Monday, April 23


- According to the Oregonian, the Blazers will pursue Rashard Lewis this summer. But wait, it gets better! The only way the over-the-cap Blazers can make the deal happen is to move Zach Randolph's Roseanne Barr-sized contract. Do the Blazers really expect the Sonics to 1) help them to acquire a young all-star (Lewis) and 2) help them to rid themselves of a guy who stopped at a strip club on the way to the airport for a funeral? Really? If I'm the Sonics' GM, I'd hang up the phone somwhere between "Zach" and "Randolph."

-The ever-reliable Sam Smith passes along that Sund and Hill are likely out the door (!) and that Clay Bennett is interested in acquiring some of the talent in San Antonio's front office. Oh, and Sam also mentions the sun is expected to set in the west tonight. And that the Sonics might be interested in PJ Carlisemo, because, you know, he did so well in the NBA the first time 'round.

-Gary Washburn is predicting a new coach this week in his blog. And that Bob Hill is having hernia surgery in San Antonio this week. It's unknown if the surgery will be more or less painful than what Hill went through this year.

-Frank Hughes thinks Rick Adelman would make a good choice for the head coach. I think a small part of me just died.

I don't care what anybody else says. The only serious candidate for the Soncis should be the (hopefully) soon-to-be-unemployed Rick Carlisle. The guy's resurrected a franchise before (Detroit) and he can do it here. The Sonics don't need an offensive wizard to help them. They need someone who will convince all the guys on the roster to play defense, and they need someone who commands their respect. Adelman and PJ both fail on those counts, Carlisle doesn't.


Anonymous said...

Yeah, I don't want any part of a "Sonics" team that includes both Rick Adelman and Zach Randolph but doesn't include Rashard Lewis.

I've got to wonder, if Rashard is saying he'd give the Sonics the first chance to keep him, why in the world would the Sonics opt for Randolph over Lewis?

1. Consistent
2. Good shooter
3. Tall
4. Decent rebounder
5. Not much defense
6. Can handle the ball on the perimeter and post up occasionally

1. Post up
2. Rebound
3. Defend
4. Tall

1. Not overly aggressive
2. Not much on defensive end
3. High salary
4. Not huge inside game

1. Bad citizen
2. No outside game
3. Not great shooter

Plus, did you know that Shard averaged more blocks/game than Randolph this year? And it's not a one-year phenomenom either. Shard's better for his career as well.

Randolph did well offensively this year- probably the best of his career, but there's no way in the world I'd deal for his contract in exchange for Rashard's.

Anonymous said...

actually zach is a good outside shooter and has poor defense. and it wouldnt be a trade straight up anyways zach would go somewhere else like chicago or washington...............a blazer fan who doesnt really want lewis and his big contract either

Anonymous said...

Both of you guys are absolutely retarded.

Author of the blog: Rashard would come to Portland in a sign and trade, which means a third team would take Randolph, and give something to Seattle. For example:

Seattle gets bibby

Portland gets Lewis

Sacremento gets Randolph

Secondly, Seattle will do this because Rashard is going to walk. Period. You think he wants play in Ok. City for *less* money.

Before you write something, try learing how the nba works concerning player personell moves, possibilities, and salaries.

To the guy who left the comment:

Saying that Zach shoots a low percentage (47%) is stupid. So is saying he has no range; the guy is automatic out to the 3 point line.

Look it up.

Anonymous said...

Actually Adelman's record as a defensive coach isn't bad ... check my article today on and you'll see he's actually not as bad as his reputation. And with respect, I think you have it completely wrong here:

"They need someone who will convince all the guys on the roster to play defense, and they need someone who commands their respect. Adelman and PJ both fail on those counts, Carlisle doesn't."

Any player who doesn't respect Adelman's track record shouldn't be on the team -- Adelman's winning record and playoff record in comparison with his peers is virtually unmatched, and if anything he's been criticized as being too much of a player's coach.

I have no problem with Carlisle, but check out the defensive efficiency numbers on his Indy teams vs. the Kings 1999-2003 under Adelman ... pretty similar. They're not as far apart as you think.


Anonymous said...

If Zach is "automatic out to the 3-point line" then why was his eFG% 41.7% on jump shots this season? Do you really think that Randolph is anywhere close to Rashard at shots beyond 15 feet?

Anonymous said...

You're right, Adelman's reputation belies his accomplishments, but still, if you look at his record since he left Portland, Adelman's won 5 playoff series in 10 years.

By contrast, Rick Carlisle has won 6 series in just 6 seasons.

Plus, if you look at when Adelman took over the Kings, his success can be tracked directly to the team getting Divac and Webber in the offseason. In Golden State he didn't accomplish anything.

