Go figure Nik. I don't get it . . . if you keep saying it, why won't people believe you. I mean MM keeps say the same messages and he is always right. But I understand where you are coming from, once the Blazers get a new owner, a new coach, new management and new players, they will be on the right track.
It would be nice if once in a while he actually named his source. I mean what do sponsors or officials at UP have to lose by telling the truth on record. Has anyone else wrote about this? Because pressuring the sponsors is pretty bad....... if true.
People like to be told what they already believe to be true (confirmation bias) when something contrary is presented most people will instinctively reject it. In this case most people want to believe a couple of things, that A. The Blazers are really, really really close to being a contender and B. that Paul Allen being extraordinarily wealthy and a free spender equates to him being a "good owner." Any other narrative tends to get shouted down around here, but I don't mind.
Reporters/columnists rarely name their sources by name ... if they did, they'd quickly run out of sources. The fact that he even went so far as to call them UP official is a lot more specific than I'd usually expect. Furthermore there's no reason for the person who said it to go on the record -- there might be nothing to lose, but there's certainly nothing to gain.
Sure that too. He was however a very above average point guard with a terrible shot and he was on a lot of mediocre teams.
Nik, although I have respected your posts in the past, it's this idea that there is only one right answer and if you don't agree with your take, then posters are in denial and ignore all other suggestions. Isn't it possible that posters understand as much as you where the Blazers are and understand that you just can't throw money out and get a title, have thought about these things and still believe PA has a better chance of bringing a title to Ptd than bringing in a random owner of a small market team. To dismiss posters thoughts as "they just say that to instinctly reject it" really cheapens the whole idea of this board. Could I not say the same thing about you. That you are convinced that PA is bad for the team that any suggestion or indication he is not, you shout and and ignore because you instinctely will reject any idea to the contrary of what you believe. I would like to think that you have thought things out and with your own independent thought and firmly beleive PA is bad for this team. But the fact that you think there is no issue and there is no other way to see it unless you are in denial, makes me wonder if you gone off the deep end. PA has come very close to bringing a championship to Ptd. He also assembled a completely different roster that many professional analyst thought was the team of the future. Why is it so hard to understand that some poster logically, and looking at both sides, believe that PA gives a better chance at a title vs. (what many fear) a cheap small market owner. Anyways we have gone round and round on this, it is frustrating on my side because your posts use to have a lot of anaylsis and open to all arguments out there. Now it just seems that you people disagree with you then they aren't thinking logically (we already have one MM on this )
Add me to the list of people who has thought about Allen as an owner, and am overall happy that he owns the Blazers. I understand he has done a lot of boneheaded things and often makes decisions based on his gut, and not on the expertise of a qualified management team. But what has that done? First, in the Sheed era, he came very close to actually getting the Blazers a championship. It did not work out, but for several years the Blazers were true competitors. Second, The team he recently assembeled, if it were not for a ton of injuries, would be a contender. If the Blazers had the benefit of a healthy Oden and a healthy Roy over the past 4 season and into today, do you really believe that the Blazers would not be one of the top 4 teams in the NBA? Bad luck in the injury department as dashed our current hope, but at least Allen gave us a chance to have a top competitor. Lastly, although this might be naive on my part, it makes me happy to know that our owner is truly a fan of the game. Everyone makes mistakes, but I am perhaps less tough on Allens mistakes because he is not making those mistakes because he is trying to earn an extra buck, but because he, like many Blazer fans, falls in love with his players. I know the last point is me admitting that he is not a great owner, but I do believe that he is an average owner with a much greater love of the game, and willingness to spend then other owners. If I could select the perfect owner, I would want one that never makes mistakes and has a brilliant Bball IQ, even if he weren't as rich, but the fact is that an average owner with deep pockets beats the heck out of a roll of the dice owner. We would have no say in who the next owner is, and I think he would need to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than Allen to make up for Allen's money and love of the sport. Just my two cents.
Nice post, KMD. One positive of the lockout has been posters have had time to take emotion out of their Blazer-related opinions. I expect this to last a week or so once the season starts, though!
You seem to be taking stuff I say awfully personal. If you feel I've directed anything directly at you then you have my apology, but I will hold firm in my belief that Paul Allen is not a very good businessman and owner. If you feel differently then show me some evidence that he is in fact an effective owner. I'm open to reasonable arguments, but all I've heard so far is that he likes to throw money around -- which isn't a negative trait -- but a willingness to fire a gun doesn't make somebody a marksman unless they hit what they are aiming at. With this team under Allen I don't see a lot of vision or direction coming down from the top, I see a guy with minimal patience, minimal managerial skills, and somebody who states a desire to win, but doesn't appear to understand how to build an organization in such a way to achieve that goal. Show me why I'm wrong and don't just accuse me of arguing in bad faith -- make a case.
This is something I thought I'd never see. Canzano, using an unnamed source, has us arguing over whether Paul Allen is any good. Well, there's a first time for everything.
I wasn't on the board in 2005-6, but I submit that there probably was a time around then when PA was going through bankruptcy, the Blazers had about the worst attendance in the league, they were winning 21 games and Canzano was still on the Oregonian staff that the previous post occurred.
