Was Bill Kennedy looking to eject Wallace?

[scoop]

And Scoop you can probably throw me a stat about how many ppg he has in the post... but i really don't care. If your watching the game you see that he uses people.

Do you mean you watch Wallace scoring in the post but the stat-keepers don't fill the box-scores correctly? Because I'm with the scorekeepers, Sheed has very rarely played in the post for the last years.

The point isn't that Sheed doesn't have the ability to dominate in the blocks, especially now when he's matched up with backups, is that he doesn't dominate. It's not what it could be rather what it is. 

[MBz]

And Scoop you can probably throw me a stat about how many ppg he has in the post... but i really don't care. If your watching the game you see that he uses people.

Do you mean you watch Wallace scoring in the post but the stat-keepers don't fill the box-scores correctly? Because I'm with the scorekeepers, Sheed has very rarely played in the post for the last years.

The point isn't that Sheed doesn't have the ability to dominate in the blocks, especially now when he's matched up with backups, is that he doesn't dominate. It's not what it could be rather what it is. 

I agree, no one is questioning Sheed's ability.  I just think a lot of people are tired of him going nuts from downtown when he needs to be in the post more often.  For now, i'll accept a lot of shots.  When Davis and Marquis Daniels are healthy though it cannot happen this way.  Those 2 will need to be shooting.

[BballTim]

That said, the biggest problem with Wallace is his lack of rebounding - the other stuff was expected and he'll probably regress (i.e. progress) to the mean in his efficiency. The Celtics right now have a big rebounding problem (I doubt a team with such a negative reb. differential had ever won the championship - maybe those Olajuwon Houston teams that would just concede the offensive glass?) and while the blame must be shared Sheed is part of the reason.

  What big rebounding problem? We get outrebounded by about 1/2 a rebound a game and we play reasonably well against good rebounding teams.

[indeedproceed]

That said, the biggest problem with Wallace is his lack of rebounding - the other stuff was expected and he'll probably regress (i.e. progress) to the mean in his efficiency. The Celtics right now have a big rebounding problem (I doubt a team with such a negative reb. differential had ever won the championship - maybe those Olajuwon Houston teams that would just concede the offensive glass?) and while the blame must be shared Sheed is part of the reason.

  What big rebounding problem? We get outrebounded by about 1/2 a rebound a game and we play reasonably well against good rebounding teams.

We're 30th in the league in rebounds per game, and we're the only team in the top 4 with a negative differential. Of the top 11 teams (see how I cut that off right before San Antonio) there are 3 with a negative rebounding diff. Us, Denver, and Phoenix.

We have a very definite rebounding problem.

[Roy Hobbs]

I can't believe the free pass Wallace gets.  Bloggers complain about the character of Nate Robinson, Lebron, Marbury, Iverson, etc.  But we have the biggest jerk in the league on our team- Rasheed.  And what a ballhog.  I just checked the per 48minute stats for shot attempts.  1.Wallace 20.5 attempts per 48min. 2. KG 17.7 attempts. 3. Ray 16.8 attempts 4. Paul 16.2 attempts per 48.  There is something seriously wrong with those numbers.  And it's not like Wallace is hitting them, he's just jacking them up.

On your first point, Rasheed has always been a hothead, but his teammates love him.  I can't really think of a time when he's been accused of being a locker room cancer, although I haven't followed his career with a magnifying glass.  The others guys you mentioned are generally guys who haven't fit in in their locker rooms.

Regarding the number of shots he takes, I agree, it's too many.  That being said, there's a fundamental difference between the shots the big three take -- when they're on the floor with two other stars, plus Rondo and Perk -- and the shots that Rasheed takes, when he's often playing with only one other scorer.

[moiso]

If the only defense against Rasheed's shot attempts is that he is the focal point of the offense because the big3 are on the bench, then something needs to change rotation wise.  Why make a guy who can't throw the ball in the ocean because he is out of shape and has no legs the focal point of an offense?  Keep someone else out there to be the focal point.

[celticsclay]

I can't believe the free pass Wallace gets.  Bloggers complain about the character of Nate Robinson, Lebron, Marbury, Iverson, etc.  But we have the biggest jerk in the league on our team- Rasheed.  And what a ballhog.  I just checked the per 48minute stats for shot attempts.  1.Wallace 20.5 attempts per 48min. 2. KG 17.7 attempts. 3. Ray 16.8 attempts 4. Paul 16.2 attempts per 48.  There is something seriously wrong with those numbers.  And it's not like Wallace is hitting them, he's just jacking them up.

