Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,866 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Lakota_Blazer</b>!
6'0" 180 25 yrs old

...With Omar looking like a lock to be our back up, I don't understand this signing.
Well, either:

A. Omar isn't a lock, or...

B. Damon is on his way out.

We'll know for sure within 14 days.

PBF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,046 Posts
Yeah, that "multi-year" part of the deal is surprising. I would say it's a misprint, except that IS the offical Blazer website. It seems odd to give a multi-year contract to a guy who has been playing in the minor leagues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
Man... this is just too weird. A multi-year deal? And, according to Quick, he's going to be backing up Cook as the third PG?

Gill seems to have a knack for getting paid without getting to play. His option for 2002-2003 was picked up by the Grizzlies but he was waived in October before playing a minute last season.

Huh. If Portland had 8 players worth protecting, I would think that maybe he was signed to a multi-year deal just so we could leave him exposed, but I don't see that being a factor...

Ed O.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,565 Posts
Multi-year does not mean guaranteed multi-year. If you were the Blazers and were going to sign someone for one year, wouldn't you also be interested in an option of locking him in for future years at the current low rate?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Reep</b>!
Multi-year does not mean guaranteed multi-year. If you were the Blazers and were going to sign someone for one year, wouldn't you also be interested in an option of locking him in for future years at the current low rate?
That's a good point. Thanks for introducing a sane alternative to all of the head-scratching we've all been doing :)

Ed O.
 

·
Schilster Supreme
Joined
·
13,610 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Here's another thought.

Portland had a deadline to fill the roster spot. They were trying to negotiate with GIll and get him signed, but were not going to be able to by the league imposed deadline.

So they signed Cook to a 10 day deal, to comply to the league regulations.

Then Cook plays well last night and they feel since they only have him for 10 days they will play him before Gill.
 

·
Banned member
Joined
·
28,452 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
Here's another thought.

Portland had a deadline to fill the roster spot. They were trying to negotiate with GIll and get him signed, but were not going to be able to by the league imposed deadline.

So they signed Cook to a 10 day deal, to comply to the league regulations.

Then Cook plays well last night and they feel since they only have him for 10 days they will play him before Gill.
You've all heard of Ockham's razor..well, this is Schilliam (Schilly to his chaps) of Sherwood's Razor, or "Sherwood's Razor".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
285 Posts
This is a perplexing signing by Portland. Not so much about the signing, but the multi-year thing. Why? And, if they supposedly are going to play Cook in front of Gill, then shouldn't Gill be the one with the 10-day contract?

I hope, as someone already said, that Gill's contract might not be guaranteed. Maybe Portland see something in Gill that they really like? Doubt it...
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top