'Sheed to the hawks

"toad" <papatoad.TakeThisOut@mrstoad.com> wrote in message
news:FFzWb.1602$Lw3.1505@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> "Terraholm" <terraholm_SpamGoAway.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> > Has to be the first year of his contract. he was a RSA and Atlanta
matched
> > an offer sheet to keep him. And that can not be a one year contract,
> minimum
> > offer sheet on a restricted FA was 3 years.
>
> so basically what you and PDX Blazers are saying is, he's making about 7
> mill this year and they (the hawks) have shown they want to keep him by
> matching someone's offer, so he was a restricted free agent?


He was a restricted FA last summer. Summer after the 4th season of his
rookie contract.
He shopped around and Utah signed an offer sheet. The offer had to be at
least 3 years reported to have started at 6.825 mil.
Atlanta matched the offer, retained their player at his market value, so
that is the contract. He is signed for 3 seasons according to Patricia's
site..

and now he's
> going to be a Hawk for at least a few years with a substantially higher
> price tag?

Unless they trade him. The raises would likely be 10%, so add 682K each
year. About 7.5 mil next season.


--
Laurel T
"Quite honestly we have had players on our teams before
that make Bonzi Wells look like Mary Poppins."
Hubie Brown
 >> Stay informed about: 'Sheed to the hawks 

"PDX Blazers" <pdx_blazers DeleteThis @sacbeemail.com> wrote in message
news:a5b8ff4f.0402101602.6e3b2c6d@posting.google.com...
> nastygram DeleteThis @hotmail.com (Zeb Quinn) wrote in message
news:<2fb0d153.0402100649.211969f3 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Which brings me to the point that everyone is missing: Say goodbye to
> > Damon, because he's next.
>
> I wish I had a dollar for every time someone has made this prediction
> over the last two years or so.
>
> > Patterson is cleaning house of the big headache head cases. I've
> > predicted it all along: Wells, Wallace, and Damon, all had to go.
>
> Patterson has been waiting for an offer for Damon since before
> Nash was hired.


and he waited 8 months to finally get a deal for sheed. doesn't mean
damon, dale, or rube won't be next. he's finding it harder than he
thought, but he's getting it done. bonzi, now sheed. i heard many predict
sheed would walk b/c his salary was too big. well, they made it work. i
don't think damon's next on the agenda though.
 >> Stay informed about: 'Sheed to the hawks 

"Klugguy" <alphamale.DeleteThis@myeweb.com> wrote in message

> He isn't the kind of player that carries a team; he may be the best
> "role player" in the league.

lol. i don't know too many role players that get 20 points and 9 boards a
game, but I guess you're saying Rahim is the exception to the rule.
 >> Stay informed about: 'Sheed to the hawks 

"toad" <papatoad.RemoveThis@mrstoad.com> wrote in message news:<4CyWb.1309$Lw3.465@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> "Klugguy" <alphamale.RemoveThis@myeweb.com> wrote in message
>
> > He isn't the kind of player that carries a team; he may be the best
> > "role player" in the league.
>
> lol. i don't know too many role players that get 20 points and 9 boards a
> game, but I guess you're saying Rahim is the exception to the rule.

You have to keep in mind that he's accumulated those stats on teams
where there was often only one other player on the floor who could be
counted on to score. Part of it is the mental part of his game-he
wants to take his share of shots but doesn't seem to want to take over
games; pretty much the mindset of a role player. He's consistently
good but rarely brilliant. He's not really athletic compared to some
the real big stars in the league and is basically a half-court
player,which isn't a big deal in the NBA (L)east, but may be more of a
problem in the West where there are more athletic teams.

He's a great guy in the clubhouse; that may be a refreshing change for
Portland fans.
 >> Stay informed about: 'Sheed to the hawks 

"Terraholm" <terraholm_SpamGoAway RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> You do not understand what having outside threats does for the inside
> players?

you don't have to launch 3s to be considered an outside threat. you can
still spread the offense. I think guys like damon and antoine walker would
have better shooting percentages if they moved in a few feet. I mean, look
at damon last night. 2 of 10 from 3 point land. that's 6 points. If he
moves in a few feet and hits 50%, that's 4 more points. we don't need to be
so dependent upon the 3 point line.

DA and Damon are combined 11 of 19 from the floor. but only 3 of 15
combined from the 3 point line. Imagine no 3 pointers and those 15 shots
higher percentage shots? That means maybe Anderson is 7 of 13 from the
floor and Damon's at least 9 of 16. That means we score 10 more points.
That means 91-86, blazers win.