On your first point, Rasheed has always been a hothead, but his teammates love him.  I can't really think of a time when he's been accused of being a locker room cancer, although I haven't followed his career with a magnifying glass.  The others guys you mentioned are generally guys who haven't fit in in their locker rooms.

Regarding the number of shots he takes, I agree, it's too many.  That being said, there's a fundamental difference between the shots the big three take -- when they're on the floor with two other stars, plus Rondo and Perk -- and the shots that Rasheed takes, when he's often playing with only one other scorer.

Hobbs, this would probably fall into the cancer category.
"Wallace also began acting out off the courts by refusing to sign autographs, ignoring fans, fighting with teammates, and refusing to give interviews, despite it being mandatory by the NBA. Though he acquiesced to the locker room interviews by taking his time changing and only answering a few questions filled with expletives, Wallace continued showing disdain during mandatory team events, including an appearance where he and others from the Portland organization gave Christmas trees to needy families in the Portland area."

Not sure about the source, but the whole article seems to try and be fact based focusing as a biography and not some rumor mill. (http://biography.jrank.org/pages/2998/Wallace-Rasheed.html)

[nickagneta]

If the only defense against Rasheed's shot attempts is that he is the focal point of the offense because the big3 are on the bench, then something needs to change rotation wise.  Why make a guy who can't throw the ball in the ocean because he is out of shape and has no legs the focal point of an offense?  Keep someone else out there to be the focal point.

You know, you are trying to make this sound like Rasheed takes some ungodly amount of shots. He only takes 8.6 shots a game which is 5th best on the team and 1.5 shots less than any of the Big Three or Rondo who take 11.9 shots(Pierce), 12.3 shots(Allen), 11.3 shots(Garnett) and 10.5 shots(Rondo) per game. The Per 48 minutes stats skew things quite a bit because the extend stuff to the ridiculous. On a per minute basis he does shoot more often but he is also on the floor with the likes of Eddie playing PG, Williams playing PF, Tony play SG, Daniels play SF/SG, or one of the three young players. Given those are the players he plays with the most, he almost has to shoot the ball the most.

Regarding his outside shooting I like to reference NBA Hotshots:

http://www.nba.com/hotspots/

They have Rasheed shooting 85 shots from within 15 feet making 48 for a percentage of 56.4%. That means he's 40-139 from outside of 15 feet or a FG% of 28.7%. But given that 37 of those made buckets are three pointers his eFG% becomes 42% from outside of 15 feet.

Are these numbers ideal. Hell no. But they aren't as bad as you and scoop have made it out to be. 38% of his shots come from within 15 feet. Most of those moves are post moves or turnaround jumpers that he is extremely adept at. That also means from points generated out of his FGs made, 45% of those points are from shots within 15 feet. That then calculates to 3.68 points of his 9.4 points a game coming from inside of 15 feet.

I really think you are making a much rather larger deal about his shooting than the numbers say actually exist. He clearly does play a lot inside and he clearly does take and miss too many outside shots. But he will progress more towards his normal numbers as time goes on having already suffered through a bad slump and when all is said and done, have pretty good looking numbers come year's end.

[BballTim]

That said, the biggest problem with Wallace is his lack of rebounding - the other stuff was expected and he'll probably regress (i.e. progress) to the mean in his efficiency. The Celtics right now have a big rebounding problem (I doubt a team with such a negative reb. differential had ever won the championship - maybe those Olajuwon Houston teams that would just concede the offensive glass?) and while the blame must be shared Sheed is part of the reason.

  What big rebounding problem? We get outrebounded by about 1/2 a rebound a game and we play reasonably well against good rebounding teams.

We're 30th in the league in rebounds per game, and we're the only team in the top 4 with a negative differential. Of the top 11 teams (see how I cut that off right before San Antonio) there are 3 with a negative rebounding diff. Us, Denver, and Phoenix.

We have a very definite rebounding problem.

  30th in the league is an absolutely meaningless stat. We're last in the league in available rebounds per game. Consider Milwaukee, who's 10th in the league in rebounding (42.9 per game) but gives up 44.4 boards a game. Are they better than us if we get 38.9 and give up 39.4? We get outrebounded by 1/2 a rebound a game. It's not a definite problem. It's something we should improve on, it's something we did better in our championship year, but it's not the crisis people imagine.

