I think everyone sees the whole picture. They just tear off the sides they don't want to see like it's an ex in a picture.
I think it's probably more of the case that that is how Ed felt at the time he was being interviewed - he wanted to be a Blazer for Life. That doesn't mean feelings don't change - I'm sure he wasn't in "media mode", though I'm also sure that you are right that such a thing exists, and is indeed common.
I understand that you can't get any time of realistic feel for a player's ability by looking at a youtube video, but I've loved Ed Davis since watching this video:
I actually saw Derek Anderson snap out of media mode once. It was the last game of the season, and DA was easily one of the most guarded with the media (Jordan Brand). He always had the most vanilla thing to say and would never say anything bad or controversial. He would get this robotic look on his face when he was being interviewed. Anyway, it was the last game of the season, and the players were cleaning out their lockers. I went up to him as he was about to leave and said something like "Good season DA, have a nice break." And he started to mumble something and walk past me, and then he stopped, turned around, his face completely changed and softened, and he said, "thanks man, I appreciate it." He shook my hand and walked out. It was just funny to see the stark contrast.
Funny, I actually interpreted riverman's post completely differently. I thought he was saying that the article about Davis highlights how the Blazers' organization is doing a good job of identifying where players can be--and putting them in positions to be--successful, and that that would be another thing that might make our organization a more attractive destination. Sure it rains in Portland. Sure our state income tax is high. But if you want an opportunity to maximize your talent, Portland is a great place to sign. Based on the argument that followed, it appeared that wasn't what riverman was trying to say, but I don't think it's an unreasonable take.
Saying "that might make our organization a more attractive destination," is quite a bit different than saying that it "is a more desirable destination."
Are teams better signing all-star marquee free agents? LeBron won on the Heat super team, but before that the only team I see winning is Shaq 16 years ago with the Lakers. I just don't see many champs that built a title contender with a stud free agent. The Knicks will always have a meeting with every free agent; but they haven't won a title since 1974 and often have been the joke of the league. Chasing all stars in free agency might not be as useful to building a contender as often is assumed. What we do see a lot of with contenders is smart trades or role playing free agent signings.
Way to be pedantic. He also qualified his statement by saying "for emerging players looking to fit in with a style of play that puts them in position to succeed," suggesting that if a player wants that, then Portland is a desirable option. Context is key. Read the statement in context and it's not hard to figure out what he meant.
Not sure about A but B is true. So riverman isn't wrong (although he could be embelishing things a little). Olshey mentioned it in an interview. If I can find it I will post it. The question came up on why would he (Olshey) sign Ed Davis before knowing whether LMA would be back (Davis was signed a few days or more before LMA finally said no to POR). His answer was a two parter. Basically part one was something along the lines of other teams were pushing hard for Ed to make a decision and so we (POR) couldn't make Ed wait any longer to put off his decision (so we had major competition) and part two was that Davis (like a lot of guys Olshey went for) could play with or without LMA so he went for it and signed him early.
I am not disagreeing with you on that, I am just talking about the mere prospect of getting a marquee free agent and the process of it.
For most who love to repeatedly tell us all that we can't/won't get decent free agents, I suspect it's more about being right than having fun.
How is that pedantic? It's not a small detail. One is a statement that a fan on a message board can easily make. The team might be more attractive to young guys who want to prove themselves based on how well we have done with Davis/Harkless/etc. The other statement is presented as a fact. Portland IS more desirable to young players who want to prove themselves. How do we know whether it is or is not more desirable? Do you know very many young NBA players who are thinking about signing with Portland because they want a chance to prove themselves? Outside of an interview from Davis, what other evidence is there that his statement is a fact?
It's pedantic because it's easy to understand what he was trying to say--that Portland is a good place for players to choose if they want an opportunity to make the most of their opportunity--and you're making it out to be a declarative statement about NBA players' interests based on riverman's usage of the word "is" instead of "should be", or "could be", or "might be". You accused him of making assumptions regarding Davis' (or other NBA players') view on the desirability of Portland as a free agent destination, but I would posit that your assumptions on riverman's point were equally egregious.
No, he didn't say that Portland is a good place for players to choose, he said desirable. Using the word desirable assumes that you know what the other people are thinking. By that rationale, if I think I'm an eligible dude, does that mean that I can say I am desirable to super models? I have a decent job. I'm not a bad looking guy. I would treat them well, therefore I AM desirable to supermodels because my calculations say so.