Other than Rube, they were the only ones to shoot 3 pointers last night.
With Rahim, we'll score more points than we did last night. And if we have
a better selection of shots (shoot higher percentage shots), we could
average around 100 ppg.

and we can still spread the floor without relying on 3 pointers.
 >> Stay informed about: 'Sheed to the hawks 

"toad" <papatoad.TakeThisOut@mrstoad.com> wrote in message
news:gKyWb.1372$Lw3.102@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> "Terraholm" <terraholm_SpamGoAway.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > You do not understand what having outside threats does for the inside
> > players?
>
> you don't have to launch 3s to be considered an outside threat. you can
> still spread the offense.

Hard to have any decent player movment with everyone packed in tight.

I think guys like damon and antoine walker would
> have better shooting percentages if they moved in a few feet. I mean,
look
> at damon last night. 2 of 10 from 3 point land. that's 6 points. If he
> moves in a few feet and hits 50%, that's 4 more points.

One game is a bad sample. And your example does not work with the stats.
Damon does not get 50% inside the 3 point line. Damon averages 43% on 2s and
35% on 3s (career). So on ten shots he averages 8.6 points inside the arc,
10.5 points shooting 3s on average. Does not include getting to the foul
line which likely equals it out.

>we don't need to be
> so dependent upon the 3 point line.

If they can knock them down the opponent has top guard them. The can not
just collaspe into the lane so the now 3 post players the blazers will start
have no room to work.



--
Laurel T
"New Jersey is completely different from
Utah. 'Brother' in Utah and 'brother' in
New Jersey are entirely different concepts."
Rick Majerus on Van Horn being drafted by the Nets
 >> Stay informed about: 'Sheed to the hawks 

"Terraholm" <terraholm_SpamGoAway RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:102lhh7s7dp453f@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "toad" <papatoad RemoveThis @mrstoad.com> wrote in message
> news:gKyWb.1372$Lw3.102@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> >
> > "Terraholm" <terraholm_SpamGoAway RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > You do not understand what having outside threats does for the inside
> > > players?
> >
> > you don't have to launch 3s to be considered an outside threat. you can
> > still spread the offense.
>
> Hard to have any decent player movment with everyone packed in tight.
>
> I think guys like damon and antoine walker would
> > have better shooting percentages if they moved in a few feet. I mean,
> look
> > at damon last night. 2 of 10 from 3 point land. that's 6 points. If
he
> > moves in a few feet and hits 50%, that's 4 more points.
>
> One game is a bad sample. And your example does not work with the stats.
> Damon does not get 50% inside the 3 point line. Damon averages 43% on 2s
and
> 35% on 3s (career). So on ten shots he averages 8.6 points inside the arc,
> 10.5 points shooting 3s on average. Does not include getting to the foul
> line which likely equals it out.
>
> >we don't need to be
> > so dependent upon the 3 point line.
>
> If they can knock them down the opponent has top guard them. The can not
> just collaspe into the lane so the now 3 post players the blazers will
start
> have no room to work.

so what's your point, that we're a worse team now than before the trade?
or simply that we need a 3 point shooter? I think we're fine. I see many
teams in the NBA doing poorly with good 3 point shooters. we're not going
to land a guy with a sweet stroke like Peja and that's what we need.
Instead I think what the blazers have done is realized that athletic guys
with upside are more valuable than long range shooters. I think we have a
good team and we'll give everyone a run for their money. what I don't know
is how the blazers will respond to the new guys. an article in the
oregonian seemed to reflect discontent from the players over losing rasheed.
I wonder what the attitude will be.
 >> Stay informed about: 'Sheed to the hawks 

"toad" <papatoad.RemoveThis@mrstoad.com> wrote in message
news:aVAWb.1869$Lw3.166@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> "Terraholm" <terraholm_SpamGoAway.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:102lhh7s7dp453f@corp.supernews.com...

> >
> > Hard to have any decent player movment with everyone packed in tight.
> >
> > I think guys like damon and antoine walker would
> > > have better shooting percentages if they moved in a few feet. I mean,
> > look
> > > at damon last night. 2 of 10 from 3 point land. that's 6 points.
If
> he
> > > moves in a few feet and hits 50%, that's 4 more points.
> >
> > One game is a bad sample. And your example does not work with the stats.
> > Damon does not get 50% inside the 3 point line. Damon averages 43% on 2s
> and
> > 35% on 3s (career). So on ten shots he averages 8.6 points inside the
arc,
> > 10.5 points shooting 3s on average. Does not include getting to the foul
> > line which likely equals it out.

No comment?