[scoop]

Are these numbers ideal. Hell no. But they aren't as bad as you and scoop have made it out to be.

Do you mind to point out where exactly have I made Wallace's numbers worse than what they are, please?

I really think you are making a much rather larger deal about his shooting than the numbers say actually exist. He clearly does play a lot inside

When you only take 10% of your shots inside, you aren't playing a lot inside. 12 footer turnarounds don't qualify as inside shots.

But he will progress more towards his normal numbers as time goes on having already suffered through a bad slump and when all is said and done, have pretty good looking numbers come year's end.

Sure, I've also pointed out his efficiency will regress to the mean. The "pretty good looking" stuff is kind of subjective though - if he ends with numbers similar to the ones of his last seasons, say a .500 eFG% and a .520 TS%, they are bellow-par eff. numbers for a big man. But the poster I replied to wasn't framing the conversation in terms of what is it going to be, but in what it has been. And from that perspective, it's simply a matter of fact. Sheed isn't dominating in the post because he barely plays there, he hasn't been efficient because a big man with a .507 TS% is everything but efficient.

[scoop]

That said, the biggest problem with Wallace is his lack of rebounding - the other stuff was expected and he'll probably regress (i.e. progress) to the mean in his efficiency. The Celtics right now have a big rebounding problem (I doubt a team with such a negative reb. differential had ever won the championship - maybe those Olajuwon Houston teams that would just concede the offensive glass?) and while the blame must be shared Sheed is part of the reason.

  What big rebounding problem? We get outrebounded by about 1/2 a rebound a game and we play reasonably well against good rebounding teams.

We're 30th in the league in rebounds per game, and we're the only team in the top 4 with a negative differential. Of the top 11 teams (see how I cut that off right before San Antonio) there are 3 with a negative rebounding diff. Us, Denver, and Phoenix.

We have a very definite rebounding problem.

  30th in the league is an absolutely meaningless stat. We're last in the league in available rebounds per game. Consider Milwaukee, who's 10th in the league in rebounding (42.9 per game) but gives up 44.4 boards a game. Are they better than us if we get 38.9 and give up 39.4? We get outrebounded by 1/2 a rebound a game. It's not a definite problem. It's something we should improve on, it's something we did better in our championship year, but it's not the crisis people imagine.

There is a problem because we get 49.7% of the available rebounds so far, making us a bellow par rebounding team (19th in the league). We are 17th in defensive rebounding rate and 28th in offensive rebounding rate.

If the goal was merely to make the playoffs, this wouldn't be much of a problem - I mean, for teams like the Warriors or the Nets this would probably be a positive. 

It becomes a problem for a contender because very rarely a bellow average rebounding team wins the title (rebounding becomes more important in the playoffs). In the last 25 years, only the 94/95 Houston Rockets won the title while being bellow average in OR% and DR%.

You can make up for it by being very good in other aspects of the game, but the Cs are already subpar in another of the 4 factors, the turnover rate. If they keep rebounding and turning over the ball this way, they'll have to be extremely good in other aspects of the game, where the margin of progression is already small.

So, there's certainly a problem that needs to be addressed during the regular season and I'm sure the coaching stuff is aware of that and won't simply rationalize "well, as long as there are other teams that are even worse, this isn't a problem".

[scoop]

I can't believe the free pass Wallace gets.  Bloggers complain about the character of Nate Robinson, Lebron, Marbury, Iverson, etc.  But we have the biggest jerk in the league on our team- Rasheed.  And what a ballhog.  I just checked the per 48minute stats for shot attempts.  1.Wallace 20.5 attempts per 48min. 2. KG 17.7 attempts. 3. Ray 16.8 attempts 4. Paul 16.2 attempts per 48.  There is something seriously wrong with those numbers.  And it's not like Wallace is hitting them, he's just jacking them up.

On your first point, Rasheed has always been a hothead, but his teammates love him.  I can't really think of a time when he's been accused of being a locker room cancer, although I haven't followed his career with a magnifying glass.  The others guys you mentioned are generally guys who haven't fit in in their locker rooms.

Regarding the number of shots he takes, I agree, it's too many.  That being said, there's a fundamental difference between the shots the big three take -- when they're on the floor with two other stars, plus Rondo and Perk -- and the shots that Rasheed takes, when he's often playing with only one other scorer.