It's hard to say; I guess with Carlisle, he's proven to be successful in both Detroit and Indiana, and has experienced success in both places. You can say the same with Adelman in Portland and Sacramento, but I personally would be happier with Carlisle leading this team for the next five years than Adelman.

Anonymous said...

I want no part of Randolph whatsoever. He's a black hole on offense and his defense is nonexistant. I'd rather let Shard walk for nothing than adding Randolph and his huge contract.
Though another chance would be Raef LaFrentz, but he's even less desirable for us.

So unless there's a third team involved I see nearly no chance Lewis going to Portland.

"Secondly, Seattle will do this because Rashard is going to walk. Period."

Sometimes letting a guy walk for nothing is way better than doing a deal just for the sake of at least getting something, whatever that might be.

I also wasn't aware that Lewis already excluded us from his list, as he's always saying that the Sonics get the first shot and that he'll show any offer to them so they can match it, if they want.

But hey, I might not know how the nba works concerning player personell moves, possibilities, and salaries.

Anonymous said...


You guys would NOT be adding Randolph if Lewis was traded...why would Portland want to help out a rival anyway?

As for letting Rashard walk for nothing being better...that's just stupid. Why would you not want a bibby or Maggette tier type of player, instead of nothing.

Would you rather have Wilkins or Ridnour start over Maggette or Bibby? You were terrible with Rashard last year, how are you going to be better without him?

And for whoever posted the 41.7% fg percentage...zach shoots 47% from the line. can get you the statistics if using the interwebs is too difficult for you.

Anonymous said...

Silvio's right. Everything out of Rashard's mouth has been positive so far, and unless you (anonymous) know something the rest of don't, I think you're guessing as much as anybody else.

What are Rashard's options at this point? He could go to Orlando, or he can stay in Seattle, or he can work out a sign-and-trade with another team. We still don't know what's going to happen with this franchise, and the whole OKC thing is still a fantasy. From how I see it, the team is as likely to wind up in Vegas as they are to go to OKC, and wouldn't Rashard want to be getting paid $15 mil. to play in Vegas?

The bottom line is this team is chock-full of hypotheticals at this point: the roster, coaching staff, front office, and the location of the team are all in doubt heading into next year. My argument is that I don't want any part of Zach Randolph. I'm sorry that bothered you so much.

Anonymous said...

Good Lord:

I think you mis-read what I wrote. According to, Randolph had an effective FG% of 41.7% on jump shots this year. You're right, his overall shooting percentage on all shots (including dunks, tip-ins, etc.) is 47%. I was responding to someone else who said that Randolph was "automatic out to the 3-point line." I can see where the confusion came into play - I'd think someone was an idiot too if they thought Zach shot 41% from the field this year! Here's the link to Zach's numbers from 82games:

I'm not saying Randolph is a bum on offense; I'm just saying taht Rashard is more effective outside. Is that so hard for everyone to comprehend? Every player has his strength/weakness; it makes sense that Zach's is inside and Rashard's is outside.

Plus, if he's so wonderful, why are the Blazers so anxious to dump him? You don't hear anything about the Sonics looking to unload Rashard, but you sure hear alot of stuff from the Blazers about unloading Zach.

Anonymous said...

I'm not averse to getting Adelman, he'd obviously be an improvement over Hill.

I think the big problem with the Sonics has been the lack of respect for the coach because of the tenuous stature. All the players knew HIll was going to leave, and Sund's status wasn't much better.

I think if the Sonics sign a GM and coach to 4- or 5-year deal (each), it would improve the situation immensely. Would give a sense of order to the team that it's missing right now. David Locke calls it "culture" and I agree with him totally in this regard. You've got to have people at the top running the ship (and have the right guys on the ship, too, of course).

Anonymous said...

I hate the "lame duck" theory of coaching/players not playing for a coach.

Do you have any proof such a situation exists? And if it does, does it relate more to the personalities involved, or the contract? i.e., does a long contract suddenly make a coach secure and more importantly, does it make his players believe in him? And does that even make for more wins? If the M's gave Hargrove a 4 year extension right now, would it help? I think not!

Players don't look long term at things like that, when they decide to play or not play for a coach. They play or don't play for a coach because they like or dislike the guy, or because they believe in the guy or don't. Not because of next year. Next year is, uhm, next year. Players worry about that like they worry about having a good 401k.

Did Nate being a "lame duck" hurt his coaching? No, because the players liked and believed in him, and played their asses off for him.

As for Ryan's strength/weakness list-- how is being tall a strength, and why did you include "not much defense" as a strength? LOL.

Zach Randolf is a black hole, but at the same time, he is a very good PF, if a horrible human being. Not saying I would chose to add him or his bloated contract--I wouldn't-- but from an on floor perspective, you could do much worse.

Carlisle has been noted to be rigid and unoriginal offensively, with all set play structures and very little freeflow.

