And some posters got their paanties bunched up in a wad because some posters got their panties bunched up in a wad for no reason. I guess the second group at least had a reason
Really? I read plenty of posts putting forth the theory that the Blazers were trying to shortchange Roy because of the new CBA/lockout coming up in two years. Saying you knew the eventual outcome is a pretty easy thing to say right now, though. I knew it would happen as well, I just wondered why it took over a month to get it done. Anyhow, onward and upward.
There were dozens of posts dedicated to why Roy didn't deserve a max deal, why the Bargnani signing meant nothing, how Roy had no leverage, how Roy had an injury history, how James/Wade/Paul only got (really TOOK) three years, etc. etc. Did I imagine all of those counterpoints, because I swear I read them on this board?
From my perspective, I argued why the Blazers would be justified taking those positions. I did not express any outrage or even frustration that Roy was seeking more, and I don't think I even said that Roy should not (or will not) ultimately get what he wants. None of the points I made are incorrect or rendered weakened if the Blazers choose to give Roy max dollars, max years, with an opt-out (i.e., everything he could possibly want). Maybe you're talking about other people, though. I'll let them defend their positions against your wrath. Ed O.
I took a similar stance. I knew Roy would be getting a max deal, I just didn't know how many years and where the options would fall. As a fan, I wanted Portland to have an option, but I certainly couldn't blame Roy for taking the stance he did. It all comes back to the point that most of us seemed to understand the reason both sides were trying to get the most out of the deal and there was almost no chance we were going to lose Roy.
I actually made very few comments on this subject because I thought the topic was ridiculous. For obvious reasons. It was not a big deal. Here is one of my few quotes on the subject that pretty much summed it up for me. (July 13th) The thread topic was based on an article from Canzano saying the Blazers were nickle and diming Brandon:
So, you were merely being a contrarian by so aggressively pointing out the CBA implications? Correct. Difference was, you and others called me (and others) out for their guesswork. Why? Actually, your points are rendered completely invalid, since none of what you were suggesting actually happened. You even repeatedly talked about Roy having no leverage; apparently he had leverage. It's not my "wrath". Nice 'victim' terminology, by the way. I'm just wondering why the "I told you so" posts are directed at one group of people, and not another who took a position that was even more wrong in retrospect.
Not at all. You and others were savaging the Blazers about their negotiations. You were being chicken little and claiming that Roy was going to leave. You STILL think that the Blazers "lost respect". All of these things are, in my opinion, ridiculous. I posted reasons for why the Blazers would be justified negotiating. Because you were ripping into the Blazers for not rolling over immediately and exposing their belly to Brandon Roy's agent. You and others were seemingly willing for the Blazers to not waste ONE minute by asking Roy to receive less than the absolute maximum he could. I disagree. Leverage is unaffected by the outcome. It only comes into play if there's a true disagreement as to the value of the contract. If the Blazers agreed to give him everything he wanted, then they agreed he was worth it. That does not support my position that they have (or had) leverage, but it doesn't undermine it, either. As for the invalidity of my claims: I think that you are getting your words confused. They're not rendered invalid in the least. They are irrelevant in this case, if Roy has signed. They are still sound and can be applied in other extension negotiation situations. You're being so abstract I can't even follow what you're saying. If you're saying "I told you so" in my direction... well, you can do it, but it's not very effective. I came up with arguments defending the process that the Blazers have taken, and even that (IMO) would allow them to negotiate for a longer period of time. There's nothing that I've said that has been changed by what has reportedly happened. Ed O.
I never once claimed that Roy would leave. I did say that he could force a trade or sit out camp, though. Were those options not available to him? Well, I thought it was ridiculous that you would think that Roy had no leverage. Touche. So, after a month, he got exactly what he wanted. I wonder what changed? You can disagree all you want, but the scenarios you presented apparently did not materialize based on what Roy ended up receiving. Lawyerspeak for taking both sides. You were presenting the Blazers' possibilities, but you didn't mean it. At least you admit that both of our opinions are irrelevant. Uh, right. If it's an "I told you so", it's only to say that the reactions from posters like you to posters wondering why Roy didn't get what he wanted (which he did) were as over the top as our own posts. No one was reasonable on this board regarding the Roy situation, except perhaps mediocre man. If you don't mean what you are typing, perhaps you should preface your posts with a "devil's advocate" disclaimer.
I've always said that the Blazers would sign Roy. They will sign Aldridge as well. The management of the team is almost in lockstep with everything I've envisioned so far. The only action I questioned was the offer to Turkoglu. Thank god he didn't take it!
Per Jason Quick, it was never about the money for the Blazers. It sounds like they wanted to give him the max all along. What they didn't want was to give Roy the player option for the 5th year (which is the opposite of what was reported earlier about the team wanting the option). Sounds like that's the main reason it took so long. I don't think a player would get that upset about a team wanting to sign him to a max deal for as long as possible. There's absolutely no harm in trying to negotiate for no player option in the 5th year, seeing as it only took a month during the dog days of summer. It's unreasonable to assume the Blazers shouldn't at least try. As a fan, I'd be upset if they didn't try.
I really enjoyed the Brandon's injury history reason for not giving him the max years, and the various other reasons for not giving Roy max years. Didn't make sense to me at all, but in the end, we all got what we finally hoped for and that's Roy signed for a long time.
+1. Good post. It certainly got emotional around here with Hedo spurning us, the image of our trainer holding up a Turkish sign at the airport, Millsap being matched, the prospect of cap space not being used, our franchise player heading into a long negotiation, drafting a Euro with our first-rounder who we won't see for a long time, the passing on Blair in the draft meltdown that occurred. Frankly, anything can happen in the NBA. And it's not all rosy all the time even with KP at the helm. But I think now we're just all eagerly awaiting the season to start.
do you think thats really what he feels? Personally I think he was being PC as mentioning any other positional need is insulting a teammate currently under contract. STOMP
