Blazers sign Mo Williams

[Boise Blazer]

He did more than enough to earn a retired number. He surrendered his claim to that right when he tried to play for another team.

Not that I agree or disagree but how many years is the minimum to say a player has had an impact on a team worthy of a number retired?

 

[magnifier661]

95% of the players hanging in the rafters never "led" us to anything. Most of them are role players... Roy a top 3 to 5 player to ever put the jersey on. I think that's what counts

I 100% agree. But if we retired numbers based on the early years scenarios; we wouldn't have any numbers left to give out (overstatement). As said above... There was maybe 3 numbers that should be retired. Allen only retired 2 of them.

 

[crandc]

It's a travesty that no Williams is wearing #7. Rots number Gould be retired. People turn so quickly... Roy brought rip city back, that should never be forgotten.

There is a Williams wearing #7. Rots number Gould be retired? I mean, could someone translate that into English?
Who has turned on whom? Not sure why Mo Williams would have special loyalty to Brandon Roy.

 

[handiman]

just got back in and saw this.

wow. wtf?

Are you serious with this, or were you just throwing out "ideas" in the meeting room.

I don't even know where to begin, so I won't. Just say I disagree, don't see, think you are off base.

On top of it, we had a historically bad bench last season and a no defense PF, playing center. And you expected every single roster problem to be fixed in one off-season?

That is completely nuts.

Rasta is hellbent on convincing us that Lillard sucks and that we need someone to fill in for Dame's many weaknesses, not compliment him.. Why he thinks anyone believes he knows the slightest bit about non-Euro hoops is beyond me, but if he keeps repeating that shit, maybe the shtick will stick.

 

[BBert]

2, 5, and 25 are all taken.

How about No. 32?

 

[BBert]

Dave Twardzik only played for the Blazers for 4 seasons...

I loved Pinball. In no way shape or form should his number be retired.

 

[Masbee]

Do you think that shows that they were equally talented passers?

So we've got no excuse for not winning it all?

Sigh. Why does "not wetting myself with excitement" = "butthurt"? He's certainly an upgrade and will mean we probably win a few more games. Woo-woo. Happy?

It was good in that he's worth more than he's being paid. But I don't think it's a good thing in the medium or long term. He's a patch, like Crawford was a patch or Derek Anderson was. He's not young enough or in enough of a position of need to be really exciting. He duplicates Maynor, only he's shorter and older. Okay, that's unfair - he's a better shooter than Maynor.


There are positives and negatives with any signing. Somebody's going to lose PT, and if it's a player you want to see or who you think would benefit from more PT, then that's a negative. In terms of short term wins the positives easily outweigh the negatives. But if short term wins is not the be-all-and-end-all, then so what? Why is that so hard to understand?

Fair enough. Let's hope he sees it as a big enough needle-mover.

Who pissed in your cheerios?

Really, not only are your arguments falling flat with the crowd - (boo!, rotten fruit), but the negative nancy act is falling flat as well.

Waaaaaaa! we signed a decent player for a bargain price. I haaaate depth! It ruins it for the rookies and they will cry - and that makes me sad.

Really a lame argument.

This team is NOT tanking.

Get over it.

I have advocated the team tanking since the end of last season and still think they should.

But, nobody on the Blazer's asked my opinion. And they have gone in a different direction. There is no point in arguing they should - because as of right now, it is TOO LATE to have a successful and quick tank. The summer is winding down and the move moves all done. The trade deadline will be too late (I know some think if the season goes sideways you can easily make all the tank moves at the trade deadline and be in as good a shape if you had done it in the summer - but that is not true)

It's done. No sense in ignoring the obvious.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

How about No. 32?

or 25?

 

[PapaG]

He did more than enough to earn a retired number. He surrendered his claim to that right when he tried to play for another team.

So Bill Walton, Lionel Hollins, and Maurice Lucas should also not have their numbers retired?

 

[OneLifeToLive]

95% of the players hanging in the rafters never "led" us to anything. Most of them are role players... Roy a top 3 to 5 player to ever put the jersey on. I think that's what counts

At some point, some time, the insanity for the reasons we retire a number has to change. I don't believe a lot of those numbers should be retired. Should Roy's be retired? I don't know, is he a future hall of famer? Due to the length of his career, I doubt it. Had he kept playing, he probably would be.

