Wait a minute . . . you tell me I have no idea what is going on in negotaitaions becuase I'm not in the room negotiating and you can't rely on public statements from Blazers or Roy's agent or even Roy. Then you act to know whether PA treats the Blazers like a business or a luxury. Let me ask you . . . have you been in the room with Allen when he is discussing this. When he is discussing concerns about team finances and breaking even? Because according to you, you can't trust public statements. So I know you didn't just try to rationalize your position based on a public statement by Blazer managment. So really we don't know anything about what PA thinks of the Blazers and what his intent is with them financially and making an opinion about that is really doing it with no knowledge.
I said your can't use comments meant for PR as genuine information. Do you really feel that Allen instructing the franchise to break even is meant for PR? Because I don't see how that's something that helps his image. What each side says about a negotiation is clearly gamesmanship, to me. If you think Allen instructing the franchise to break even is a "PR move," then it's the same thing...but I don't think that, personally.
OK so there are time you can't trust what Blazer managment says . . . when they make a public statement that is for public relation purposes. But if the Blazer make a public statement that is not made for public relation puposes, you can trust them. Do I have that right? Because my point is how do you know Allen said he wants to break even . . . from a public statement generated by Blazer organization. I thought you didn't trust those . . . but I guess you see a distinction.
There are no hard and fast rules, I wasn't attempting to codify anything. I simply felt that the sources of information you were using weren't sufficient to demonstrate who was at fault, since neither side had any reason to reveal anything that might reflect negatively on them AND neither side had a lot to gain by criticizing the other side. In a battle for winning over the public, in a team/player negotiation, both sides want to come across as gracious unless things have truly turned ugly. So, in my view, you're not going to see what is actually causing the problems (if any actually exist) from the remarks by the agent/player or team. To me, there's nothing Allen or his direct subordinates have to gain from revealing that they want to rein in costs. Fans don't generally like to hear that money will be an issue. So, since I don't view there being a clear reason to spin, I believe it. If you see a reason why it might be spin, and therefore not trustworthy, I'd be open to hearing it. To me, they were two different situations (different for the reasons provided above), so I treated them differently.
Trolling? Acting like a frustrated 5 year old who painted himself into a corner? lux·u·ry (lgzh-r, lksh-) n. pl. lux·u·ries 1. Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort. 2. Something expensive or hard to obtain. 3. Sumptuous living or surroundings: lives in luxury. adj. Providing luxury: a luxury car Allen is a sports fan, he spends millions of dollars to get court side seats and have a hand in the direction of his favorite team. This is inessential but gives him pleasure, it is expensive and hard to obtain, and I bet his private party room at the RG is pretty damn sumptuous. Get some facts, not just a hand full of opinions before you decide to go on a jihad over semantics.
Is it? He bought the team in 1988 for $70m. According to Forbes, the team was worth $307m in 2008. That's just under 7.7% annual return... but it also ignores the tens of millions of dollars that the team has lost in the last decade. Also, does him traveling to see the team play and having courtside tickets help his long term investment? Ed O.
Well, if they play the next season without an extension, why wouldn't they play one more season without one? Or why not force a trade to a team that will extend them? I find assessing "credibility" based on speculation a bit of a stretch. I'm not saying accepting a QO is likely, but talking about the possiblility doesn't make a person any less credible, does it? How many people prior to this summer thought Roy would not be extended for 5 years, and at/near the max, by now? I didn't see a single person say that it was even a possibility prior to the offseason. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but I do not recall a single poster thinking that Roy and even LMA would not be extended by now. In fact, I posted that the first calls would be made to Roy/LMA, which the Oregonian reported, and nobody said that after a month negotiations would be at an impasse. In fact, it was a basic assumption that they'd both be getting 5 year deal, and both at max/or near max. So, if anyone can provide a link where they stated that LMA was worth only $8-9 million, or Roy wasn't worth 5 years, link it and I'll give you major props. If you didn't post this, I have to say that the finger-pointing is a bit ridiculous, and almost apologetic for the Blazer organization. Projecting frustration at posters who are frustrated isn't the best way to handle this situation, and thinking that this carrying over into the season won't impact the team seems a bit unrealistic.
Times change. The economy has gone in the tank and free agents--especially restricted free agents--aren't getting much money on the market. Why should our opinions not change as the reality of the market does? Ed O.
I gave facts on what the Vulcans have been madated, as expressed by Tod Leiwecke.. You gave me definitions from a dictionary (speaking of semantics). The Blazers are being run as a business, PERIOD. The yacht is run as a yacht. Thanks for butting in, by the way.
Bargnani The market has changed that much in a month? Interesting stuff, Ed. Why weren't you out in front of this last fall when banks were being bailed out to the tune of $800 billion?
Bargnani was not a free agent. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Of COURSE the market has changed in the last month. David Lee STILL hasn't signed an offer sheet... who would have predicted that? The political comment is, again, something I don't really know why you mention. I never commented about the likelihood of Roy or Aldridge being extended. There's no way I would have expected either of them to get maximum dollars at maximum years--which is more than Paul or James or DWilliams or Wade or Bosh got. Ed O.
Gee, really? He was extended, is from Roy's draft class, and has an owner not as rich as Paul Allen. Paul, James, Bosh, and Williams all wanted the shorter contracts to get to UFA faster. In Roy, the team has a franchise player wanting 5 years. And again, the after the fact arguments aren't impressive. The economy has been tanking for almost a year.
What does that have to do with being a free agent? You bolded my statement about free agents, and then you typed "Bargnani" so I would anticipate that you would have some sort of connection. Bad assumption on my part. Who gives a shit? It's too much money, it appears, for the Blazers to want to pay. It's also more than any of those players received. It's not after-the-fact. It's current fact. Ed O.
This isn't your board, this isn't your thread, this isn't your team, there is no butting except for our foreheads against the wall trying to decipher why you continue to spout your misinformed drivel. Take criticism for acting like a dolt, or go somewhere else. The fact that you can not understand the definition of a word you continue to throw around, despite several people correcting you, prompted me to offer you the opportunity to educate yourself, if you choose to stick your head in the sand and continue repeating yourself, that would be an unnecessary intrusion into the topic, and this community... butting in, if you will.
Of course I was. I still am. Why did you bring up Bargnani when I made my point about free agents? Why not bring up evidence that actually has to do with the point that you bolded and seemingly intended to address? I made a point. You said, "Yes, but..." "Yes, but..." is irrelevant. Until and unless you can explain to me how James or Bosh or Wade or Paul or DWilliams signed for longer and more money than four years at max money, I don't think you can counter the point that Roy wants more money than they got. Seriously... I am so confused. Why is July 1 relevant? We're talking about NOW. I'm not looking back and saying anything other than that before the market demonstrated RFAs are screwed and before the economy went down, Roy and Aldridge might have expected more money. There's no "I told you so" coming from me. There's simply no reason for there to be. I don't know who's beating up whom. You've taken it on yourself to make those clever "Value added" posts lately. You've whined about getting "double teamed". You've mocked someone for "butting in". Looking at your history, it's pretty consistent and not a shocker that you're acting this way. More generally, stating like "these day" are any different than a year ago, or five years ago, or a decade ago in this community is just plain wrong. Ed O.
Thank you for patronizing me and telling me what a "luxury" is, according to your dictionary. I really had no clue, so I am eternally grateful for this teachable moment. What a great person you are, to take the time to address an idiot like me and educate them on the art of semantics. Meanwhile, back in reality, the team is obviously being run as a business.
