I'm surprised this is a big deal. Depending on how you come up with the calculations we are or we are not the youngest teams in the NBA. Either way we're close, and I don't think that should take away from the point that is usually being made when that phrase is used.
But, he hasn't spent 1 second on the active roster all season. He's been on the inactive list. So, his services haven't been available. He has also not practiced with, or traveled with the team. I see more similarities than differences. Neither player has spent one second on the active roster. Neither have practiced with, or traveled with the team. While LaFrentz may technically be on the 15-man roster, he's not really part of the team. I wonder if Rudy, Batum and Bayless have ever even met him. They certainly haven't spent any time on the court with him, either at practice or during the games. BNM
I don't really see why any of this is relevant to determining the youngest team in the NBA. I think by the definition that anyone would use except some Blazers fans (that is, the age of players on the team's roster) the Blazers are not the oldest team in the NBA. Ed O.
Look up the definition of team if you don't know it already. Raef LaFrentz is not included with the team, by definition. Roster yes, team no.
Do you have a link to the definition that's applicable? After all, a wide definition of "team" includes coaches, right? The Blazers are paying Raef. He was a guy they could trade. He's on the roster and therefore the team. Why should we limit ourselves to excluding Raef? Because he hasn't played a minute? But Webster has BARELY played and that difference is insignificant on the floor. Because he hasn't traveled with the team and Webster has? Who cares? Do we look at the ages of the assistant coaches, who also travel with the players and probably spent more time with them? Face it. Blazers fans have to stretch definitions to spin it to sound most impressive and there's simply nothing to be gained by doing so. Ed O.
Haven't done the math. We were the youngest active roster in the league prior to the deadline, according to something I read/heard a month ago. I doubt that changed much. I suppose if you don't like it being referred to, and you'd like to disprove it, you could do the math.
The active list changes every game, though. I'm not sure how one could do that math very easily. The Warriors last night, for example, had three young guys inactive. If they had a couple of their oldest guys inactive (Maggette and Jackson hurt, for example, which happens) and Portland has Oden, Webster and Raef on the inactive list, the Warriors would be younger. Ed O.
I'd personally use the age of anyone who has actually played on the team. So, this year I wouldn't count Raef, and I wouldn't have counted Oden last year. To me a team is: a number of persons associated together in work or activity. Since Raef hasn't practiced or played with the other players this year, I don't consider him part of the team. So, I consider the Warriors to have the youngest roster, but the Blazers to have the youngest team. Again, other than arguing semantics, I'm not sure why this really matters. When people refer to the Blazers youth they are doing so as either an indication of how bright their future is, or as a possible reason why they might not succeed in the post season. I don't see what Raef has to do with either case. BNM
I honestly don't understand your problem with this. Everyone knows what we're talking abut when it's said and almost every time someone mentions the preface involved making us the youngest. It's in perspective. It's not like we're the 6th youngest team and trying to pull the wool over. Not only that, I hear "we're the 2nd youngest team" at a 3 to 1 clip anyway... So now were talking about a minority of a minority who actually have a case that "youngest" is correct. "Splitting hairs" doesn't do this justice.
Why is that, do you think? Do you think that the three people are wrong or that the one person is wrong? Ed O.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/team Correct, anyone that contributes to the team physically. Which wouldn't be Raef. Roster and team are different, clearly. Martell has contributed to the team by being there and at the very least, supporting his teammates. The same can't be said for Raef. I'm willing to bet that some of the players have never met him, and if they have it was maybe once or twice. That doesn't constitute for someone being on a team. You're really trying to compare some tmie with no time? Raef hasn't spent anytime with the team, if he spent some time that we can actually see, then maybe we would give it a second thought. As of now however, it's doubtful that some of the newer players have even met him. If you would rather the Blazers be toutted as the 2nd youngest team in the league, then by all means go ahead, I think that it's just as impressive as if they were the youngest team. It appears that you are confusing roster with team. Is Raef a part of our roster? Yes. Is he part of the team? Absolutely not. If you don't contribute to the team, then you are not part of it. All those coaches, bench players, assistants, etc contribute something to the functionality of the team. Raef does not.
So you are considering physical contributions? Webster is out for the year. Is he physically contributing? If not, why should we include him in the age determination for the team? And if we do NOT include him, then we are no longer the youngest team in the NBA as far as I can tell, even by your definition. Ed O.
I thought you would misunderstand my use of "physical." By physical, I mean present, doing something that contributes to the team. At the very least, Martell is with his teammates, talking, supporting, and rehabbing. I think all those contribute to the productivity of the team, don't you?
Not when it is mentioned by Quick and Mike B it isn't. At least, not always. It typically gets brought up when the team under preforms or struggles on the road. Something like "Look people, give this team a break. I mean, they ARE the youngest team in the league. What do you expect?" I am pretty sure it will come up even more down the stretch and in the playoffs.
I see what you mean. I guess I was thinking as of the start of the season. Still, they're one of the youngest teams in the league and playing beyond their years. That's just not something I'm willing to ignore for now.