But I think the organization needs to raise the standards for a number to be retired. I probably wouldn't retire his number.

 

[BBert]

If Dave Twardzik got his number retired, maybe Roy should as well.

Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Boise Blazer]

If Chris Paul leads the Clippers to the title this year and then blows his knee out in the conference finals next year and the Clippers lose and CP retires should the CLIPPERS retire his number? How many good and successful years is enough?

 

[magnifier661]

At some point, some time, the insanity for the reasons we retire a number has to change. I don't believe a lot of those numbers should be retired. Should Roy's be retired? I don't know, is he a future hall of famer? Due to the length of his career, I doubt it. Had he kept playing, he probably would be.

But I think the organization needs to raise the standards for a number to be retired. I probably wouldn't retire his number.

Well said. If Roy had at least 3-4 more years like he did 3 season's ago; he would definitely be in consideration.

 

[OneLifeToLive]

If Chris Paul leads the Clippers to the title this year and then blows his knee out in the conference finals next year and the Clippers lose and CP retires should the CLIPPERS retire his number? How many good and successful years is enough?

The fact he won a title is deserving. How organizations will go their entire life without ever winning a title?

 

[BBert]

So Bill Walton, Lionel Hollins, and Maurice Lucas should also not have their numbers retired?

I vote Walton, Lucas, Drexler. There needs to be another way to honor the next tier.

 

[Boise Blazer]

The fact he won a title is deserving. How organizations will go their entire life without ever winning a title?

Ok now if he never made it out of the first round?

 

[OneLifeToLive]

Ok now if he never made it out of the first round?

Maybe the fact that he is the Clippers best point guard of all time would warrant it.

But I think it's safe to say that if he finishes his existing contract at 85% at the level he has played in the past and his team remains pretty strong they will be better than that. Second, Third, Final around. How many times have the Clippers reached these heights in the past? At 85% of his current playing level (On Average) for five years. That would be warranted.

 

[Daweez04]

I like this signing as it gives a vet presence with the 2nd unit, that is pretty dang young. The idea of having CJ running things out there with Barton kind of scared the bajesus out of me. Hopefully MO can get Myers and Trob included in the offense.

 

[PapaG]

I vote Walton, Lucas, Drexler. There needs to be another way to honor the next tier.

Lucas only played for the Blazers for 3 years of his prime, though. Without Walton, the Blazers don't sniff a title, as was proven when Bill when out after the 50-10 start and the team fell apart.

 

[Masbee]

I think the jersey number retirement discussion should be a separate thread.

 

[Daweez04]

Portland has been a joke for the amount of numbers they have retired. If going of historical precedence, then yes, they probably should retire it. I rather break away from that though.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Who pissed in your cheerios?

?

Really, not only are your arguments falling flat with the crowd - (boo!, rotten fruit), but the negative nancy act is falling flat as well.

?? What crowd? What act? Am I misunderstanding what this message board is about? Is this like Twitter where you get followers?

Waaaaaaa! we signed a decent player for a bargain price. I haaaate depth! It ruins it for the rookies and they will cry - and that makes me sad.

Really a lame argument.

Yes, that would be a lame argument.

This team is NOT tanking.

Apparently not.

Get over it.

Thank you for your concern. I'm sure I'll enjoy next season a lot more if we're NOT tanking. Although I'm sure I won't enjoy watching Mo instead of CJ.

I have advocated the team tanking since the end of last season and still think they should.

OKay... So this is different from what I'm doing because? Somehow I believe the team IS tanking, but you have a truer grasp of reality?

But, nobody on the Blazer's asked my opinion.

Is this where I say "waaaah! Boo hoo!" Is that how this works?

 

[illmatic99]

While in cleveland for some reason, I used to call him mo gotti. I think it used to be his twitter handle.

BTW, PC in a lil bit on blazers.com

 

[Natebishop3]

It's fuckin hilarious that anyone could be unhappy with this signing...

We got a former All-Star point guard to back up our rookie of the year for virtually nothing. Good grief....

 

[Rastapopoulos]

It's fuckin hilarious that anyone could be unhappy with this signing...

We got a former All-Star point guard to back up our rookie of the year for virtually nothing. Good grief....