I think that is much too high a price to pay for a little more defense. It would spell the end of hope for any recovery of Ridnour's career, and Wilcox is not known as being effective in a set play format-- he is not the highest hoops IQ. In addition, he has been known to be abrasive personality-wise, and I don't see that as being a helpful addition to a franchise loaded with young and overly sensitive personalities.

Nope, I'd prefer to take my chances with Adelman, or God forbid, PJ. The thing about PJ, his greatest problem child was a young Latrell Sprewell, and he wasn't exactly highly loved by his coaches anywhere. PJ has a sharp hoops mind, had success in college, has been a pro assistant for several years now and may come back far wiser than his first go-round.

Anonymous said...

I was told while starting my coaching career a few years ago at a coaching clinic-- "sometimes no job is better than the wrong job."

I think this is similar to "the culture" being established with the wrong coach and GM. Like all high school coaches that I know, I've never had a multiyear contract. While it is generally assumed, it is not contracted that you will be there past the end of the season.

Right now, I don't have a clue who the right GM and coach are-- I just know before putting years on contracts simply for a concept of culture, that culture needs to be established.

It is established with competency, success and positive direction for the franchise in both the short and long term. The contract length is a repurcussion of culture, not vice versa.

Anonymous said...

"Players don't look long term at things like that, when they decide to play or not play for a coach. They play or don't play for a coach because they like or dislike the guy, or because they believe in the guy or don't. Not because of next year. Next year is, uhm, next year. Players worry about that like they worry about having a good 401k."

That's absolutely not true and it happens all the time in work situations other than the NBA.

I'll give you a personal example: I worked for a firm in Chicago where we knew the CEO was going to be retiring within 6 months. You think anyone gave a crap about what that guy said in meetings when he'd come in and make threats? He had nothing to back it up with since everyone knew he'd be gone in a few weeks and his replacement would be totally different. Because of teh short term nature of his employment status he couldn't command the respect of the people who knew they'd be there long term.

You had better believe that happens in the NBA as well. George Karl made a habit of whining about contract extensions every time he got down to 2 years left because he knows as well as anyone you can't be a hardass manager without a hammer from upper mgmt backing you up, and in the NBA the hammer is how many years left on your deal.

The 2004 Nate Mcmillan case is the ONLY exception in 25 years of watching NBA basketball I can remember and I'm prepared to write that off as a fluke. If you disagree then ask yourself why coaches don't routinely sign 1 year contracts.

Anonymous said...

T-Dawg: You're right that giving a 4-year contract to just anyone won't necessarily bring about a change. Normally, I don't like the "we need to learn how to win" argument, because as any NBA coach will tell you, you've got to have the horses first. But I wouldn't say that the argument is all nonsense, either. Do you think the Fortson nonsense would have gone on like this all year with Popovich in charge, or the Watson/Ridnour saga would have continued all season?

Probably not. Some of that is a chicken and egg thing (does the respect come from the winning, or does winning come from respect), but if the two options are (with all else being equal)

1. Having coaches/GMs in lame-duck status
2. Having coaches/GMs in 4-year contracts

Well, I think anybody would choose the latter. It just makes sense.

(I also like option 3: Sonics get the #1 overall pick. That might the best of all.)

Anonymous said...

Nuss, I agree for the most part, but as one that has pulled rabbits out of hats and been a key part of 3 rebuilding jobs while coaching-- you do need horses first. Without them, you win solely on smoke and mirrors.

Anonymous-- I would harken to suggest that while there may be some truth to what you say, a Chicago Board Room is a far cry from a NBA Locker Room.

First, the mentality of NBA players is a hell of a lot different than a person sitting in a mohagany office. Generally, they will have a considerably different environmental history, education and motivations, not to mention completely different strengths and weaknesses.

But more importantly, players are not going to adjust their thinking simply because the coach has a long contract. In case you haven't noticed, in most cases the players have longer contracts anyway. They chase coaches out, regardless of contract years remaining.

You said Nate McMillan was the only "lame duck" coach you could remember getting players to play hard for him--fine. But let's flip the debate--what about looking at the reverse.

How many multi-year guys fail to get their players to play hard? Half the coaches in the league, year after year? Less? only a 1/3? More? 3/4? Seems maybe contract status has a lot less to do with things than coaching ability and motivation.

Anonymous said...

I think I need to go on hiatus! I can't believe I put Rashard's lack of defense down as a "PRO" for him. My bad.

The coaching thing is debatable. Phil Jackson's not going to look like much of a genius if his team goes out in the first round again this year, is he?

Anonymous said...

Sam Mitchell did pretty well this season as a lame duck coach, and Adelman did much better last season as a lame duck than Musselman did this season with a multi-year deal.