Good post. For me, it's not so much the over-reaction to actual events, it's the over-reaction to every rumor. We have had, literally, pages of screaming over something that did not happen but someone heard it might happen or might have been a possibilty in the past (example, KP is still being excoriated for not trading for Vince Carter, when we have no real evidence any workable deal was ever on the table). And a rumor, unconfirmed, that Rudy did not want Hedo here led to about 7 pages of comparing the relative merits of Hedo & Rudy, calls for trading Rudy, rumors that he really just wanted to be a Laker, etc. etc., none of which had any factual basis. I mean, if you MUST go nutso, at least go nutso over reality!
You better leave this place. I've been trying to write calm reasoning around here, but very few of the kids and druggies seem to listen.
I'd guess that he was responding to your screen name wrongly thinking it referred to University of Oregon. Some here have... strong feelings about the Ducks STOMP
What the???!!! Don't you understand that this is all VERY, VERY IMPORTANT??!!! Don't you get that the people who dare disagree with emotional, over-wrought, ad hominem takes are pathetic losers, plebeian ignoramuses who don't understand the first thing about basketball????
Ok, I'll jump on the "voice of dissent" grenade. Of course not. IMHO, however, they became a worse team (by not improving) for letting RLEC fall by the wayside in February, pinning their hopes on "CapSpace '09!", and being left at the altar a bit when Hedo said "No thank you." I, for one, haven't heard KP say once in the last 3 years "I'm waiting to do lopsided trades at the 2010 deadline!" So, for those who got shouted down by the IKPIT masses in February (with statements like, "They get paid to know more than you", and "When you are a GM then you can criticize") to call him out for what seems now to be a pretty big misstep in February is now both a form of "I told you so" and "perhaps there was something to what I was saying". Ok, so what? "Phoenix sucks at drafting, so it's ok if we suck?" 30 teams passed on Pendergraph--does that mean he sucks? 32 passed on Cunningham--why'd we get that clown? If he wasn't their guy, he sure as heck was someone's, whether at 37 or 43 or 55. Darrell Arthur wasn't close to our guy last year, but we drafted him and turned him into something of value. James White wasn't our guy, and we got 2 seconds for him. Mike Taylor (yes, the NBDL Mike Taylor) wasn't our guy, but we turned him into the #33 pick this year. My contention is that we could have drafted Blair at 33 (where he was an extremely high value pick) and waited to see who needed a bruising PF. Maybe someone would've tossed a couple of picks our way. But let's get back to the "he wasn't their guy". Why not? Injury risk? Skill risk? Attitude problem? Fat problem? He hasn't had an injury in 3 years that's kept him out of so much as a practice. He was the most elite NCAA rebounder in almost a decade--where rebounding is the one college skill universally accepted to be a good predictive factor in the NBA. I can't speak for attitude or IQ, but the fat problems? Travis (for one) hasn't showed up able to pass Nate's conditioning drill since Nate got here. He still plays. Our coaching staff seems to be able to motivate people to stay in shape during the season (Oden's knee aside). What's your contention for why he wasn't "our guy", and yet unable to be turned into something of value? To be fair, I don't think that sentiment/chant ever went away. Nope, they're the same people who say "why didn't we draft the best player around, who actually plays in a position of need?" Why did we pick Pendergraph and Cunningham when 2 players on the board who outplayed them head-to-head, as well as in their conference, as well as in some of their workouts, were still on the board---AND necessitating a free-agent offer to someone playing exactly the position they were drafted for, except for about 8M more? Again, opportunity cost. Would you rather have Millsap and Pendergraph, or Blair and 8M to upgrade a PG or SF with in a lopsided trade? I'm heading to Door #2, but you can continue to think differently and mock those who don't agree. Of course. Then again, the reverse is true. Just because someone holds a position doesn't mean they're smarter than you. And just because people have more information than you doesn't mean that they're capable of making the correct decision each time. And when thousands of my dollars are on the line, I reserve the right to criticize whoever I want to for making decisions that even I, as a "low level employee or consumer" who has less knowledge than the "people smarter than me", both saw coming and knew was risky.