I love Roy, I really do. He meant a lot to this organization. But he is still getting paid, and he's unable to play and fulfill the contact. So for me, I don't really care what he feels about it. I am happy he has accepted it. But ultimately, there's nothing Roy can do to help us any further, he's still getting paid, so beyond that, what Roy should not be a concern when the organization is trying to build a team and run a business.
I'm not Jason Quick (thank GAWD), but it makes logical sense. The insurnace policy would cover Roy's inability to play due to injury. It has nothing to do with the NBAs amnesty policy, which didn't even exist when the insurance policy was purchased. They are two separate events. Roy is being amnestied because he is no longer able to perform at a level commensurate with his contract. The reason he can't perform at that level is knees damaged so badly that he is is seeking medical retirement. Roy is retiring for medical reasons, independent of whether, or not, the Blazers use the amnesty clause for luxury tax relief. Of course, you can also use the amnesty clause on a healthy player who no longer fits your plans. But, that healthly player would not be eligible for medical retirement, and therefore, their salary would not be paid by an insurance policy that covers a player forced to retire for medical reasons. BNM
I know it's the logical decision by the Blazers, but that doesn't make it any less painful for me as a fan to see Brandon officially removed from the Blazers. Too bad...
for real? what are there like 12? 12 every 40 years...hrmm id say that gives us 240 years until there is a problem, but by then we will be using a new living organic binary biological carbon system of player identification, so no worries over here
Part of greatness is longevity. We know the answer on that regarding Roy. Brandon coulda, woulda, shoulda. Lots of guys with amazing talent just couldn't stay healthy enough. I'm really on the fence about retiring his number. The way he went downhill so fast. I don't know. He did some amazing things, but it's hard for me to say we should retire his number based on a few good seasons.
The Blazers do have too many numbers retired, IMO. If it were up to me, I'd only have Walton and Drexler as retired numbers. I would think hard about Roy, though. He didn't have a long career with the Blazers (as Walton didn't) but, like Walton, his talent was really high.
"Trolling?" Sarcasm certainly, but if you think that qualifies as "trolling" I don't even know what to say.
From another post I made a couple days ago: Brandon Roy played 321 games and 11,439 minutes as a Portland Trail Blazer. By comparison, Bill Walton played 209 games and 7033 minutes in a Blazer uniform. Maurice Lucas played 257 games and 8620 minutes as a Blazer. Dave Twardzik: 280 games, 6921 minutes Lionel Hollins: 315 games, 9236 minutes Of the 10 players to have their numers retired by Portland, 4 played fewer games for the Blazers than Brandon Roy and 5 (LLoyd Neal: 435 games, 11,015 minutes) played fewer minutes for the team than Brandon Roy. If games/minutes played is your criteria for getting his number retired by Portland, Roy definitely qualifies. BNM
i think walton drexler and roy in the rafters would show the average person the 3 most important people arguably in the history of the franchise
I actually understand retiring Walton's number. Dude was just amazing. One of the best at the position, and ultimately, he was a HUGE part of us winning the championship. We would have done more if he could have stayed healthy. Brandon? We'll never know. But one thing is a fact: we never got out of the first round under his guidance. Some of the other guys who have had their numbers retired by us are complete jokes. Let's be honest, though, part of the reason some of the career games numbers are short is guys typically had much shorter careers back then.
