.

Paul just got ROY and is a player to build a team around. Webster is going to summer league to try and find his game. Telfair got beat out of the starting PG position in his second year by Blake. I understand the hope these players create, but to applaude Nash for these moves now is a sad statement of how desparate fans are to find "godd moves".

Zach, Miles, Telfair, Webster, Dixon, Blake, Joel and the rest all equal 21 wins and the worst record in the NBA. Again I ask what good moves?

Utherhimo

lol yeah lol

__________________
Mead for Life and Life for Mead ~ "ORAGUN", not "ORYGONE"!
WELCOME RUDY, BAYLESS and Batum to the Blazer Tribe: wear the Scarlet and Black with Pride. HAIL THE NORTH WEST! LONG LIVE OREGON!

00 this season is for YOU!!!! RIP!

wastro

Yeah maybe I wasn't clear.

Drafting good, cheap role players is necessary to winning championships. But you can't field a team of all role players.

You need the player who isn't necessarily on Kobe/LeBron levels, but who is still a star in his own right. Ignore Duncan's contract: he is a leader. Chauncey Billips is a leader. Those guys make their teammates better.

What I'm saying is that you need a star - maybe not a superstar, but you need a star to round up the role players and lead the way.

Todd