Fair enough. From some of the comments, I wasn't sure that all they were talking about was talent. Would you be ok with Q on the Blazers if he had more talent, knowing that he fights pit bulls in his free time? Go Blazers
Knowing that he had fought pit bulls in the past? Yeah, I would be okay with him playing for the team. I think making animals fight is pretty loathsome, but my relationship to the players begins and ends with watching them play basketball. There are lots of athletes (and actors and musicians) whom I would dislike intensely as people, but that isn't my relationship to them. For that matter, there are plenty of despicable CEOs, but it would be difficult to choose my products, whether entertainment or commercial, based on how well I liked the people selling them. As far as I'm concerned, who the players are as people is between them and their friends, family, teammates and (sometimes unfortunately) the law.
Dog fighting was only the last straw for those already wanting Woods' head. They opposed him long before that because he seemed to be smoking grass. I wouldn't have problems supporting a Blazer star despite his doing what they really opposed Woods for, using drugs. It's similar to when--those already opposed to the consensus of scientists that climate change is a threat, found some e-mails. The e-mails aren't why they oppose science. The e-mails are just evidence to support their prior position.
If I could have a superpower I'd choose to be invisible so I can straight up Tonya Harding his knees.
Do you really have no boundaries around this? You would cheer for a team of child molesters, rapists, murderers and meth cooks, as long as they are good at hoops? Go Blazers
Yeah, or like killing a million and a half people in Iraq, or supporting our >50 torture asylums around the world? Come to think of it, I have my limitations on whom I will support.
Will you watch a movie without first researching the histories of the actors in it, to be sure you're not supporting an accused child molester or a convicted drug addict? In fact, I think it's probably hard to see a film in which none of the actors have committed some sort of crime, counting drug use. I cheer for the team. The players I view as entertainers. I have no boundaries on who may entertain me, but any wrong-doing I think should be prosecuted. Even if Q had been averaging 30 PPG / 20 APG for Portland, I'd have wanted him prosecuted for the dog fighting. But if the Blazers signed him today and he was productive, I'd be fine with that.
People who disliked the Blazers for so-called "character" didn't realize how political they were being. They hated some individual crimes but cheered mass crimes sanctioned by the government. On another board, we had Whitsitt and Iraq threads going simultaneously, and both were really equally political. By the way, "molesting" means "touching." It's not in the same class as murder. Not even close. And murder isn't in the same class as unnecessary war. Not even close.
I think if an actor was a murderer, meth cook, or rapist, I wouldn't have to do much research to know that. And, if the actor(s) had done any of that, I absolutely would not ever put money in their pockets by watching their movies. A real example of that is Roman Polansky, who was banging a young teenager (14?) when he was in his 30's, iirc, then fled to Europe to avoid punishment. I wouldn't walk across the street to piss on that guy if he was on fire, let alone pay to see a movie he produced or directed. Same with the Blazers. If they were to bring in seriously bad character guys, I would quit being a fan the very day they signed a serious criminal. To each his own, I guess. I cheer for the team, too. But I don't find hard core criminals entertaining, no matter how well they play basketball. You don't find any value added from having a team of players that are genuinely good guys? These guys make me want to cheer for the team, and it's not all about talent, for me. If I'm reading what you are saying correctly, you would want a 30/20 Quintel on the team, even if he was prosecuted for fighting dogs, and he said that he has every intention of continuing to do so? Go Blazers
*nod* That's cool. Not my mindset. Sure, I see some value to that. I'd rather a great team made of great guys. But that's obvious. It's a question of whether you'd rather have a bad/mediocre team made up of good guys or a good/great team made up of guys you'd rather not have over for dinner. I'd take the second in a heartbeat. If he had "every intention of continuing to do so," then he'd be in jail from now on (and rightly so) and therefore not a productive player. So no, if he planned on continuing to do that, I wouldn't want him on the team. Hardcore crime deserves hardcore punishments, so I wouldn't want a player who was going to do such things in the future.
TO be honest, I have never seen the movie "Powder" because of the director's background. Minstrel you don't have kids do you? My biggest issue with the "JailBlazers" was that I didn't feel comfortable having my child cheer for some of those known scumbags. That's where their lives as people start to have an impact on me as a fan.
If you think they were scumbags, you haven't lived in a big city outside the Northwest. They were ordinary dumb athletes. Each had a full head of steam, and could get macho and fighting, but that describes most men outside of this region. The current team needs a mixture, but Pritchard has carefully selected only marshmallows. When he accidentally picked a normal macho young man, Pendergraph, everyone praised Pendergraph, as a relief from all those pillow cushions on the roster.
I don't yet, but I'd impart the same attitude to my children. Appreciate artists and entertainers for their work, don't confuse that with who they are as people. I think there's room for nuanced views. Plenty of artists and authors through history were scumbags, and their works are viewed as historical treasures. Would you not feel comfortable with your children viewing the artwork of people who were genius artists but sleazebags in their personal lives? I think it's all a part of parental guidance...helping your children separate things. Just because they root for a team doesn't mean they should condone the off-court exploits of the team members. I had no problem or disconnect with hoping Darius Miles would help the team win games and with condemning him for use of racial slurs. And I didn't think any of the Blazers of this past decade were "scumbags." Drug abuse is a personal problem, but nothing I'd consider malicious harm to others. Most of the other stuff boiled down to personality conflicts...flipping off fans, getting technicals, etc. Not great stuff, obviously, but hardly on the level of the rape and child molestation examples tossed around this thread.
To be clear, I fully understand that there will never be a team of the kind of scum I tossed around. The purpose of going to the extreme was to test whether there is a point, somewhere between the 'marshmallows' and the rapists/killers, where even the character-doesn't-matter group would say it actually does matter. If I read your last reply to me correctly even you say that you wouldn't want a Blazer player that actively fights dogs in his off time. Am I misrepresenting what you said? Go Blazers
No, you're representing me correctly. Anyone actively committing violent crimes I want in the legal/penal system, not playing basketball for any NBA team.
that had far more to do with Scottie Pippen than Maurice Cheeks. Not that Nate is a good coach. What was Schulers winning %? Wasn't it higher than Ramseys?
