nate McMillan signs with Blazers

Terraholm wrote:

> 4 years @18 million to 5 years at 30 million might have something to do with
> it...


Making him ......????? --------> a whore?

You would actually *want* a coach who would sell out 19 years of
loyalty to one team solely for the mere chump change that makes up the
difference between what Seattle would've ultimately have paid him and
what the Blazers signed him for?

I don't think so. Money per se is NOT behind it. Kelley may have the
best explanation. The money is symbolic of and represents a whole lot
of other things. He believes that he wasn't treated with respect, as a
coach and as a person, and so he did a slow burn, waiting for the
opportunity to stick it back at them. And being in a position to do
that --and then doing it-- meant more to him than anything else.

And that's okay, I suppose. But I'm still not completely comfortable
with it. Seattle is still the better job. And whatever makes him
think that the band of bozos owning and running the Blazers are going
to treat him any better? He should've had some discussions with Mo
Cheeks first. When he finds out that being with the Blazers isn't all
that, what's he going to do?
 >> Stay informed about: nate McMillan signs with Blazers 

I'm happy with that decision!


"Terraholm" <terraholm_SpamNot_ DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3j3mfvFo99snU1@individual.net...
> on fox NW
>
 >> Stay informed about: nate McMillan signs with Blazers 

Zeb Quinn wrote:
> Terraholm wrote:
>
>> 4 years @18 million to 5 years at 30 million might have something to
>> do with it...
>
>
> Making him ......????? --------> a whore?

Is that your take? Because it is not mine. This is the 'professional's
league...

>
> You would actually *want* a coach who would sell out 19 years of
> loyalty to one team

Absolutely I would want him. This is a business where loyalty is written
into contracts and you are expected to be loyal instantly when traded to the
next team. Loyalty is for fans not players and coaches....
Coaches change jobs unless their name is sloan... getting to leave on his
own terms and find his market value when at the start of last season he was
expecting to be fired at any time is not disloyal, it is just good business.

And would loyality have been a two way street? They did not tender a
extension last year.
>solely for the mere chump change that makes up the
> difference between what Seattle would've ultimately have paid him and
> what the Blazers signed him for?

Double....15 million real dollars difference is not 'chump' change.

>
> I don't think so. Money per se is NOT behind it. Kelley may have the
> best explanation. The money is symbolic of and represents a whole lot
> of other things.

We are talking reality, real money here not the mere monopoly stuff we tend
to consider it when discussing the nba....symbol my butt... Job security of
which there is little in his profession for 5 years.

>He believes that he wasn't treated with respect, as
> a coach and as a person, and so he did a slow burn, waiting for the
> opportunity to stick it back at them. And being in a position to do
> that --and then doing it-- meant more to him than anything else.

So if the offers had been equal you really believe he would have left?


> And that's okay, I suppose. But I'm still not completely comfortable
> with it. Seattle is still the better job. And whatever makes him
> think that the band of bozos owning and running the Blazers are going
> to treat him any better? He should've had some discussions with Mo
> Cheeks first. When he finds out that being with the Blazers isn't all
> that, what's he going to do?

Coach.


--
Laurel T
"I told him,'Son, what is it with you. Is it ignorance or apathy?'
He said, 'Coach, I don't know and I don't care."
Frank Layden
 >> Stay informed about: nate McMillan signs with Blazers 

Chris Hafner wrote:


>
> Kelley's point - that the Sonics should have given Nate a lucrative
> multi-year extension after the train-wreck of the 2003-2004 season,
> after which any other coach without his ties in the city would have
> been fired - is pretty ludicrous.

However (in good 20/20 hindsight) they should have offered him a nice bargin
basement extension... =)


--
Laurel T
When rats leave a sinking ship,
where exactly do they think they're going?"
- Douglas Gauck
 >> Stay informed about: nate McMillan signs with Blazers 

Terraholm wrote:
> Chris Hafner wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Kelley's point - that the Sonics should have given Nate a lucrative
> > multi-year extension after the train-wreck of the 2003-2004 season,
> > after which any other coach without his ties in the city would have
> > been fired - is pretty ludicrous.
>
> However (in good 20/20 hindsight) they should have offered him a nice bargin
> basement extension... =)

Oh, absolutely.

And in other news, the Sonics should've traded Shawn Kemp for somebody
other than Vin Baker.

"But he's a young big man with a post-up game who puts up 20-10, right?
What could happen?"

Cheers,
Chris Hafner
 >> Stay informed about: nate McMillan signs with Blazers 

In article <3j4taqFo4qv6U1.DeleteThis@individual.net>, "Terraholm"
<terraholm_SpamNot_.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Zeb Quinn wrote:
...
> > what's he going to do?
>
> Coach.

ROFL!
 >> Stay informed about: nate McMillan signs with Blazers