Hobbs, this would probably fall into the cancer category.
"Wallace also began acting out off the courts by refusing to sign autographs, ignoring fans, fighting with teammates, and refusing to give interviews, despite it being mandatory by the NBA. Though he acquiesced to the locker room interviews by taking his time changing and only answering a few questions filled with expletives, Wallace continued showing disdain during mandatory team events, including an appearance where he and others from the Portland organization gave Christmas trees to needy families in the Portland area."

Not sure about the source, but the whole article seems to try and be fact based focusing as a biography and not some rumor mill. (http://biography.jrank.org/pages/2998/Wallace-Rasheed.html)

Oh, winning cures everything, especially bad reputations. Don't people remember Bill Walton's famous rant "Sheed, you're an idiot!" any more? Because at the time it was pretty consensual. I generally care very little about reputations (the importance of that kind of stuff is generally overblown and, once again, they change all the time - Jordan is now seen as the ultimate winner when he was considered the ultimate looser for a part of his career, he was the AI of those days), but Sheed's one wasn't the best. I still remember Pacers fans commemorating when Dumars acquired him because Wallace's presence was supposed to implode the Pistons locker room. Little they know...

In any case, Sheed was seen as a bad influence in a locker room and in a team. He was the prototypical guy who wouldn't care and work enough to maximize his potential or help his team winning. And pretty much like Stephen Jackson he was seen as a great teammate by his teammates but a bad one by coaches (that "us against the world, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" mentality that disgraced the "Jail Blazers" and the Pacers locker rooms).

[BballTim]

That said, the biggest problem with Wallace is his lack of rebounding - the other stuff was expected and he'll probably regress (i.e. progress) to the mean in his efficiency. The Celtics right now have a big rebounding problem (I doubt a team with such a negative reb. differential had ever won the championship - maybe those Olajuwon Houston teams that would just concede the offensive glass?) and while the blame must be shared Sheed is part of the reason.

  What big rebounding problem? We get outrebounded by about 1/2 a rebound a game and we play reasonably well against good rebounding teams.

We're 30th in the league in rebounds per game, and we're the only team in the top 4 with a negative differential. Of the top 11 teams (see how I cut that off right before San Antonio) there are 3 with a negative rebounding diff. Us, Denver, and Phoenix.

We have a very definite rebounding problem.

  30th in the league is an absolutely meaningless stat. We're last in the league in available rebounds per game. Consider Milwaukee, who's 10th in the league in rebounding (42.9 per game) but gives up 44.4 boards a game. Are they better than us if we get 38.9 and give up 39.4? We get outrebounded by 1/2 a rebound a game. It's not a definite problem. It's something we should improve on, it's something we did better in our championship year, but it's not the crisis people imagine.

There is a problem because we get 49.7% of the available rebounds so far, making us a bellow par rebounding team (19th in the league). We are 17th in defensive rebounding rate and 28th in offensive rebounding rate.

If the goal was merely to make the playoffs, this wouldn't be much of a problem - I mean, for teams like the Warriors or the Nets this would probably be a positive. 

It becomes a problem for a contender because very rarely a bellow average rebounding team wins the title (rebounding becomes more important in the playoffs). In the last 25 years, only the 94/95 Houston Rockets won the title while being bellow average in OR% and DR%.

  I don't think you're seeing the (tiny) magnitude of the situation. Sure, we're below average in defensive rebounds, and it's rare for a team that's below average in offensive and defensive rebounds to win a title. But, in our 26 games, how many more defensive rebounds would we have needed to be "above average"? Four. Not for per game, just four total.

  We get outrebounded by 1/2 a rebound a game. If we got to even (one more defensive rebound every other game) we're then 10th or so in defensive rebounding. If we really go to town and get 1 more rebound a game that puts us top 5-6 or so in defensive rebounding. Again, it's an issue, I'd like to see it improve and I'm sure they're working on it, but it's not as dire as people assume.

You can make up for it by being very good in other aspects of the game, but the Cs are already subpar in another of the 4 factors, the turnover rate. If they keep rebounding and turning over the ball this way, they'll have to be extremely good in other aspects of the game, where the margin of progression is already small.

  Two things here. One, in each of the last two years we've been among the league leaders in turnovers during the season and gone down by 2+ turnovers a game in the playoffs. Two, we're not subpar in turnovers, we're well above average. We force more turnovers than we make, so our margin is top 5 in the league.

