Well I can think of lots of reasons Blazers management puts spins on public statements about the finacial sitaution of the Blazers. This is an owner who built an arena then declared BK, publically said his NBA model was broken, publically dclared his team was for sale only to pull it from the market after buying back the Rose Garden (with other groups showing interest). So when managment says the want to break even, they could be saying that to garner sympathy for a billionaire owner who is about to make cuts to Blazer personel (many being local residents) . . . when the truth is PA doesn't care what impact he has on local employees, and that he is willing to spend money to win, but if they can't win then he wants to break even and to hell with local employees. I don't know what PA is thinking . . . but I found it odd you can have such convictions about your opinion and they are based on your analysis if the statements by the Blazers are real or not. You basically say there are times not to believe what the Blazers say, there are times to believe what they say . . . and your opinions seem based on your own ability to determine when you can believe a press statement and when you can't. It's hard to follow you when I say look at what the Blazers are saying (and Roy, and his agent , and what other teams did)and you say that means nothing you can't trust what they say. But when you want to make a point you say look at what the Blazers are saying.
Geez, stop taking everything so personally. I wasn't referring to YOU being credible, but rather the idea that the Blazers might lose out on Roy and/or Aldridge because they could accept the QA and later become UFAs. I think the possibility of that is so remote that it doesn't merit significant concern. How many people here have significant knowledge of the impact that the probable changes to the CBA in two years are likely to have upon player salaries, salary cap, the luxury tax, etc.? I, for one, didn't give it much thought until I saw the Blazers balking at giving Roy a max contract. Because of the economy and the fact that multiple teams are losing money under the current situation, it's likely that a max contract for Roy and one close to max for LA will look bloated a few years down the road. KP and Tom Penn have to work to control costs so as to be able to continue to keep this team financially feasible in a changing economic landscape.
Of course it is. That's consistently been your position. Taking into account the player's desire is relevant, however. You're not the only one. I don't expect an "I told you so". BTW, are the Blazers lowering ticket prices due to the bad ecomony? Will concessions be lowered? I'm waiting for that press release since they are a "luxury" to Paul Allen. Value added is lame, I admit. I also said "tag teamed" not "double teamed", although I'm not sure how you can infer "whining" from that post. As for mocking someone, they posted a definition from the dictionary in order to make some absurd point. I'll mock somone who is clearly mocking me, all day long. Sorry Ed, I'm off on a tangent (yet so are you), and I'm incapable of a cogent thought anymore. I still can't get my arms around the "luxury" argument. I mean, it was so brilliant and nuanced. Do any other posters care to chime in with other definitions from an online dictionary? I really need some help here.
Possible. Just doesn't/didn't strike me as very likely. I don't have "such conviction." You're imputing a certainty to me that I don't actually feel. I considered my opinion just that...an opinion, which could be in error. Of course. Aren't all our opinions based on our own abilities to analyze? I never said that you were factually wrong or that I was factually correct. I said that I didn't believe you had any real information about how the negotiations are going. I believe I do have an idea of what Allen wants out of the Blazers, financially. In both cases, publicly reported statements are involved and clearly I feel some of these are more trustworthy than others. You're free to disagree with that, and I've never suggested otherwise.
Nobody needs to chime in, you can not be taught... you will never catch the fly with the chop stick. Get some rest, later, when you can wrap yourt head around people pointing out basic problems in your arguments, like oh say, you not knowing the meaning of the word you are arguing the definition of, then you can come back, have a nice cup of tea, and feel refreshed.
No, according to you my opinion is not based on analysis but on emotional reaction that I try to pass off as evidence. Maybe you don't have strong convictions, but I have seen you on here with what I percieve as a mantra about the Roy sitatuion that there is not enough information to determine if someone is being unfair. That we are not privy to the negotiations and we can't trust what anyone says publically. You seem pretty convinced about this. And to charcterize my arguements as trying to pass off my emotions as evidence seems to fly in the face of what you are saying now. That I can in fact base my opinion of public statements (evidence) and we just differ about the value of the evidence. Before it was, I was all emotional about Roy and all I'm doing is giving an emotional reaction and trying to fool people that my emotion is really evidence. I can't follow you . . .
Agreed. That's not contrary to what I just said, in my opinion. That's not how I feel. It's merely an opinion, not a "mantra" or a certainty. The topic has certainly come up a lot, though, so I have said it a lot. I don't consider the PR spin provided by the team and player to be "evidence" of what is happening within the negotiations. That is, essentially, where we are not connecting, I guess. My impression of your approach is that your opinion is based more in emotion (for example, the Darius Miles/letter to GMs incident...you began talking about how you'd get very angry if another business tried that with you and such and how dare the Blazers act like that). You then attempt to bolster your emotional stand with whatever you can point to as evidence. I'm sorry that you're insulted by my impression of how you argue. I certainly wasn't planning to say it, since I figured you wouldn't like it. But you implicitly accused of me being unwilling to change my mind, so I gave my honest assessment of why you have never changed my mind. There really was no malice intended.
I don't know the meaning of luxury. I get that, at least according to you. Again, though, are ticket prices being lowered for this "luxury" due to the economy? Are concession prices being lowered? Or are other people, most of whom live in a city with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, going to help Paul Allen pay for his "luxury", while he tries to break even on his "luxury", and while he tries to lower/limit salaries for his key, natch, franchise employees for his "luxury". Seriously, just stop.
This is a very good argument! I suspect at some point the players unions will have to look at what reasonable incomes are for their union members, and at the same time owners will have to determine just how much they can charge and still fill the seats. My guess is that they would argue that if you can sell out an arena, then the price is still reasonable, but at the same time, you can't rightly tell your players that they don't get their fair percent for supplying the product. I hope that the RG never looks like the Memphis arena, but at some point people are going to have to prioritize their expenditures, and tickets won't be at the top of the list. On a side note, I have rented both yachts and ski cabins from owners who wanted to generate a little revenue from them, to defer costs a bit... not the exact same as a sports team, but it is a way to recoup costs on a hobby.
I'm sorry, but there is no diplomatic way to put this: this thread needs to die. Arguing semantics? How pointless is that? One side of this debate needs to understand that negotiations have not yet reached an impasse, and that there is no impending disaster - yet. The other side needs to recognize that that Roy has only been here 3 years. There is no reason to believe in his undying loyalty. If the Blazers don't treat him right, it is perfectly credible that he could decide he wants out. (either by forcing a trade, or going for UFA) Personally, I don't know which side will ultimately be proven right....but I do know that RIGHT NOW, both sides need to stop blowing smoke over pure speculation!
Here is a video I made earlier today to lighten things up! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iorS79MJiP4
It is absolutely insulting. Basically I take an emotional stand and don't have the rationale to see past my emotions so I can't see evidence clearly. And the biggest kick I get out of this is you the Miles email as an example of my emotions controling my thoughts . . . it's a kick to me because although I may not know a lot about basketball, I have no doubt I have more real life business dealings already than you will ever have in your entire life. So let me tell you about my impression of your arguments, not trying to insult . . . you act like you know everything about everything. You always need to get the last post in and you take whatever basketball issue there is as some kind of internet challenge on who can debate better on the internet rather than looking at the actual issue. You conveniently use logic that you later contradict in other threads, then you try to differntiate your logic when called on. And you use the same cliches or creative internet saying to try to get in the last word (usually you get the last word because you outlast who ever is you are debating with). Hope it's not insulting . . . that is just my impression of your posts.
