Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
21 - 40 of 59 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
5,566 Posts
This debate is funny. I actually posted a thread questioning whether Nash had any say based on the fact he wasn't sitting or interacting with the power people. The general response is I was reading too much into it and Nash had as much say as anyone else.

But when it comes time to analysis contracts, player movement and draft picks, all of a sudden Nash has no say.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
The easiest thing to do, IMO, is look at the track records of Paul Allen and John Nash.

Paul Allen has a history of listening to the people he's hired to run his basketball team, he has a history of spending a lot of money, and he has a history of winning.

John Nash has a less successful history as an NBA GM. His time with New Jersey and Washington saw his teams firmly cemented in the lottery.

Is it possible Nash is suddenly a great GM and Paul Allen a meddling owner that's screwing everything up? Sure.

I find it more likely, though, that Nash simply isn't that great and that Allen is less willing to make moves that cost him a lot of money and/or deplete the young talent on the roster.

We know that Allen's not entirely averse to spending money (see: Zach and Theo's extensions, Miles's contract, and the reported kibosh on the Penny Hardaway salary dump) and I find it very hard to believe that he's to blame for everything that's gone wrong because he's been ignoring great advice and potential deals from a guy with a history of failure in the NBA.

Ed O.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,007 Posts
[/QUOTE]

Secondly, I have yet to see any quotes from Rasheed saying he was leaving town no matter what. Please take this opportunity to remedy that. Unless none exist, in which case I think you should stop acting like you know more than I do.

Thirdly, my criticism of him in this thread has NOTHING to do with losing Rasheed. It has to do with taking on SAR and Theo, paying over $40m for the two of them on their existing contracts, and then EXTENDING Theo for no apparent reason a year before he was due to become a free agent.

Finally: Theo has no value in the league at his salary. Or very little.

Letting him walk for nothing would have been better than the deal we ended up making.

With some benefit of hindsight, I would have made a deal with Detroit similar to the one that Atlanta made a week later. If Portland had made further moves to remain competitive, the Atlanta deal (although NOT the Theo extension) would have been a pretty good one for Portland. If the team was planning on rebuilding, we would have been better getting a first rounder (that turned out to be Josh Smith) for Rasheed than taking on SAR and Ratliff.

Alternatively, the team could have traded Rasheed to Dallas for Antawn Jamison. The Mavs were able to flip Jamison to Washington that summer for a lottery pick. That would have entailed taking on salary, of course, in the form of Jerry Stackhouse. But considering how much money we wasted on SAR and Theo it would have been a better move.

Ed O.[/QUOTE]

Yes, of course the Jamison trade would have been better if we could have ended up with a #5 pick and Stackhouse. IIRC, the proposed trade would have involved Najera, Tony Delk and Jamison to match salaries. So Najera's contract needs to be figured in if you are going to evaluate correctly.

At the time Rasheed was traded, most of us were ecstatic at thought of Theo/Shareef and Dickau for Sheed/Person. Yes, rebuilding on the fly did not work out as two consecutive lottery teams have shown.

At the time, Shareef was nearly as valuable as Rasheed straight up and we got a legit center as well. Unfortunately, Shareef and Theo both eroded quickly during their time in Portland.

I don't believe Atlanta was willing to part with a lottery pick for a (projected) two month rental of Sheed. The Sheed era in the ATL lasted one game I believe.

Extending Theo was, I believe, an overreaction to the possibility of losing a good (at the time) center who was also popular with the fans.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,891 Posts
yup seems like its been allen not nash

MM thanks for sharing but I have a question why didnt you ask how close is allen to selling and does your insider think he will sell? part of me wants him to sell the team so we can move on too bad about nash and the vetoed trades.

ANTG - Allen needs to GO
 

· Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
Blazer Maven said:
Yes, of course the Jamison trade would have been better if we could have ended up with a #5 pick and Stackhouse. IIRC, the proposed trade would have involved Najera, Tony Delk and Jamison to match salaries. So Najera's contract needs to be figured in if you are going to evaluate correctly.
It think it might have been Tariq Abdul Wahad, actually, that was going to be the cap filler that was problematic. Najera was (and is) overpaid, but at $4m/per he shouldn't be the thing that broke the bank. But you're right that there was additional salary considerations.