[/quote] Which brings up... 2.) Roy's contact is being negotiated. I am sure with most of us being adult (I question the age and mental function of a few) I am sure we have all bought cars. No to equate Roy to any old car, but the analogy works the same. Say he is a $50,000 BMW. You go to the dealer, and you do not just say, "here's a check for sticker price, have a good day." No! You negotiate. It may take the whole day. You may even walk out of the dealership frustrated. But if you want that car you come back, and you start negotiating again. If you get the BMW you want for $45,000 great. If you really want that BMW and you can't negotiate a better price, it may be a tough choice, but if your desire is high enough you pay the full retail price, it might just take a little longer to feel comfortable doing so. There may be several gives and takes before an agreed set of terms is reached. Each side try's to get the best value for their product. The dealer (agent) being the holder of the desired commodity (Roy), and the consumer (in this case the Blazers) and what they are want to pay for the desired commodity. Some times the desire to obtain trumps the desire to save. Some times it doesn't. Either way, we have no clue, unless we are in that negotiation. [/quote]As others have said, it's a bit different here. You're right, not every young player is going to play great every night. Why is criticism of that player considered an "extreme reaction"? Why is questioning their decision-making not allowed, or "adrenaline-caused"? As has been stated in numerous other threads, the frustration comes generally when fans feel they are not being told the truth, or that they don't have confidence in what's going on. Case in point: if we're "letting the cake bake", why the heck is Blake or Outlaw out there making boneheaded mistakes? Can't at least we see Bayless or Batum make boneheaded mistakes, since there's at least the hope of upside there, or the chance that one of those players will be crucial to our "dynastic" teams? Or if we're "going for it" with veterans, why are we passing on the chance to get the likes of Jefferson, Carter, Arenas, Hinrich, etc. for basically RLEC and a young player? It shows that the team is talking out of both sides of its mouth to fans. And what "enough" is "enough"? When PapaG and I get into page-long rants for and against Outlaw, is that bothering anyone else? Is that not what a "discussion board" or "forum" is about? You could suggest, but you brought up the immature card earlier and I'm going to return the favor here. I've never been a fan of a team that has won a championship while I've been watching. I go to games and watch games on TV and the internet, check box scores, discuss on forums details that most fans I know couldn't care less about, much less the general populace. I spend thousands on tickets (though I live 3 hrs away) because I want to be part of something great. Fortunately, the team looks much closer than it did, say, 4 years ago to being something great. Unfortunately, I see severe missteps that, imho, are decreasing the chance of greatness coming soon. To say "if it's tough, you should quit" is insulting.
No, it means that he wasn't seen as a first-round talent, like Blair. It's perfectly fine to prefer Blair over Pendergraph or Cunningham...we all have our opinions. However, some of the rhetoric on this forum afterward was along the lines of "Pritchard is an idiot for passing over a top-notch prospect!" If he were a top-notch prospect, he'd have been drafted much earlier by someone. There was clearly no certainty among anyone in the league that Blair was a much better prospect that Pendergraph/Cunningham. Therefore, such extreme reactions are unwarranted, IMO. Saying, "I'd rather the Blazers had selected Blair" would have been perfectly reasonable.
HUH? I guess the difference between rational fans and paranoid ones is the belief that the team can actually improve with Practice, and not just through moves. We are one of the youngest teams after-all, I doubt were gonna get worse anytime soon
The Blazers most definitely finished the regular season great playing much better than they did before the trade deadline - so I suspect that the team most certainly did not get any worse, at least in the short-term. As for the long-term - it is a speculation at best, at this point - and one that will continue to rage for years to come as there is no way to know how well R-Jeff or Vince would have really worked with that team anyway.
If your rationality permits it, maybe you could explain it to this paranoid fan which team in the last 30 years has improved with practice enough to win a championship, and which ones "made moves" for a championship. Maybe you could explain to me how "we're the youngest team in the league", and yet our team's shortcomings are by-and-large from the inequality of play we get from our 6th-year vets. Tell me, how much did Sergio get better from April 2007 to April 2009? Did he get better with age? How much did Telfair improve? Frye? Is it only guaranteed that players on our current roster get better with age? I guess I'm paranoid and irrational b/c I don't agree with you. I prefer to think that my "irrationality" comes from observation, looking at the big picture and paying attention to what I see, not solely what someone else says. Perhaps you're different.