> >
> > >we don't need to be
> > > so dependent upon the 3 point line.
> >
> > If they can knock them down the opponent has top guard them. The can not
> > just collaspe into the lane so the now 3 post players the blazers will
> start
> > have no room to work.
>
> so what's your point, that we're a worse team now than before the trade?

My point is there is a big problem they have to work around. Will not help
to have everyone abandon outside shots. Have to see how it works out and how
Cheeks handles the lack of good shooters. And this big of a lineup change
over just a few weeks could use a month of practice, something there is
little of mid season. However it is mostly veteran players coming in so by
keeping it simple perhaps they will come together quickly..

> or simply that we need a 3 point shooter?

a good one....absolutely....=)

>I think we're fine. I see many
> teams in the NBA doing poorly with good 3 point shooters. we're not going
> to land a guy with a sweet stroke like Peja and that's what we need.

There are minor players out there that can shoot. Peeler types that GMs are
often open to offers.

> Instead I think what the blazers have done is realized that athletic guys
> with upside are more valuable than long range shooters.

I think they made a tade that was good for value, not great for balance.

I think we have a
> good team and we'll give everyone a run for their money. what I don't
know
> is how the blazers will respond to the new guys. an article in the
> oregonian seemed to reflect discontent from the players over losing
rasheed.
> I wonder what the attitude will be.

They will not take it out on the new ones.


--
Laurel T
"There are really only two plays; Romeo and Juliet,
and put the darn ball in the basket."
- Abe Lemons
 >> Stay informed about: 'Sheed to the hawks 

In article <c0bq1e$1kc9$1@agate.berkeley.edu>, dim.RemoveThis@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:

> In article <102ikq2em04j27c.RemoveThis@corp.supernews.com>,
> Terraholm <terraholm_SpamGoAway.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >And you all still whined about it when he was playing SF....I suppose Dirk
> >and KG should not be shooting 3s because they are 7 footers?
>
>
> Damn straight, especially Garnett.


It might just be anecdotal, but I don't think it's quite
as bad overall as it was when they moved the line in.
 >> Stay informed about: 'Sheed to the hawks 

In article <a5b8ff4f.0402101623.735d507e.TakeThisOut@posting.google.com>,
pdx_blazers.TakeThisOut@sacbeemail.com (PDX Blazers) wrote:

> I think there are always concerns when you bring in new players, and more
> so when they're likely to be starters and might be seen as taking minutes
> from someone else. Just for comparison, Ratliff and Rahim were combining
> for 68 minutes per game versus 56 for Wallace and Person. That wasn't a
> factor in the trades that brought in Person and Miles, but it could be here.


Not to mention that you're importing 25% of a roster from one of
the two or three worst teams in the NBA. But what the hell--people
said the same thing about Indiana when they acquired Artest, Miller
and Mercer for Jalen Rose.

I'll be following Reef (Reef for Sheed, I guess it makes editing
easy if you make signs and bring them to game). I've always liked
him, but his vanishing act down the stretch of close games has
always puzzled me. I'm assuming that Portland will have more of
those than some of his past stops around the league.
 >> Stay informed about: 'Sheed to the hawks 

"toad" <papatoad.TakeThisOut@mrstoad.com> wrote in message news:<3AyWb.1294$Lw3.187@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> "PDX Blazers" <pdx_blazers.TakeThisOut@sacbeemail.com> wrote in message
> news:a5b8ff4f.0402101602.6e3b2c6d@posting.google.com...
> > nastygram.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com (Zeb Quinn) wrote in messag news:<2fb0d153.0402100649.211969f3.TakeThisOut@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > Which brings me to the point that everyone is missing: Say goodbye to
> > > Damon, because he's next.
> >
> > I wish I had a dollar for every time someone has made this prediction
> > over the last two years or so.
> >
> > > Patterson is cleaning house of the big headache head cases. I've
> > > predicted it all along: Wells, Wallace, and Damon, all had to go.
> >
> > Patterson has been waiting for an offer for Damon since before
> > Nash was hired.
>
> and he waited 8 months to finally get a deal for sheed. doesn't mean
> damon, dale, or rube won't be next.

I'm not saying that, the only thing I disagree with is the idea that
the arrival of Dickau is a signal that Damon is on the way out of town.
From what I understand, Portland didn't ask for Dickau, so I don't think
there is any connection there.

> he's finding it harder than he thought, but he's getting it done.

They probably could have done a deal earlier if they were willing to take
on a longer-term deal (Van Horn, Antonio Davis) or accept a bad contract
as filler (Abdul-Wahad). But given the constraints they had, they did
about as well as they could have done.

> bonzi, now sheed. i heard many predict sheed would walk b/c his salary
> was too big. well, they made it work. i don't think damon's next on
> the agenda though.