At the time Rasheed was traded, most of us were ecstatic at thought of Theo/Shareef and Dickau for Sheed/Person. Yes, rebuilding on the fly did not work out as two consecutive lottery teams have shown.
I don't think that most people in THIS community were ecstatic at the time. I know that several people (including STOMP) outright disliked it. I thought it was pretty good, and would help us reach the playoffs that year. I was wrong, but I didn't know that it would be the last major addition by Nash for the next 2.5+ years.

I don't believe Atlanta was willing to part with a lottery pick for a (projected) two month rental of Sheed. The Sheed era in the ATL lasted one game I believe.
That's true. But Atlanta managed to flip Rasheed for a mid-first rounder from Detroit (the Bucks' pick) that turned into Josh Smith. I don't have any illusions that the Blazers could have got more from the Hawks, but I think that they could have gotten more for a rebuilding effort.

Ed O.
 

· Schilster Supreme
Joined
·
13,607 Posts
Ed O said:
The easiest thing to do, IMO, is look at the track records of Paul Allen and John Nash.

Paul Allen has a history of listening to the people he's hired to run his basketball team, he has a history of spending a lot of money, and he has a history of winning.

John Nash has a less successful history as an NBA GM. His time with New Jersey and Washington saw his teams firmly cemented in the lottery.

Is it possible Nash is suddenly a great GM and Paul Allen a meddling owner that's screwing everything up? Sure.

I find it more likely, though, that Nash simply isn't that great and that Allen is less willing to make moves that cost him a lot of money and/or deplete the young talent on the roster.

We know that Allen's not entirely averse to spending money (see: Zach and Theo's extensions, Miles's contract, and the reported kibosh on the Penny Hardaway salary dump) and I find it very hard to believe that he's to blame for everything that's gone wrong because he's been ignoring great advice and potential deals from a guy with a history of failure in the NBA.

Ed O.
We also know that since the extensions of Zach and Theo and re-signing of Darius, that Paul Allen...I hate to say mixum may have been right...appears to have been angleing to put the franchise in a more sellable situation.

We can look at speculations of dead deals.

Example
Shareef (expiring) plus fille (NVE IIRC)
for

Carter (45mil left)
Rose (35mill left)

If you added Carter and Roses contracts to our current salary instead of roughly 60mill, portland is sitting at almost 90mil. WHich is easier to sell? 60mill in contracts or 90mill in contracts...Talent aside.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,957 Posts
sa1177 said:
Cool interview and good questions asked by you with some interesting answer by your mystery friend but IMO you lose alot of credibility by not telling us who he is. On the other hand I understand since I am sure you remember I had a semi-similiar dilemna in anncouncing the Telfair+Gun incident.
QFT excellent post.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7,812 Posts
Ed O said:
The easiest thing to do, IMO, is look at the track records of Paul Allen and John Nash.

Paul Allen has a history of listening to the people he's hired to run his basketball team, he has a history of spending a lot of money, and he has a history of winning.

John Nash has a less successful history as an NBA GM. His time with New Jersey and Washington saw his teams firmly cemented in the lottery.

Is it possible Nash is suddenly a great GM and Paul Allen a meddling owner that's screwing everything up? Sure.

I find it more likely, though, that Nash simply isn't that great and that Allen is less willing to make moves that cost him a lot of money and/or deplete the young talent on the roster.

We know that Allen's not entirely averse to spending money (see: Zach and Theo's extensions, Miles's contract, and the reported kibosh on the Penny Hardaway salary dump) and I find it very hard to believe that he's to blame for everything that's gone wrong because he's been ignoring great advice and potential deals from a guy with a history of failure in the NBA.

Ed O.
Please tell us how you have any insight at all into Paul's supposed "history of listening to people he has hired." How could you possibly have any idea what these people told Paul Allen to do or not to do or how Paul responded to that advice.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,566 Posts
sa1177 said:
True of 99% of the **** said here...speculation.
Actually, I enjoy the game threads and player analysis more than all the speculation about what goes on behind closed doors.

(After reading the board and having my points struck down as "guessing" what is going on in management, I have changed perspectives and just agreed that when we talk about the Blazer downfall, "management and ownership" in general are to blame.)

