Exactly. What kind of crap is that? So he realizes there's a reasonable chance nothing happens... well my left nut came to the same conclusion about a week ago, so big deal. He can also say he wouldn't be shocked if something does happen, that way he won't be shocked either way. Way to go out on limb Jason. Thanks for that cutting edge, shock-jock journalism.
Take my thoughts for what its worth. I recognize Outlaw has been very productive, but I'd just as soon be rid of him. He can get a shot but, I believe, his defense is abysmal and with rare exception, doesn't seem to be much of a rebounder. Backup PG? I'm assuming we'd have Bayless, Blake or a draftee in the PG heavy draft. Backup PF? Yeah, we'd need to fill that but then again, not being an Outlaw fan, I'm fine with that. Gramps...
That has nothing to do with what I was responding to. I'm only responding to what Jason Quick said about salary. I'm not 100% sold on KH, but if someone wants to give us a magic point guard, to lead us for 10 years, who costs nothing to trade for and wants to play for the minimum salary because he loves the Portland trail Blazers... I'll have a look at him too.
Well, to be fair, I don't know the specifics of the mysterious deal, but I keep hearing Blake is a part of it.
Agreed. Thus, not knowing I assumed we'd have one of either Blake or Bayless (and if not, a draftee). Gramps...
I only remember a few select points from the interview. I'm sure he expanded on in but I just didn't put it down in the op. I don't really remember his reasoning.
I think you're taking it too far out of context. It's not that Quick is apposed to spending $ on a good PG, it's just Hinrich isn't the player he'd spend it on. He's a minimal upgrade and isn't worth the contract.
Isn't the max 13 mil? lol "He isn't a max guy, but I will pay him pretty damn close to the max." Nice man...
I don't get where the criticism is coming from to begin with. The whole interview was just a few opinions and the Aldridge news.
There are certain posters here who are jealous of Quick/Canzano/etc. no matter what they report. I notice that they never put their names behind their critiques. Bottom line? The reporters are being paid to put their names behind their reporting. The anonymous criticizers are ankle-biters in comparison.
No. No, he isn't. The Blazers can sign him to a (say) $80 million dollar extension in two weeks. This is guaranteed money. He gets that money even if he gets hurt and can't work anymore. Starts playing poorly. Whatever. Or, no extension happens, and he gets paid his salary, but does not have that long-term security. Until you get the long guaranteed contract - it is NOT guaranteed that big money gets paid.
I don't have a problem with Quick when he ACCURATELY REPORTS. Other than that duty, Quick has regularly shown to be a lightweight. If you don't agree, I don't care.
Well, I think MASBEE is a lightweight, as are the rest of us here who anonymously express our opinions. If you don't agree, I don't care. The difference is that we all know who Jason Quick is, and many of us make more money than he does. Not exactly an ideal situation for him, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
That they get paid fairly well to do what the people criticizing them do for free. Cut and dry reason in my eyes.
Is this an accurate quote or not? If it is accurate, then why isn't is fair game to critisize Quick for it?
I like Quick and think he does an excellent job. Dogging a REPORTER for not being on point with basketball strategy is just foolish. He puts in his $.02 in just like everyone else does on this forum. He's paid to report, not accurately break down tape.