[scoop]

That said, the biggest problem with Wallace is his lack of rebounding - the other stuff was expected and he'll probably regress (i.e. progress) to the mean in his efficiency. The Celtics right now have a big rebounding problem (I doubt a team with such a negative reb. differential had ever won the championship - maybe those Olajuwon Houston teams that would just concede the offensive glass?) and while the blame must be shared Sheed is part of the reason.

  What big rebounding problem? We get outrebounded by about 1/2 a rebound a game and we play reasonably well against good rebounding teams.

We're 30th in the league in rebounds per game, and we're the only team in the top 4 with a negative differential. Of the top 11 teams (see how I cut that off right before San Antonio) there are 3 with a negative rebounding diff. Us, Denver, and Phoenix.

We have a very definite rebounding problem.

  30th in the league is an absolutely meaningless stat. We're last in the league in available rebounds per game. Consider Milwaukee, who's 10th in the league in rebounding (42.9 per game) but gives up 44.4 boards a game. Are they better than us if we get 38.9 and give up 39.4? We get outrebounded by 1/2 a rebound a game. It's not a definite problem. It's something we should improve on, it's something we did better in our championship year, but it's not the crisis people imagine.

There is a problem because we get 49.7% of the available rebounds so far, making us a bellow par rebounding team (19th in the league). We are 17th in defensive rebounding rate and 28th in offensive rebounding rate.

If the goal was merely to make the playoffs, this wouldn't be much of a problem - I mean, for teams like the Warriors or the Nets this would probably be a positive. 

It becomes a problem for a contender because very rarely a bellow average rebounding team wins the title (rebounding becomes more important in the playoffs). In the last 25 years, only the 94/95 Houston Rockets won the title while being bellow average in OR% and DR%.

  I don't think you're seeing the (tiny) magnitude of the situation. Sure, we're below average in defensive rebounds, and it's rare for a team that's below average in offensive and defensive rebounds to win a title. But, in our 26 games, how many more defensive rebounds would we have needed to be "above average"? Four. Not for per game, just four total.

  We get outrebounded by 1/2 a rebound a game. If we got to even (one more defensive rebound every other game) we're then 10th or so in defensive rebounding. If we really go to town and get 1 more rebound a game that puts us top 5-6 or so in defensive rebounding. Again, it's an issue, I'd like to see it improve and I'm sure they're working on it, but it's not as dire as people assume.

1. I can't follow your math. Which numbers are you using? I'm taking mine from here:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2010.html
http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2010/d_de.htm

So far, there have been 1074 rebounding opportunities in the Celtics end. With four more defensive rebounds, as you propose, then we'd have conceded 290 OR and grabbed 784 DR. That would mean our opp.OR% would be 27.1%. Considering that our OR% is 24%, we'd still have a huge rebounding differential to overcome.

Even if we were to get one more rebound per game, we'd still have a negative rebounding differential - 25% oppDR, which would put us 7th in the league, but we'd need to grab 1 more offensive rebound for every 100 missed shots to get even.

2. You make it sound that getting one more rebound per game (something that would still left us with a negative rebounding rate) is a small thing, not very significant, that can easily be achieved, therefore isn't a problem. But it isn't, it's what makes the difference between good rebounding teams and average ones, between average ones and really bad ones. For example, the 76ers are the 3rd worst team in the league in defensive rebounding. If they could get 1 more rebound per game, they'd become a top-10 defensive rebounding team and a better one than the Cs. Yes, 1 rebound per game sounds tiny, but it isn't.

3. Being average in an important factor of the game is a problem for a contender, in my view. Very rarely teams that are merely average rebounding-wise win the title. At least I can't think of many.

4. Maybe this is just semantics and you don't like to use the word "problem"? I'm not married to it, we can call it weakness. I think we can all agree that rebounding is this team biggest weakness and that it's extremely rare that a team with this weak rebounding-wise wins the title.   

You can make up for it by being very good in other aspects of the game, but the Cs are already subpar in another of the 4 factors, the turnover rate. If they keep rebounding and turning over the ball this way, they'll have to be extremely good in other aspects of the game, where the margin of progression is already small.

