Embarrassing (363 days....)

[BBert]

If anything, the lockout should have provided the perfect time to perform due diligence and find the best GM candidate. What it said to anyone not blinded by the PR machine is that Paul Allen was being a cheap bastard and thought the season would be cancelled. No excuses. It is a total embarrassment and I am shocked and saddened that people want to try and give them a mulligan on this

This is what I was going to say. Well, not exactly. I was going to say it a little nicer. The lockout was not going to last forever. Were I the owner, I would have put all my resources into filling the GM position during the lockout, and once filled put all the team's resources into preparing to hit the ground in a full sprint when the lockout ended -- whether this year or next. Worked on contingencies to take advantage of other teams' financial hardships. Fired McMulligan. It's called planning. Instead, the Blazers Brass went on vacation with their fingers stuck up their noses while their heads were stuck up each other's asses. See...nicer.

 

[jlprk]

and I can't remember the last time a team went a full calendar year without replacing a GM.

You must have become a fan after the mid-80s, since until then, each team's GM and minority owner were one and the same. I think the reason Allen delayed was that he was and is tired of putting up with the GM ego. He wanted a rest from having some new blowhard bothering him, and he hoped the existing bureaucrats could do the job, pre-1985 style, in what was expected to be a year of no trades or signings.

 

[e_blazer]

The team has gotten significantly worse since Cho as fired, and I can't remember the last time a team went a full calendar year without replacing a GM. If either of these things weren't the case, then I think your statement would hold more water.

As it is? The franchise looks weak and indecisive. Worse yet, the team is no good. And, considering every other NBA team thinks hiring a GM is a good idea, maybe the Blazers should look into getting one, too.

Ed O.

I'm not saying that the Blazers made the right choice in not hiring a GM last summer, just that the lockout plus the fact that Buchanan was perceived as a reasonable holding action were certainly factors in the decision to wait. The decision bit the team in the ass, but, given that all of that is water under the bridge, the point that I'm making most importantly is that there is no reason to rush right now. Other good candidates are coming into play as their teams exit the playoffs and it would be stupid not to interview them before making a decision. The Blazers need to get this done right more than they need to get it done immediately.

 

[e_blazer]

If anything, the lockout should have provided the perfect time to perform due diligence and find the best GM candidate. What it said to anyone not blinded by the PR machine is that Paul Allen was being a cheap bastard and thought the season would be cancelled. No excuses. It is a total embarrassment and I am shocked and saddened that people want to try and give them a mulligan on this

Seriously, you're totally embarrassed by the fact that the Blazers have taken a year to hire a GM? I'd be more embarrassed if they had hired some dufus last summer and had to fire him because he wasn't the right guy. Again. Get it done before the draft and get it done right. That's all I'm looking for at this point. But if it makes you feel all glowy to rail against Paul Allen and his cronies, by all means, rail away.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

To blame the teams woes on a lack of a GM is just trying to find a scapegoat, IMO.

This team sucks because they lost their best player. Didn't get to trade an aging star, or didn't get to wait until he comes back from injury . . . instead just lost their #1 player. (we see what happened to Chcago when they lose their #1 player).

This team was being built to make a run with Roy, Oden and LA. Oden they should have figured out a couple years ago, Roy goes from being a hero in a playoff game to suddenly retiring, had to catch the Blazers off guard. We also learned this year that LA isn't really a leader and someone who will take the team on it's back night in and night out. So the core is now just a small piece of what was suppose to be. That is why this team sucks.

The GM, Chad, made many "GM" moves during this so called black hole of a non-GM year. I contend that some of his moves could be classified as good GM moves (wallace trade, getting Joel for the year, aquiring Kurt Thomas, getting rid of Camby, firing Nate) and others bad GM moves (Felton trade, the Crawford signing, Smith draft pick). But this organization has had a GM for the last year and the team has been very active.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Seriously, you're totally embarrassed by the fact that the Blazers have taken a year to hire a GM? I'd be more embarrassed if they had hired some dufus last summer and had to fire him because he wasn't the right guy. Again. Get it done before the draft and get it done right. That's all I'm looking for at this point. But if it makes you feel all glowy to rail against Paul Allen and his cronies, by all means, rail away.

If you don't think it is an embarrassment to go a full year without a GM after firing both previous one's on or before the draft then good for you. To think it takes a full year to find "the right guy" is stupid, and if it does take that long then "the right guy" doesn't exist.

 

[e_blazer]

If you don't think it is an embarrassment to go a full year without a GM after firing both previous one's on or before the draft then good for you. To think it takes a full year to find "the right guy" is stupid, and if it does take that long then "the right guy" doesn't exist.

And you don't think there's a better than even chance that "the right guy" is one of the guys who is currently under contract and working for a team that made the playoffs instead of one of the unemployed cast-offs that was available this past winter?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

If you don't think it is an embarrassment to go a full year without a GM after firing both previous one's on or before the draft then good for you. To think it takes a full year to find "the right guy" is stupid, and if it does take that long then "the right guy" doesn't exist.

