I'll trade you Nate for Phil straight up as soon as the season is over (or today, if you're willing) - and I'll even throw in $100 million of Paul Allen's pocket change to cover Dr. Buss' tanning salon bill and hair plugs. BMN
Adelman and Pops just signed new contracts. They're not available next year. And Sloan? He's been with the same team for 20+ years. What could we offer him he doesn't have? I think Phil Jackson is gettable. However, I couldn't do it. It would be like my Redskins hiring Jimmy Johnson or my Red Sox hiring Joe Torre.
Is that kind of like when we brought in Pippen, and he ended up kicking ass and being loved here? Yes he was part of our nemesis. But the facts are, those players are only loyal as far as the paycheck takes them. The same with coaches.
I have a feeling he's waiting for Phil to step down and head over there. His excuses for turning down long-term extensions sound very insincere when it comes up. He rode career years from Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis into a nice contract here. He's doing the same with Roy.
How about $75 million over 5 years? That might get him to relocate. By the time you include luxury tax paments, that's a lot less than LaMarcus Aldridge will cost us over that same five year period. Seems like a good investment to me. Sorry, but your own personal vendetta against Phil Jackson is not enough of a reason not to hire the best man for the job. So, how did you feel when the Blazers hired Mr. Sonic? What about when we hired Bob Whitsitt? At one time the Sonics were hated around here just about as much as the Lakers - especially in the mid-1990s when they were better and making it to the finals. Did you have the same aversion to hiring Nate as you do to hiring Phil? Its funny, but I'd LOVE to hire Phil. I think he's the best man for the job and the coach most likely to take this team to the next level. But, it would also feel great to screw the Lakers out of their coach. It's a single move that would make the Blazers stronger and the Lakers weaker. I'm all for it. BNM
Who knows? All I'm saying is it's not like no one else ever offered Jerry Sloan another job, but he's stayed in SLC. What you stand against says as much about you as what you stand for. Not as much with Nate, but I still hated him. I'm still not thrilled with someone so closely idenfied with another franchise as our coach. I wanted Adelman. As for Whitsitt, I always hated that fucker. He destroyed everything good about this franchise. When he arrived, we were a model for how franchises were supposed to be run; when he left we were a national joke. You and I will have to agree to disagree.
How cute? um.... ok. Anyway, Followed by (This ones even better by you See, you just make all sorts of shit up. At this point I had never said that. You were just making shit up. Seems to be a habit with you. See? Just making shit up. Still have not said anything about Bizzaro world. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT The only Idea I'm refuting is that you can use "Yeah but we woulda" as evidence. I do not argue what if's. Only what's actually going on. Don't worry though I'm filled with confidence now that everything worked out OK on Planet Sector 7R and that the 1976 team had chemistry problems as well. FULL STEAM AHEAD RONALD!!!!!!
And no one has ever offered him that kind of money to leave. Other than win titles wherever he has gone, what exactly has Phil Jackson ever done that is so morally reprehensible that requires you to take a stand against hiring him as a Blazers coach. From what I've seen he brings out the best in his player/teams and does what it takes to win champsionships. I haven't heard of any human sacrifies or other vile acts, just winning ring after ring after ring for his employers be they the Lakers or the Bulls. Is it Phil you object to, or the fact that he's led the Lakers to multiple titles that causes you to object to the Blazers hiring him? If we had hired him after he left the Bulls, would you have objected as strongly to his hiring, or is this just a Laker thing? You say you want a good coach and agree that Phil is, in your opinion, one that is clearly better than Nate, yet you object to his hire. If he would make our team better and increase their odds of winning a championship (while at the same time hurting the hated Lakers), I don't understand your objections. BNM
Did you eat paint chips as a child? I stated that we would have figured out our chemistry problems by now if everyone had been healthy. You disagreed. By disagreeing, you're stating that we wouldn't have done so. So, you're either stupid or obtuse. Which one?
Another SPAM acolyte. What do you believe the likelihood PA offers him that kind of coin? I believe teams are more than about the laundry. It's one of the reasons I hated Whitsitt. He destroyed the idea of what it meant to be a Blazer. You go ahead and cheer for a mercenary; I'll never want to see Phil Jackson on our sideline. How you win is as important as winning.
Paul Allen is a sick man (and I wish him absolutely the best and hope he beats this disease, makes a full recovery and lives to be 101), He desparately wants to win an NBA title, still has buttloads of money and no direct heirs to his vast fortune. I could see him offereing the right coach, Sloan, Jackson, etc. 2x-3x what they are currently making to come here and help him get the one thing he's been after since he bought this team. How many billions has he invested in this team, the players, the arena, luxury taxes, etc, since he bought the team? I can't see him pinching his pennies if he thinks the right coach is a major road block standing between him and his coveted champsonship. A title would make Paul Allen a very happy man. I think he deserves that happiness and would love to see him get it. As much as I want a championship for my own satisfaction, I want it even more for Paul Allen. He really and truly deserves it. In the end, $75 million (or whatever) is a drop in the bucket to him. His happiness and an NBA title is worth much more. My own distaste for Bob Whitsitt was the inspiration for my original screen name at ESPN - TraderBoob. I despised what he did to our team. The difference is Whitsitt turned us into a laughing stock. I believe Phil would turn us into champions. Are the Lakers a laughing stock? Are they the butt of jokes and the constant targets of vitriol from the local and national media? Were the Bulls under Jackson any of those things? Not to my knowledge. So, I agree with your stance on Whitsitt, but I fail to see the connection between Phil Jackson and Bob Whitsitt. One destoyed the image of a proud franchise, the other has led two different francises to a total of 10 NBA titles. BNM
P.S. I don't get the mercenary comment. Isn't any coach who comes here paid to win? How would Phil Jackson be any more of a mercenary than Nate, or any other coach. They are all hired guns, brought in and paid handsomely for one thing - to win. And if they don't, they are sent packing to sell their services elsewhere. BNM
[video=youtube;x7pVPLTJshU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7pVPLTJshU[/video] Is there another HC in Blazers history that has beaten the Lakers 9 straight times?
(at home) I don't know is there? Considering none of us know, I would make the point that nobody cares.
