Lillard: "Who is Canzano??"

[Storyteller2]

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.

 

[maxiep]

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.

 

[HomerLovesKoolAid]

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.

Damn right. Start the Banzano movement.

 

[BBert]

Damn right. Start the Banzano movement.

I think it's more of an Ignorezano movement.

 

[BlazerWookee]

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.

STORYTELLER GO BOOM.

Repped, and welcome back, Stranger!

 

[THE HCP]

I will treat this StoryTeller guy like any other rook!

 

[Strenuus]

I will treat this StoryTeller guy like any other rook!

Oh man, the horror. :MARIS61:

 

[Storyteller2]

I will treat this StoryTeller guy like any other rook!

It takes a lot of guts for Manny Ramirez to call Payton Manning a "rook"....

 

[1honestfan]

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.

I see your point for not trading for a big man at all because Ruben Boumtje-Boumtje was going to take us to the promise land....

I remember that time frame well. Canzano was criticizing the blazers for not taking substantial steps to improve the team, not just trying to get Shaq. The following years we were:

27-55
21-61
32-50

I am not thinking that Canzano was incorrect in his thought process but Allen ELECTED to go with the "Youth Movement".

My last point on this bullet point is that the Blazers themselves found a way to make the trade you're stating but O'neil was the one to veto the trade. This was confirmed by an independant source with quotes from O'neil himself.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/basketball/nba/06/27/shaq.trail.blazers/index.html


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.

I can't comment on this because I didn't hear it. That's just being fair.

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.

So adding rookies Nic Batum, Jerryd Bayless, Rudy Fernandez, and Greg Oden didn't eat into that cap space? You still need to pay your rookies. I don't see his numbers to far off had Portland decided to liquidate their picks and use them for free agency.

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.

I think I do remember him making that statement and then correcting it on the radio. Can't speak much of the blog because I didn't see it. At least he retracted his statement. Not sure what else you would want?

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.

That, If memory serves me correctly was shortly after the new CBA came out. The attorney was an expert on the old CBA so in essence he was an expert on the CBA, just not the new CBA in which the ink was still drying. I had zero problem with that show. It would piss me off if I have an expert on the show and then he's not up to date with the current CBA that I am bringing you on to discuss. Wouldn't it to you?

Just a few of my experiences with interacting with John about 'facts' that he either wrote about or said on his radio show.

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.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

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.

 

[1honestfan]

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.

I remember seeing you on ESPN my man.... Good to see ya again.

I am acknowledging that Canzano is not perfect. No one is perfect. I also acknowledge that he's in the business to help the Oregonian make money. I also acknowledge that sometimes he will play the middle or devils advocate. I just want other people to acknowledge the same about the Blazers.