Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

Must read for Nash critics

1229 Views 46 Replies 22 Participants Last post by  bballchik
http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=34628

One NBA general manager said this week, “I wondered why (Blazer General Manager) John Nash didn’t trade Darius Miles when he had the chance.”

Apparently, it was because owner Paul Allen couldn’t shake his inexplicable love affair with Miles. It was Allen who vetoed the deal, one that would have sent the lackadaisical Miles and oft-injured center Theo Ratliff to the New York Knicks for Penny Hardaway — whose monster contract would expire after this season — and the first-round draft pick of the San Antonio Spurs.

That one was a no-brainer. It was like taking candy from a baby. But Allen, along with former coach Maurice Cheeks, was responsible for Miles’ signing a long-term, above-market-value contract with the team in the first place, and he apparently wasn’t ready to part company with him.

Nash, said by people in the Blazer office to be crestfallen when he couldn’t make the deal, refused to comment on the proposed trade Wednesday night. It’s been reported before that the Blazers also had opportunities to make two blockbuster deals within the last year that would have changed the face of the team — but Allen blocked them, too.

There was an opportunity after last season, and it was written about in Boston, to obtain the Celtics’ Paul Pierce in exchange for the No. 3 pick in last June’s draft and Nick Van Exel. That may not have worked well for the Blazers, because Pierce was said to be adamant about not wanting to come to Portland.

The New Jersey Nets also made Jason Kidd available to the Blazers last season while pursuing Shareef Abdur-Rahim, but again, Allen backed off.
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
I trust Dwight Jaynes about as far as I can throw him. It seems that he has some source(s) on the Miles deal, but the Pierce and Kidd and "take no contracts" reporting seems to be him just speaking generally, than actually writing anything new.

Ed O.
Ed O said:
I trust Dwight Jaynes about as far as I can throw him. It seems that he has some source(s) on the Miles deal, but the Pierce and Kidd and "take no contracts" reporting seems to be him just speaking generally, than actually writing anything new.

Ed O.
Well, I trust him a little farther than that. I think it's pretty compelling stuff. Sure, there's nothing new in the Pierce or Kidd info, but I think it paints a pretty interesting (and to me, believable) picture of what's going on with Paul Allen and Vulcan.

*on a side note - watch this kids, me and Ed O. will disagree without calling each other a 'narrow minded h8er'*
Oh how I wish we could have done the Penny Hardaway deal... oh well.
It doesn't really matter to me. Nash has got to go. If Allen and Vulcan are making all the personnel decisions what do we need a GM for?
tlong said:
It doesn't really matter to me. Nash has got to go. If Allen and Vulcan are making all the personnel decisions what do we need a GM for?
To take the blame when things go wrong.
Fork said:
To take the blame when things go wrong.
No that's the coach's job. :biggrin:
yup doesnt shock me one bit
Fork said:
Well, I trust him a little farther than that. I think it's pretty compelling stuff. Sure, there's nothing new in the Pierce or Kidd info, but I think it paints a pretty interesting (and to me, believable) picture of what's going on with Paul Allen and Vulcan.
I definitely think it's possible. It just is pretty significant news to be reporting and it's being delivered in a column style that doesn't seem to be very robust.

Interesting, clearly. Not enough for me to blame Allen entirely just yet, though.

*on a side note - watch this kids, me and Ed O. will disagree without calling each other a 'narrow minded h8er'*
True dat.

Ed O.
I have been told about the Theo/Miles for Hardaway deal by another source - who asked me not to disclose or post. Seems that it was true as written.
I've been disappointed with Nash on many different levels. One of those being that he hasn't shown the ability to get deals done. I have soften my thoughts and chewed on the idea that it hasn't been his fault and he can't get deals done beacuse his hands are tied. I still don't know, but given the articles pointed out (like this one) and the rationale used in debates here, I can see the argument that Nash can't attract big names here becase of ownership restrictions as being a real possibility.

But there are other levels to Nash's ineffectiveness. The one that gets to me the most is his draft choices. I don't think they have been terrible, but this was suppose to be his strength. And I have a tough time believeing Allen was in the control seats on that one.

It shocking how bad things have gotten for the Blazer oraganization . . . worst team in the western conference, close to the worst team in the league, and the organizations is publically talking about moving or going bust (it is almost humorous). Blazers have really hit rock bottom in a relatively short time period. I don't think Nash could have caused all this himself, but I do believe he is at least partly responsible.

One thing idea that is in the consensus with players, coaching staff and fans . . . something has to change.
See less See more
I'm wondering why Jaynes felt it was necessary to bring up all these other possible deals that lots of people don't believe. Isn't it enough to say that Nash wanted to trade Ratliff and Miles for Hardaway and Allen told him no?