Two things here. One, in each of the last two years we've been among the league leaders in turnovers during the season and gone down by 2+ turnovers a game in the playoffs. Two, we're not subpar in turnovers, we're well above average. We force more turnovers than we make, so our margin is top 5 in the league.
[/quote]

One - comparing per game numbers between the playoffs and the regular season is misleading and pretty much every team get their turnover rate down for the playoffs, i.e., that data de per se doesn't mean that turnovers stopped being a weakness (we'd need to run the numbers for other teams to see if the relative positioning improved).

two - sure, I've never said we were subpar in turnover margin. But that only means we aren't as good as we could be, because there's no inverse correlation in turnover rate and opp. turnover rate.

[scoop]

Oh, winning cures everything, especially bad reputations. Don't people remember Bill Walton's famous rant "Sheed, you're an idiot!" any more? Because at the time it was pretty consensual. (..)

Ah, I found the article. It's worth reading, if only to remember Walton's grandiloquent, quasi-baroque, rhetoric, punctuated with Bob Dylan's verses:

Be Gone Rasheed Wallace
By Bill Walton

You're an idiot, 'Sheed
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe

It has taken many years, but I finally found something that Richard Nixon said that makes sense. In some recently released tapes, the Tricky One said that he found Ronald Reagan to be "strange" and that "on a personal basis, is terrible" and "just isn't pleasant to be around."

I feel the same way about Rasheed Wallace. It is difficult to imagine, fathom or comprehend the thought processes that led to 'Sheed's despicable comments last week, where he accused the NBA of exploiting young players (saying the NBA drafts young players who are "dumb and dumber") and called out NBA commissioner David Stern (saying "I see behind the false screens. I know what this business is all about. I know the commissioner of this league makes more than three-quarters of the players in this league."),

Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth

But then again, this is a tough person to decipher on almost any front. Wallace is a chronic underachiever, a malcontent, a disruptive force, a negative personality -- and that does not even begin to address his selfishness, emotional immaturity, bitterness and endless anger. I have also personally found him to be a boor and a bully. Those of us with the misfortune of ever having anything to do with this lost soul had to unfortunately accept the lunacy and obnoxious behavior of this sad and pathetic individual.

Every time I crawl past your door, I've been wishin' I was somebody else instead

Wallace's recent comments are not something that are new or representative of a changing man spiraling ever downward into the depths of psychosis. This is who Rasheed is, and has been for quite some time. Probably the most depressing part of this whole tragic saga is how long we have put up with all this nonsense. Playing in the NBA is a privilege that 'Sheed has dismissed and abrogated.

You hurt the ones that I love best
And cover up the truth with lies

Wallace has taken full advantage of the sacrifices of others who have given their lives to create something positive and special.

You'll never know the hurt I suffered
Nor the pain I rise above

This story is particularly galling because it is taking place in Portland, Ore., a place that I have come to know and love over the last 29 years. Portland and Oregon have always been places that have welcomed and tolerated people who have come there with their own ideas and individual agendas. The people who have built a world of freedom and rugged individualism in this little piece of heaven have always been willing to accept the differences in others, often encouraging dissidents and alternative ways of looking at things.

One day you'll be in the ditch, flies buzzin' around your eyes
Blood on your saddle

Many years ago, these same people who are now scratching their heads in puzzlement, disappointment and dismay at Rasheed, opened their hearts to me and ultimately gave me much more love, compassion and understanding than I ever deserved.

The people of Portland have so much to be proud of: a beautiful city, harmonious neighborhoods and communities, a place where people have a chance to be part of something truly special. These people have given me the greatest life that anyone could ever dream. They have also been incredibly forgiving of all of my own transgressions against human decency.

And over time the proud people of Portland and Oregon have built one of the strongest pillars of the NBA: The Trail Blazers. Sadly, this magnificent franchise today stands on the edge of ruin because of the regular and ongoing cruelty and hateful, irresponsible actions of Rasheed Wallace. How can we let this happen? The Trail Blazers and the good people of Oregon are entitled to more.

I noticed at the ceremony, your corrupt ways had finally made you blind

Wallace is an embarrassment and a disgrace. I have waited for nine long years for him to change his evil ways. I have grown old, tired and exasperated -- eventually losing faith and patience. Now, I have lost all hope. It is time for Wallace to take his anger, hatred and ridiculous behavior somewhere else. I have had enough. I'm sick and tired of it all. I want my team back.

I've been double-crossed now for the very last time
And now I'm finally free

You're an idiot, 'Sheed
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=walton_bill&id=1687101