Dwight Jaynes has an idea of why Penn was fired (and why KP might be next)...

[illmatic99]

http://www.dwightjaynes.com/a-few-things-im-hearing-about-kevin-pritchard

Well, I think a lot of people suspected Penn’s firing went a lot deeper than that and this one story indicates that it did. The explanation making the rounds in the NBA is that Penn made a very inappropriate remark about a co-worker, in front of other co-workers. The co-worker was a female. I’ve heard the remark and it’s something that would probably get you fired at YOUR job, wherever you work. And it had NOTHING to do with basketball, or KP.

Now we could debate whether you would fire someone for it, but one thing we probably couldn’t debate is what has gotten Pritchard in the doghouse — his reaction to it all. When Penn (and Pritchard’s) agent, Warren LeGarie, come forth with the proposition that Penn’s firing was a move against Pritchard, KP did nothing to dispute that — EVEN THOUGH HE KNEW WHY PENN WAS ACTUALLY FIRED. And he knew it had nothing to do with him, or even with basketball.

Can’t you understand why this would anger upper management? I mean, if this is all true (and a lot of NBA people seem to be buying into it), Pritchard seems to be throwing Larry Miller and Paul Allen under the Vulcan bus — when he actually knew better.

I don't agree with the last statement about how KP not acknowledging the Penn incident leads to Miller/Allen being thrown under the bus, but I suppose I do understand why Penn was fired (if this story is true).

 

[illmatic99]

OH, and I do hope Jaynes isn't just talking out his ass, because those are some pretty big accusations on Penn's charcter (which has otherwise been sterling).

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I don't agree with the last statement about how KP not acknowledging the Penn incident leads to Miller/Allen being thrown under the bus

Makes sense to me. If KP knew that Penn was fired with cause but instead let it seem like the firing was irrational and without merit, then he certainly contributed to a negative public opinion of his superiors. IF this is true, however.

BTW, I love how Jaynes doesn't support any of this in any way stronger than " lot of NBA people seem to be buying into it". VERY solid, DJ...

 

[illmatic99]

Makes sense to me. If KP knew that Penn was fired with cause but instead let it seem like the firing was irrational and without merit, then he certainly contributed to a negative public opinion of his superiors. IF this is true, however.

Still, I don't think it's a fire-able offense.

 

[Public Defender]

There's a scenario that Jaynes isn't discussing here, that given the way the corporate world tends to work is plausible. (I'm not saying this is what happened, only that Jaynes' version of events still has holes big enough to fill with plenty of speculation.)

Say Penn made the disparaging (probably sexist, chauvinistic, etc.) comment about the female co-worker. It upsets upper management, and I'm suggesting what might have happened - as would happen at a lot of places I've worked - the top managers contact the immediate supervisor (KP) about taking immediate steps. The suggestion is likely that KP fire Penn. KP, hypothetically, refuses. That refusal (which could be interpreted as misguided loyalty to an outgoing underling rather than to the men who sign the checks) could be what got KP into dutch. In that way, it's a situation that Jaynes is correct had "nothing to do with basketball" - but since it's an inappropriate (hypothetical) act by someone's immediate underling, it of course has something to do with KP.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Who hasn't said Rebecca Haarlow can suck the logo off a basketball?

 

[crandc]

There's a scenario that Jaynes isn't discussing here, that given the way the corporate world tends to work is plausible. (I'm not saying this is what happened, only that Jaynes' version of events still has holes big enough to fill with plenty of speculation.)

Say Penn made the disparaging (probably sexist, chauvinistic, etc.) comment about the female co-worker. It upsets upper management, and I'm suggesting what might have happened - as would happen at a lot of places I've worked - the top managers contact the immediate supervisor (KP) about taking immediate steps. The suggestion is likely that KP fire Penn. KP, hypothetically, refuses. That refusal (which could be interpreted as misguided loyalty to an outgoing underling rather than to the men who sign the checks) could be what got KP into dutch. In that way, it's a situation that Jaynes is correct had "nothing to do with basketball" - but since it's an inappropriate (hypothetical) act by someone's immediate underling, it of course has something to do with KP.

Hmmmmmmmm. Yes, this is all speculation but if what you are surmising is true, there is another very big issue. IF Penn made a derogatory remark to a female colleague/subordinate and IF KP was told to fire him for it but did not and IF Allen et al did nothing, there is very definitely legal liability. Because if the remark were construed as sexual harassment, say, management by law must take action (not necessarily firing, of course, depends on what was said/done. Saying "you look hot" would get a reprimand, demanding sex would get a firing) or they could be sued for enabling a hostile work environment. Considering the net worth of the parties, the woman could really go after them in court. Remember Isiah Thomas?

