LMA's charity game

[PapaG]

Nik, although I have respected your posts in the past, it's this idea that there is only one right answer and if you don't agree with your take, then posters are in denial and ignore all other suggestions.

Isn't it possible that posters understand as much as you where the Blazers are and understand that you just can't throw money out and get a title, have thought about these things and still believe PA has a better chance of bringing a title to Ptd than bringing in a random owner of a small market team.

To dismiss posters thoughts as "they just say that to instinctly reject it" really cheapens the whole idea of this board. Could I not say the same thing about you. That you are convinced that PA is bad for the team that any suggestion or indication he is not, you shout and and ignore because you instinctely will reject any idea to the contrary of what you believe.

I would like to think that you have thought things out and with your own independent thought and firmly beleive PA is bad for this team. But the fact that you think there is no issue and there is no other way to see it unless you are in denial, makes me wonder if you gone off the deep end.

PA has come very close to bringing a championship to Ptd. He also assembled a completely different roster that many professional analyst thought was the team of the future. Why is it so hard to understand that some poster logically, and looking at both sides, believe that PA gives a better chance at a title vs. (what many fear) a cheap small market owner.

Anyways we have gone round and round on this, it is frustrating on my side because your posts use to have a lot of anaylsis and open to all arguments out there. Now it just seems that you people disagree with you then they aren't thinking logically (we already have one MM on this )

Nice post, KMD. One positive of the lockout has been posters have had time to take emotion out of their Blazer-related opinions.

I expect this to last a week or so once the season starts, though!

 

[Nikolokolus]

Nik, although I have respected your posts in the past, it's this idea that there is only one right answer and if you don't agree with your take, then posters are in denial and ignore all other suggestions.

Isn't it possible that posters understand as much as you where the Blazers are and understand that you just can't throw money out and get a title, have thought about these things and still believe PA has a better chance of bringing a title to Ptd than bringing in a random owner of a small market team.

To dismiss posters thoughts as "they just say that to instinctly reject it" really cheapens the whole idea of this board. Could I not say the same thing about you. That you are convinced that PA is bad for the team that any suggestion or indication he is not, you shout and and ignore because you instinctely will reject any idea to the contrary of what you believe.

I would like to think that you have thought things out and with your own independent thought and firmly beleive PA is bad for this team. But the fact that you think there is no issue and there is no other way to see it unless you are in denial, makes me wonder if you gone off the deep end.

PA has come very close to bringing a championship to Ptd. He also assembled a completely different roster that many professional analyst thought was the team of the future. Why is it so hard to understand that some poster logically, and looking at both sides, believe that PA gives a better chance at a title vs. (what many fear) a cheap small market owner.

Anyways we have gone round and round on this, it is frustrating on my side because your posts use to have a lot of anaylsis and open to all arguments out there. Now it just seems that you people disagree with you then they aren't thinking logically (we already have one MM on this )

You seem to be taking stuff I say awfully personal. If you feel I've directed anything directly at you then you have my apology, but I will hold firm in my belief that Paul Allen is not a very good businessman and owner. If you feel differently then show me some evidence that he is in fact an effective owner. I'm open to reasonable arguments, but all I've heard so far is that he likes to throw money around -- which isn't a negative trait -- but a willingness to fire a gun doesn't make somebody a marksman unless they hit what they are aiming at.

With this team under Allen I don't see a lot of vision or direction coming down from the top, I see a guy with minimal patience, minimal managerial skills, and somebody who states a desire to win, but doesn't appear to understand how to build an organization in such a way to achieve that goal. Show me why I'm wrong and don't just accuse me of arguing in bad faith -- make a case.

 

[jlprk]

This is something I thought I'd never see. Canzano, using an unnamed source, has us arguing over whether Paul Allen is any good. Well, there's a first time for everything.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I wasn't on the board in 2005-6, but I submit that there probably was a time around then when PA was going through bankruptcy, the Blazers had about the worst attendance in the league, they were winning 21 games and Canzano was still on the Oregonian staff that the previous post occurred.