I don't think Damon will retire as a Blazer, but I wouldn't be surprised
to see him back next fall.
 >> Stay informed about: 'Sheed to the hawks 

"Klugguy" <alphamale.RemoveThis@myeweb.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > He isn't the kind of player that carries a team; he may be the best
> > > "role player" in the league.
> >
> > lol. i don't know too many role players that get 20 points and 9 boards
a
> > game, but I guess you're saying Rahim is the exception to the rule.
>
> You have to keep in mind that he's accumulated those stats on teams
> where there was often only one other player on the floor who could be
> counted on to score. Part of it is the mental part of his game-he
> wants to take his share of shots but doesn't seem to want to take over
> games; pretty much the mindset of a role player. He's consistently
> good but rarely brilliant. He's not really athletic compared to some
> the real big stars in the league and is basically a half-court
> player,which isn't a big deal in the NBA (L)east, but may be more of a
> problem in the West where there are more athletic teams.
>
> He's a great guy in the clubhouse; that may be a refreshing change for
> Portland fans.

have you been in the clubhouse with him?

I won't dispute what you say, but calling an all-star a role player seems to
be selling him short. Yea, his stats may decline in portland b/c we have
more guys capable of getting the job done, but knowing his style of play,
he's always been a guy who has a knack for getting the job done, dating back
to california. I don't imagine his production will drop too much. And when
you speak of role players, I think of guys like Dale Davis. I think of the
numerous guys in the league who don't do anything special, but they can be
productive... PJ Brown. Rahim appears to be more than a role player in my
opinion. he's a talented player and I think talent breeds stats. It
doesn't matter who's around him. With the minutes, he's going to produce.
I guess I feel it's an insult to be called a role player, but you appear to
be praising him despite the terminology, so I'm not going to discredit the
weight of your message. I understand, I just think of him at a higher level
and I do believe he'll prove to be more than simply a role player in
portland.
 >> Stay informed about: 'Sheed to the hawks 

"Granville Waiters' Ghost" <x.RemoveThis@x.x> wrote in message
news:x-1102042101570001@user-38lcokn.dialup.mindspring.com...
> In article <a5b8ff4f.0402101623.735d507e.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>,
> pdx_blazers.RemoveThis@sacbeemail.com (PDX Blazers) wrote:
>
> > I think there are always concerns when you bring in new players, and
more
> > so when they're likely to be starters and might be seen as taking
minutes
> > from someone else. Just for comparison, Ratliff and Rahim were combining
> > for 68 minutes per game versus 56 for Wallace and Person. That wasn't a
> > factor in the trades that brought in Person and Miles, but it could be
here.
>
>
> Not to mention that you're importing 25% of a roster from one of
> the two or three worst teams in the NBA. But what the hell--people
> said the same thing about Indiana when they acquired Artest, Miller
> and Mercer for Jalen Rose.

well, that's exactly why I don't buy the theory of players only being good
b/c they're the product of a bad team. talent is what it's all about.
talent breeds stats. when indiana made that trade, they weren't stupid.
they knew what artest and miller were all about and I think they were stupid
for letting him go to sacto.

it's the same with jamison. He was talented in college, proved the critics
wrong on golden state, but he still had his doubters. he's producing
pretty well off the bench for the mavericks and should be starting, but for
some reason he isn't. hell, I think most would agree jamison is a better
shooter than antoine, but antoine does more and jamison's a bit younger. so
maybe it's a case of seniority. Jamison should be starting somewhere
though.

> I'll be following Reef (Reef for Sheed, I guess it makes editing
> easy if you make signs and bring them to game). I've always liked
> him, but his vanishing act down the stretch of close games has
> always puzzled me. I'm assuming that Portland will have more of
> those than some of his past stops around the league.

I've followed him since cal and always been a fan of the guy. I don't see
the hawks play enough to see the vanishing act you're referring to, but if
that's true, I would have to say a lot of that has to do with the fact that
he doesn't have much talent around him. If you're playing the celtics and
it's crunchtime, who you gonna double team? Pierce. If you're playing
the Magic, you double team TMac. Make someone else get the job done. I
would anticipate that's what's been happening to Rahim... he's the focal
point of defenses. In portland, we'll have other options to burn teams
with.

I'm looking forward to seeing how well he does here. I hope more than
anything that he's happy to be a blazer b/c I hear he wanted to go to a
contender... or at least the team wanted to trade him to one. What I like
most about rahim is that he's so likeable. It seems the hawks are genuinely
concerned for his well-being. That's great. I think he'll be a welcome
addition in portland.
 >> Stay informed about: 'Sheed to the hawks