I know, a lot of ifs.

Maybe I am grasping as straws, but I would at least hope that Paul Allen, whom no one could call stupid, a 57-year old two-time cancer survivor, would not be petty enough to can a GM because he got too much praise, or dressed better than the owner (which he does).

 

[hasoos]

I call bullshit. I have worked at a lot of companies and it would be a rare occasion when somebody is fired for derogatory statements if it is the first time it has happened. Employees typically get talked to after the first incident and told what is acceptable and not acceptable and to knock it off, and then if they persist, then they are fired later.

 

[crandc]

I call bullshit. I have worked at a lot of companies and it would be a rare occasion when somebody is fired for derogatory statements if it is the first time it has happened. Employees typically get talked to after the first incident and told what is acceptable and not acceptable and to knock it off, and then if they persist, then they are fired later.

Depends on what was said. And also whether there was a pattern.

 

[OddEnormous]

Who hasn't said Rebecca Haarlow can suck the logo off a basketball?

Geezus

 

[ABM]

I call bullshit. I have worked at a lot of companies and it would be a rare occasion when somebody is fired for derogatory statements if it is the first time it has happened. Employees typically get talked to after the first incident and told what is acceptable and not acceptable and to knock it off, and then if they persist, then they are fired later.

One thing I had aways wondered about......the circumstances leading up to and surrounding KP's involvement with a former Blazer dancer. None of my business, really, but, I couldn't help but wonder if KP got involved with her prior her resignation with the Blazers, as well as prior to his marriage ending. That said, I also kinda wonder if it has a connection in any way to these latest events? Some employers highly frown upon fraternization with other employees...especially in KP's position. In other words, what "may" have happened back then could have been strike 1?

We'll never know, though.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Who hasn't said Rebecca Haarlow can suck the logo off a basketball?

Geezus

What's really weird is now the Blazers are trying to hire The Logo.

 

[oldmangrouch]

If there was a pattern of this sort of behavior from Penn, and KP refused to deal with it, I can see where this would get ugly between KP and his superiors.

If this was an isolated incident.......it is hard to imagine what Penn could have said that would justify firing for a 1st offense. If KP pointed that out and argued for progressive discipline, I suppose that could have annoyed his superiors.

All speculation, of course. The real irony of all these scenarios, is that the one person *not* being really punished is KP. He will get a new job and carry on with his life and career. It is the organization and its' fans who will suffer from losing a competent GM.

 

[hasoos]

Depends on what was said. And also whether there was a pattern.

Not really. I have seen some of the rudest, crudest things said and it not lead to a firing offense the first time. Many times. It doesn't mean that they all go down that way, but in my experience, that is generally the way it goes. Hell most employees are put in leave before being fired anyhow until they figured out what exactly went on.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I don't know what the truth is, but I came out the next day after the agents statement and said the agent was unethical for tying KP's name into the Penn firing. Conflict of interest to use one client's personal information to make a point about another client.


Even if the story reported is not true, the agent had no business bring KP's name into the discussion (about Penn's firing) at that point and did his client a disservice. In fact the agent used Canzano as a pawn to run with the whole story.

KP has to be accountable for his agent's statement (or fire him) and his agent's statement after the Penn firing was the Blazer organization sucks and don't trust them. I knoe there might be some truth to it, but you don't come out and call out your employer without realizing there could be consequenses.

 

[Stevenson]

This actually makes a lot of sense.

The Penn firing has all the hallmarks of of a human resource issue - it was very abrupt, strange timing, and nothing public was said. He obviously pissed someone off and was canned. Or worse, he potentially got the organization in legal hot water.

And if KP was complicit by his silence, and in so doing let people think that his bosses were jerks, he dug his own grave, and stupidly too.

 

[SnakeOiler]

OH, and I do hope Jaynes isn't just talking out his ass

You're kidding, right? Jaynes face is one giant butt-crack.

 

[ABM]

You're kidding, right? Jaynes face is one giant butt-crack.

Perhaps, you've seen the Jaynes Gallery?

Deleted.

 

[noknobs]

This actually makes a lot of sense.

The Penn firing has all the hallmarks of of a human resource issue - it was very abrupt, strange timing, and nothing public was said. He obviously pissed someone off and was canned. Or worse, he potentially got the organization in legal hot water.

