Whitsitt vs Nash

I've always been a believer in what you do on the court speaks loudest about your value to a team. Hence, I've always been a fan of Bob Whitsitt's work as the Blazers' GM. Say what you will about the character he brought in, the team was an elite contender while Whitsitt was here. I believe his style of GM'ing ... that you put pieces together like a fantasy team ... probably isn't the idea way to build a team, and can only last so long: but it will create for a contender.

Trading emails regarding the floundering of John Nash as Portland's GM with another Blazer aficianado known only as "Lochi", he had this to say:

At least Bob was willing to shoot big, and frankly his decision making on players was not that horrible, character issues aside. He traded a bunch of nothing for Damon, a bunch of nothing for Pippen, took JR Rider for basically nothing and then ended up dealing him for Steve Smith (hey, a 2 that can knock down an open shot, imagine that), decided that Brian Grant wasn't worth a max contract even though all the fans lovedhim (myself guilty as charged), how are any of these things bad moves? Yes, Kemp blew up in his face and when your team is in character shambles it's probably not a good idea to give a long term deal to Reuben Patterson. Yes he was lenient on some players that he probably shouldn't have been, but the worst year when he was here they were a playoff team and close to 50 wins, the best they've been since he's been gone is just under that.

I think Lochi is correct on all counts. This doesn't even take into consideration that Whitsitt brought in Rasheed Wallace who -- again, say what you will about his character -- while playing under Mike Dunleavy was one of the top 3 forwards in the Western Conference and an NBA All-Star. All of that at the cost of Rod Strickland.

What do you think? E-mail me your thoughts, either pro or con, regarding Nash or Whitsitt's performance and we'll break it down in closer detail later in the week after this year's trade deadline.