Hey MM, you want embarrasing. How about being a first year permanent GM and leading a team to the worst winning percentage in the history of the NBA. I mean Blazers bad season stings but will be forgotten by next year. Cho made NBA history by putting together the worst team ever. To me, that is embarrassing.

 

[Mediocre Man]

To blame the teams woes on a lack of a GM is just trying to find a scapegoat, IMO.

This team sucks because they lost their best player. Didn't get to trade an aging star, or didn't get to wait until he comes back from injury . . . instead just lost their #1 player. (we see what happened to Chcago when they lose their #1 player).

This team was being built to make a run with Roy, Oden and LA. Oden they should have figured out a couple years ago, Roy goes from being a hero in a playoff game to suddenly retiring, had to catch the Blazers off guard. We also learned this year that LA isn't really a leader and someone who will take the team on it's back night in and night out. So the core is now just a small piece of what was suppose to be. That is why this team sucks.

The GM, Chad, made many "GM" moves during this so called black hole of a non-GM year. I contend that some of his moves could be classified as good GM moves (wallace trade, getting Joel for the year, aquiring Kurt Thomas, getting rid of Camby, firing Nate) and others bad GM moves (Felton trade, the Crawford signing, Smith draft pick). But this organization has had a GM for the last year and the team has been very active.

Not having a GM is not the reason we stunk, but not having a GM might be a reason we stink longer. There is no way in holy hell Chad was the one who decided it was time for Nate to go. Larry Miller was the one who called Nate to fire him, Larry Miller was the guy leading the presser regarding his firing.

I liked the trades at the deadline, and hated the draft....again, I think Smith was Nate's pick, but who really knows? As for his Felton and Crawford moves...well we all know how those turned out.

Charlotte is a great example to bring up about a permanent GM being bad for an organization. I will counter with RC Buford, or many, many others

 

[Mediocre Man]

And you don't think there's a better than even chance that "the right guy" is one of the guys who is currently under contract and working for a team that made the playoffs instead of one of the unemployed cast-offs that was available this past winter?

Absolutely agree with you. But what made that particular GM unavailable last year during the lock out? The answer is nothing, the Blazers fucked up and waited too long

 

[Mediocre Man]

Hey MM, you want embarrasing. How about being a first year permanent GM and leading a team to the worst winning percentage in the history of the NBA. I mean Blazers bad season stings but will be forgotten by next year. Cho made NBA history by putting together the worst team ever. To me, that is embarrassing.

Very embarrassing. Hired less than 2 weeks before the draft, then was unable to do anything during the lockout. If you look at his moves, they weren't bad. Like here in Portland though, I think he was too gun shy to make more moves

 

[jlprk]

Hey MM, you want embarrasing. How about being a first year permanent GM and leading a team to the worst winning percentage in the history of the NBA. I mean Blazers bad season stings but will be forgotten by next year. Cho made NBA history by putting together the worst team ever. To me, that is embarrassing.

Until you said Cho, I thought you meant Pritchard. Weren't we .250 his first year? So there's a second example backing you up.

A team can easily function without a GM if the owner sinks enough money into a bureaucracy which can do GM things. Most owners won't spend like that, but we can function without a GM. Anyone who gets embarrassed over this is a sensitive fellow indeed.

 

[crandc]

Yes, it is so embarrassing.

Everywhere I go no one can talk of anything but the Blazers' lack of permanent GM.

All they talk about at work. On TV news. On ESPN. Every time I talk to a friend they bring up Blazers GM. It's all over everyone's Facebook page. Front page of New York Times.

By far the most serious problem on the face of the earth.

 

[jlprk]

Aw crandc, please stop. I'm turning red.

Shucks. And in mixed company. I'm blushing.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Yes, it is so embarrassing.

Everywhere I go no one can talk of anything but the Blazers' lack of permanent GM.

All they talk about at work. On TV news. On ESPN. Every time I talk to a friend they bring up Blazers GM. It's all over everyone's Facebook page. Front page of New York Times.

By far the most serious problem on the face of the earth.

No hyperbole here.

As a Blazer fan it is an embarrassment

As a human I couldn't care less

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

365 Days!

That's actually quite impressive...

And blatant.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

365 days and their face of the franchise and best player of the team retires during that time peroid. Being the only NBA team going this long without a GM must mean the Blazers are the worst team in the league . . . after all every other team has for a GM for a year longer than the Blazers.

 

[Nikolokolus]

365 days and their face of the franchise and best player of the team retires during that time peroid. Being the only NBA team going this long without a GM must mean the Blazers are the worst team in the league . . . after all every other team has for a GM for a year longer than the Blazers.

I don't get this. Are you somehow trying to imply that this long, drawn out, GM search is the sign of a well run organization? It's not quite as dire as some have painted things, but it aint good ...