In Canzano's article today, he wrote, "Allen's henchmen waited until the day after season-ticket renewals to fire assistant general manager Tom Penn." So the timing isn't strange or abrupt at all. It was preconceived, or that's one helluva coincidence...

 

[Pinwheel1]

Who knows if Jaynes is right, but the part that is believable is the part that it has nothing to do with basketball. Many of us have believed that to be the case and not the stupid ass Durant/Oden draft pick to be the reason.

 

[crandc]

Again, we are all speculating but there are businesses who would fire a person for one statement if it were particularly egregious. I once worked with a woman who was infuriated (I disagreed) that her husband had been fired from his job for calling a co-worker "the n word" just once - she thought it was SOOOOOOO unfair. IMO, she, and he, were wrong.

And again, we don't know if it were one time or the proverbial last straw. But it is indeed possible for a first offense to merit a firing. Certainly not unheard of.

 

[Pinwheel1]

If this were too be true, Canzano's editorial would be, as usual, way off base. The Blazers would be actually be showing a lot of class by not defending themselves. And just going with the NO Comment angle. Only time will tell.

 

[Erroneous Subterfuge]

i would need the blazers to at least give me some kind of explanation. maybe not specifics but at least an explanation. if youre firing a popular successful GM then simpy saying "no comment" doesn't cut it. i find it hard to believe that theyd blow up the entire front office over a sexist inappropriate comment that KP didn't even say.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Again, we are all speculating but there are businesses who would fire a person for one statement if it were particularly egregious. I once worked with a woman who was infuriated (I disagreed) that her husband had been fired from his job for calling a co-worker "the n word" just once - she thought it was SOOOOOOO unfair. IMO, she, and he, were wrong.

And again, we don't know if it were one time or the proverbial last straw. But it is indeed possible for a first offense to merit a firing. Certainly not unheard of.

My thought at the time was that Penn called Miller an "n word"... but it works exacty the same if there was a disparaging remark that was over the line (maybe after several questionable remarks and behavior before hand that KP was supposed to correct in Penn). I know several very nice people who occasionally say the most ridiculously offensive things. Sometimes, they cross the line, and have to be reigned back by their boss bigtime. But if their boss doesn't do that, they themselves are culpable for their subordinate's actions.

I could see where this might be the situation.

 

[Draco]

Interesting take, seems as likely a reason as any.

 

[barfo]

In Canzano's article today, he wrote, "Allen's henchmen waited until the day after season-ticket renewals to fire assistant general manager Tom Penn." So the timing isn't strange or abrupt at all. It was preconceived, or that's one helluva coincidence...

Why would anyone think firing the assistant GM would affect ticket sales?
Are you planning to watch fewer games next year because Tom Penn got fired? Do you know anyone who is? Besides Tom Penn, I mean. And perhaps KP.

barfo

 

[oldmangrouch]

If this is true, a big "if", then it would appear that the "choir boy image is everything" mindset has taken over the front office as well.

If the team believes KP is bad at his job, then fire him. If they believe he is good at his job, neither his sex life nor the misdeeds of a subordinate are adequate reasons to dump him.

Just as an aside, wasn't the story that Penn was gay? That makes the "sexual harrasment of a female co-worker" story just a bit harder to swallow.

 

[jlprk]

Here is the entirety of Jaynes' evidence for the rumor:

"The explanation making the rounds in the NBA"

It already made the rounds on message boards when Penn was fired. The possibility occurred to everyone when we speculated about possible reasons for firing Penn. Other theories were that Penn screwed Allen's girlfriend, sneezed on a Vulcan, etc.

Brainstorming possible theories is not the same as giving evidence that they are true. Jaynes' blog article, and comments thereafter, just wasted a half-hour of my time.

 

[MARIS61]

If any of this is true then why wasn't Scottie Pippen fired by the Blazers?

 

[RoyToy]

Who knows what the reasoning is.

If I had to guess, probably has something to do with FA last year and the Penn thing. In both cases I could see KP not backing what the Vulcans were thinking and the Vulcans are probably tired of a guy that has the balls to call them on their shit.

Paul Allen teams seem to always be dysfunctional. We all the they story of the Blazers, and HC Mike Holmgren and GM Tim Ruskell of the Seahawks were hardly on speaking terms IIRC. There always seems to be something wrong in the organization and not necessarily the team/players itself.