Well, I've got it posted in 2..... so I guess I've got a lot of work ahead if I'm going to get it posted in all of them. Want to help?
In 2004, he criticized the Blazers for not making a trade (for Shaq). When I pointed out to him via email that his proposed deal didn't work under CBA trade rules and that there was no combination of players involving Randolph (who was BYC) that would work, his reply was that it wasn't his responsibility to come up with workable trades. In 2006, he told me that he had 'seen with his own eyes' that there was still a 75% rule for BYC in the CBA. This after having written about there still being such a rule. I told him that the 75% rule was part of the previous CBA and not in the then-current one. He flat out told me I was wrong and said he would 'get back to me' with the reference of where it was located. He never did get back to me. In 2008, he wrote that the Blazers would have between $15 and $20 million in cap space in the summer of 2009. When I challenged him on these numbers, he told me that he appreciated my response but that he was correct. Portland actually had less than $8 million in cap space, which they used to sign Andre Miller. In 2009, he wrote on his blog on the day of the trade deadline that Portland could trade Raef LaFrentz later in the season. When I responded that he was incorrect, his response to me was that there was nothing to prevent Portland from trading LaFrentz later in the year. Later that morning, after realizing his mistake, he went back and edited his comments so that it would appear that he had never made those statements. In 2011, he promoted the heck out of the 'fact' that he would have an 'expert on the new CBA' on his radio show. This lawyer, he said, knew all about the new CBA, so callers could ask any question they wanted about it and he'd have an answer. I called in and asked a question about signing Freeland to a contract larger than his rookie scale. The lawyer admitted to me that he had never actually seen the new CBA, but that I was correct in saying that such a thing was possible under the old CBA and therefore was probably allowed in the new CBA. This was not a situation where the guest promoted himself as an expert, it was John who put that (incorrect) label on him. I asked John to explain himself afterwards via email and never heard back from him. Just a few of my experiences with interacting with John about 'facts' that he either wrote about or said on his radio show.
Why is he able to get away with being so inaccurate? He's not compelling, he's not innovative. He just recycles theories about why the Blazers aren't a winning organization. You can tell he's seething when they start a season 31-9. He just revels in their downfall. Why does anybody listen to the guy? You'll never hear his voice on my radio. Boycott forever that clown (nice work Storyteller 2)
In about Jan. 2004 I e-mailed him to disagree about something. The time stamp in his response indicated he was 2 time zones away, out of state. There was no local team visiting there. I forgot how I determined this, but I became convinced that he goes to few local games because he has a second home out of state. He's just making up half his articles.
Let me be clear, when John writes feel-good pieces, he's in his element. He evokes emotion and is clearly excelling in his craft. When he writes about the CBA or player salaries or league finances, he should be writing a feel-good piece.
Many of these posts show that the posters on this board should follow Damian's advice, and not worry about this flea. He doesn't care whether or not what he says makes sense, just that it garners him attention. Deny him that attention, and it's like denying him oxygen.
I tend to like both parties, Canzano and the Blazers. Can we stop with the charade that Canzano is ALL bad and the Blazers are ALL good? Some people make it sound as-if the Blazers are infallible.
Nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. It is understood by all here that anything coming from the Blazers, their commentators, and their bloggers, will be full of sunshine pumping from the first word. The point that everyone is making, and that you are refusing to acknowledge, is that Canzano has a repeated history of being factually inaccurate and then refusing to acknowledge it, and of inserting himself into the story and making himself a part of it, rather than simply opining (as a columnist is supposed to). These two consistent aspects of his commentary severely undermine his journalistic integrity with most readers/listeners.