It's like he feels a need to ruin his credibility by mentioning these pie in the sky ideas. Or maybe he expects people to read this and think "We could have had Paul Pierce and Jason Kidd, but Paul Allen screwed it up. Damn you to hell Paul Allen!!!!"

He could have gone on to say that such a deal would have gotten rid of the exact lazy players that Joel is saying make him want to leave the Blazers for another team. So despite the fact that Nash is bringing in useful players like Joel and Steve Blake they are eventually going to be driven out of town by Paul Allen's man crush on the likes of Darius Miles. Maybe he could have made the claim that if Paul Allen would just let Nash do his job we would have won a championship by now.

The whole thing is really an absurd waste of time. Almost everyone agrees that Paul Allen is a crappy owner. Do we need another article talking about it? Even so it's nice to see somebody else agree with my stance that Nash has been set up for failure.
See less See more
ebott said:
The whole thing is really an absurd waste of time. Almost everyone agrees that Paul Allen is a crappy owner. Do we need another article talking about it? Even so it's nice to see somebody else agree with my stance that Nash has been set up for failure.
I can understand that you might think that Allen is a crappy owner, but do you really think that "almost everyone" agrees with you?

Ed O.
ebott said:
The whole thing is really an absurd waste of time. Almost everyone agrees that Paul Allen is a crappy owner. Do we need another article talking about it? Even so it's nice to see somebody else agree with my stance that Nash has been set up for failure.
Well, I guess I'm in the minority then. I think overall Allen has been a good owner, and only in the last couple years have I really been unsatisfied. Considering he's owned the team for 18 (?) years now, that's not too unreasonable.

As for this statement. I'm not clear how Allen nixing that deal (if true) proves that he has some sort of love affair with Miles. It could just be he thought it was a bad deal and we could do better. Losing Theo and Miles for an expiring contract would not improve us in the short term. And considering how likely we are to attract free agents, might not have helped in the long term. Perhaps he thought we were best off holding the players for trades involving players who could help us directly.
ebott said:
Even so it's nice to see somebody else agree with my stance that Nash has been set up for failure.
Maybe he had to try and improve a team with some tough restrictions, but he also had control of his own destiny. Five draft picks in two years (including partially winning the ping pong lottery to move up)

To get to this point, nobody has done their job well.
But there are other levels to Nash's ineffectiveness. The one that gets to me the most is his draft choices. I don't think they have been terrible, but this was suppose to be his strength. And I have a tough time believeing Allen was in the control seats on that one.
Why? If he overrules Nash on trades, he could just as easily overrule him on draft picks. My question is, why did Allen even hire a GM if he was going to be the guy calling the shots on player acquisitions?
Ed O said:
I can understand that you might think that Allen is a crappy owner, but do you really think that "almost everyone" agrees with you?

Ed O.
Yes, I do.
Talkhard said:
Why? If he overrules Nash on trades, he could just as easily overrule him on draft picks. My question is, why did Allen even hire a GM if he was going to be the guy calling the shots on player acquisitions?
With trades, there are contract issues that I could see Allen putting his foot down. If he is thinking about selling the team or is concerned about losing monsy, I couls see him saying no to Kidd or other big contract on older players.

But the draft doesn't really have contract implications and regardless if you want to sell the team or not pay big bucks, there is no reason not to try and get the best players in the draft. So unless Allen follows college basketball religiously, then I don't see him overruling the draft choices decided by his staff.

I suppose it is possible Allen makes his own decision on who to draft, but that one I have a tough time believing. Factor in that Nash has a reputation for being able to evaluate young talent, personally I think it has been primarily Nash in control of the draft.

But again I don't have inside information and I just listen to arguments and make my best guess.
Kiss_My_Darius said:
Maybe he had to try and improve a team with some tough restrictions, but he also had control of his own destiny. Five draft picks in two years (including partially winning the ping pong lottery to move up)

To get to this point, nobody has done their job well.
True dat.

But I have to contest your idea that Five draft picks in two years is some how significant. Mostly because only 1 of those picks was in the top ten. That top ten pick is the only one that would have improved our situation.

We could have picked Chris Paul but instead we traded down in order to get Martell Webster and Jarret Jack. Just one of many bad moves.
So unless Allen follows college basketball religiously, then I don't see him overruling the draft choices decided by his staff.
I don't know if Allen follows college ball, but it seems clear that he is very fond of Darius Miles, or at least he was at one point. If he could veto a trade based on that fondness, I assume he could insist on drafting a college player based on his fondness for him.
1 - 20 of 47 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