In fact I'm suprised you are making these statement. Aren't you the one who says unless it is in quotes, then you can't believe it (media conjecture). So why even assume that PA has been making all the calls, I'm guessing you can't find quotes to that effect.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
sa1177 said:
Please tell us how you have any insight at all into Paul's supposed "history of listening to people he has hired." How could you possibly have any idea what these people told Paul Allen to do or not to do or how Paul responded to that advice.
He was recently quoted as saying that he listened to Bob Whitsitt when basketball decisions were being made.

Did you miss that article? It was pretty prominent.

Or do you think he was lying?

Ed O.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7,812 Posts
Ed O said:
He was recently quoted as saying that he listened to Bob Whitsitt when basketball decisions were being made.

Did you miss that article? It was pretty prominent.

Or do you think he was lying?

Ed O.
If it was so prominent why didn't you quote it or cite it like almost everyone else here does when making claims involving secondhand information? Citing it would certainly lend credence to your claim.

Plus do you really expect Paul to come out and admit publicy that he totally ****ed this team up beyond belief?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7,812 Posts
Kiss_My_Darius said:
Actually, I enjoy the game threads and player analysis more than all the speculation about what goes on behind closed doors.

(After reading the board and having my points struck down as "guessing" what is going on in management, I have changed perspectives and just agreed that when we talk about the Blazer downfall, "management and ownership" in general are to blame.)

In fact I'm suprised you are making these statement. Aren't you the one who says unless it is in quotes, then you can't believe it (media conjecture). So why even assume that PA has been making all the calls, I'm guessing you can't find quotes to that effect.
Nope I can't...It just seems more plausible to me after hearing from multiple sources that he apprently did make the call regarding the potential Miles trades etc. I don't recall ever claiming it was a "fact." If I did so I clearly made a mistake.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
sa1177 said:
If it was so prominent why didn't you quote it or cite it like almost everyone else here does when making claims involving secondhand information? Citing it would certainly lend credence to your claim.
It's not my fault that you can't remember an interview from 3 weeks ago. There was at least one thread on it on this board, and it's been discussed numerous times since it was published. I'm shocked that you honestly thought I am just making up that Allen claimed to have listened to Whitsitt. Here you go, though, to lend "credence" to my claim:

http://www.nba.com/blazers/news/A_Conversation_With_Paul_Allen-171563-41.html

Plus do you really expect Paul to come out and admit publicy that he totally ****ed this team up beyond belief?
The team wasn't messed up until Nash came on board. I'm trying to figure out how much Nash is responsible for. That's why I'm looking at the history of Allen and Nash, respectively.

Ed O.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7,812 Posts
Ed O said:
It's not my fault that you can't remember an interview from 3 weeks ago. There was at least one thread on it on this board, and it's been discussed numerous times since it was published. I'm shocked that you honestly thought I am just making up that Allen claimed to have listened to Whitsitt. Here you go, though, to lend "credence" to my claim:

http://www.nba.com/blazers/news/A_Conversation_With_Paul_Allen-171563-41.html



The team wasn't messed up until Nash came on board. I'm trying to figure out how much Nash is responsible for. That's why I'm looking at the history of Allen and Nash, respectively.

Ed O.
Cool thanks for the link...sorry but I totally missed that one. I apologize for my accusations I certainly did not think you were lying but rather that you were making assumption based on your own beliefs.

We disagree on the part in bold. IMO the team was totally messed up way before Nash came here.
We had the largest payroll in the NBA, a bunch of miscreant players, were losing sponsorship and community support, were mediicre in terms of wins/losses.

IMO there is no denying the fact that this mess was created during the Whittsitt years long before Nash ever arrived in Portland.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,566 Posts
sa1177 said:
Nope I can't...It just seems more plausible to me after hearing from multiple sources that he apprently did make the call regarding the potential Miles trades etc. I don't recall ever claiming it was a "fact." If I did so I clearly made a mistake.
No you didn't. I just remeber you shooting down an argument based on an article as "media conjecture" and unless it is in quotes, don't trust the writer's interpretation of what was said. I guess I would use the same logic here.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7,812 Posts
Kiss_My_Darius said:
No you didn't. I just remeber you shooting down an argument based on an article as "media conjecture" and unless it is in quotes, don't trust the writer's interpretation of what was said. I guess I would use the same logic here.
Probably true...I certainly don't believe everything I read in the media. Especially if it's from the Oregonian. :biggrin:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,390 Posts
21 - 40 of 59 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