Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
At one point Portland was 10-7.

Now we're 16-21.

Rasheed Wallace would make us more competitive, but there's a LOT of problems with this team and it starts at the top (weird roster management, cheap FA decisions, a draft pick that is of no help at this point) and goes down through the coaching staff (poor schemes, bad substitution patterns, poor motivation ability) and obviously is reflected most obviously in the players.

A trade won't necessarily help this team. It could, of course, but it also could push them even further down.

Unfortunately, it could HELP the team (in comparison to tonight) and the team still might not be competitive.

Ed O.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,637 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
At one point Portland was 10-7.

Now we're 16-21.

Rasheed Wallace would make us more competitive, but there's a LOT of problems with this team and it starts at the top (weird roster management, cheap FA decisions, a draft pick that is of no help at this point) and goes down through the coaching staff (poor schemes, bad substitution patterns, poor motivation ability) and obviously is reflected most obviously in the players.
I would argue that about every single one of management's decisions since last summer have been part of a conscious effort to tank this season and next to get cap space and high draft picks. It has nothing to do with being weird or cheap, it has to do with having a different vision for the team than you do.

As a semi-fan I hope they don't trade for Jamison, because that will nullify everything the team has been trying to accomplish for the past six months.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
731 Posts
the more games we lose... the higher pick we get... (if the lottery works towards our favor).. I say we definitely should tank... they're not exciting to watch this season .. we need a lottery pick to bring our hopes up.... no use pretending like we can win it all....
 

·
Grumpy Pragmatist
Joined
·
3,410 Posts
I don't approve of "tanking", for a number of reasons. OTOH, there is a difference between trying to lose and building for the future.

If the Blazers were giving Woods and Outlaw consistent playing time, and were losing because of their growing pains, I would have no problem with that.

What the team is doing now just befuddles me. As someone pointed out in another thread, the Suns dominated the game when Damon was on the floor......but the Blazers had the edge when Jeff was out there. Is Cheeks just that brain dead - or is he under orders to lose? Either way, it is ludicrous.:upset:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
Managment seems to be taking a passive-aggressive approach with it's decisions. Passive being the main attitude, although not in the public clear eye. It is awfully clear to most of us, this Portland team does not have what it is gonna take, now or in the near future, to be competitve in the playoffs. I hope Nash/Paul/Patterson see this loud and clear so they can start making some important decisions in personell,playing time and coaching areas.

Here's hoping Twan Jamison and his monster contract are not a Blazer anytime soon.

Also, an expiring 17million dollar contract should be able to fetch us something good. Picks,Decent young guys or a similar type player as Rasheed. I hope Nash gets this process going A-Sap
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!

It has nothing to do with being weird or cheap, it has to do with having a different vision for the team than you do.
Cutting Carroll and Dickens (leaving the roster at 10 men) and not picking up a second 10 day contract on Vranes (in spite of saying they really liked him and that he's a good prospect) isn't weird if they're trying to build for the future?

It's either weird or they're lying, because Nash said Vranes wasn't re-signed because he couldn't help them NOW. According to your theory, Vranes would help them more now than, say, Stepania would (since Vlad can at least play a little bit).

Sorry. I just disagree with you here.

Ed O.
 
1 - 7 of 7 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