I truly don't get the vitriol I'm getting here. It's like I'm being Un-American or something. Look, if you're happy, be happy! Good for you! Enjoy! But I believe I have legitimate reasons for tempering my enthusiasm. I believe that rosters can get too crowded at certain positions and it can be a problem. I believe that getting "former All-Star" Dale Davis for largely unused Jermaine O'Neal was a mistake. I believe signing "former all-star" Kenny Anderson was a mistake. I believe signing Jamal Crawford was a mistake, and I said so at the time. I actually thought getting Felton was good - boy, was I wrong about that one. Amazingly enough, just getting a lot of "former all-stars" and jamming them together doesn't always work. Maybe the Thunder are on to something by NOT doing that. Maybe there's a reason Mo Williams was so fucking cheap. WHY didn't any other team pay him more? Oh that's right - it's because they knew that his heart was set on playing for Portland.

 

[PapaG]

It's fuckin hilarious that anyone could be unhappy with this signing...

We got a former All-Star point guard to back up our rookie of the year for virtually nothing. Good grief....

So fans really will complain about anything. There is literally zero downside to this signing. It's an absolute steal, and Mo knows he's coming in to be a key bench player.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I believe that rosters can get too crowded at certain positions and it can be a problem.

Williams is our only legit backup PG. We're definitely not too crowded there

I believe that getting "former All-Star" Dale Davis for largely unused Jermaine O'Neal was a mistake.

We didn't give anyone up for Mo, so that example is completely irrelevant. Strike 1

I believe signing "former all-star" Kenny Anderson was a mistake.

Actually, Kenny was excellent for us his first year. It wasn't until year 2 that he dropped off--and was dealt immediately. Of course, since Mo is on a cheap contract and isn't being brought in to start, that example is also irrelevant. Strike 2

I believe signing Jamal Crawford was a mistake, and I said so at the time. I actually thought getting Felton was good - boy, was I wrong about that one.

Again, never all-stars, and also brought in to play much larger roles than Mo, so not really the same. Strike 3

You sure do love trying to bring up false comparisons to bolster your opinion. Too bad none of your examples make sense. Can you come up with an example of a former all-star still near his prime brought in to be a clear backup who was a detriment to the team?

 

[OneLifeToLive]

Williams is our only legit backup PG. We're definitely not too crowded there

We didn't give anyone up for Mo, so that example is completely irrelevant. Strike 1

Actually, Kenny was excellent for us his first year. It wasn't until year 2 that he dropped off--and was dealt immediately. Of course, since Mo is on a cheap contract and isn't being brought in to start, that example is also irrelevant. Strike 2

Again, never all-stars, and also brought in to play much larger roles than Mo, so not really the same. Strike 3

You sure do love trying to bring up false comparisons to bolster your opinion. Too bad none of your examples make sense. Can you come up with an example of a former all-star still near his prime brought in to be a clear backup who was a detriment to the team?

With this signing, I think it's pretty apparent they don't plan on giving McCollum the same kind of minutes they gave Lillard last season. I wonder if this might suggest how they really feel about McCollum. I can't imagine him getting anymore than 15-20 minutes a game with Wes playing the same position as him.

If you believe in him and think he is the real deal, you probably ought to give him more time than that.

 

[e_blazer]

With this signing, I think it's pretty apparent they don't plan on giving McCollum the same kind of minutes they gave Lillard last season. I wonder if this might suggest how they really feel about McCollum. I can't imagine him getting anymore than 15-20 minutes a game with Wes playing the same position as him.

If you believe in him and think he is the real deal, you probably ought to give him more time than that.

I think the signing shows that the Blazers have as a primary goal giving the team the best shot at making the playoffs and that adding an experienced backup PG is more important to achieving that goal than giving minutes to a rookie. I think it also may indicate that they don't think that McCollum has sufficient experience running the point to take on that role right now. He'll have to earn his minutes at the 2G spot this season. It's on him to play well enough to command more minutes than other guys on the roster.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

With this signing, I think it's pretty apparent they don't plan on giving McCollum the same kind of minutes they gave Lillard last season. I wonder if this might suggest how they really feel about McCollum. I can't imagine him getting anymore than 15-20 minutes a game with Wes playing the same position as him.

If you believe in him and think he is the real deal, you probably ought to give him more time than that.

Or, perhaps they're going to let him earn time, as is often the case in a meritocracy like a competitive athletic team. If McCollum demonstrates in his time on the court that he deserves significant PT, I've no doubt that he'll get it.