More BRoy/Aldridge contract banter

[PapaG]

Trolling? Acting like a frustrated 5 year old who painted himself into a corner?

lux·u·ry (lgzh-r, lksh-)
n. pl. lux·u·ries
1. Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort.
2. Something expensive or hard to obtain.
3. Sumptuous living or surroundings: lives in luxury.
adj. Providing luxury: a luxury car

Allen is a sports fan, he spends millions of dollars to get court side seats and have a hand in the direction of his favorite team. This is inessential but gives him pleasure, it is expensive and hard to obtain, and I bet his private party room at the RG is pretty damn sumptuous.

Get some facts, not just a hand full of opinions before you decide to go on a jihad over semantics.

I gave facts on what the Vulcans have been madated, as expressed by Tod Leiwecke.. You gave me definitions from a dictionary (speaking of semantics). The Blazers are being run as a business, PERIOD.

The yacht is run as a yacht.

Thanks for butting in, by the way.

 

[PapaG]

Times change. The economy has gone in the tank and free agents--especially restricted free agents--aren't getting much money on the market.

Bargnani

Why should our opinions not change as the reality of the market does?

Ed O.

The market has changed that much in a month? Interesting stuff, Ed. Why weren't you out in front of this last fall when banks were being bailed out to the tune of $800 billion?

 

[PapaG]

Wait a minute . . . you tell me I have no idea what is going on in negotaitaions becuase I'm not in the room negotiating and you can't rely on public statements from Blazers or Roy's agent or even Roy.

Then you act to know whether PA treats the Blazers like a business or a luxury.

Let me ask you . . . have you been in the room with Allen when he is discussing this. When he is discussing concerns about team finances and breaking even? Because according to you, you can't trust public statements. So I know you didn't just try to rationalize your position based on a public statement by Blazer managment.

So really we don't know anything about what PA thinks of the Blazers and what his intent is with them financially and making an opinion about that is really doing it with no knowledge.

Stop being silly. Assumptions only work for one side of this debate.

 

[Ed O]

Bargnani

Bargnani was not a free agent.

The market has changed that much in a month? Interesting stuff, Ed. Why weren't you out in front of this last fall when banks were being bailed out to the tune of $800 billion?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Of COURSE the market has changed in the last month. David Lee STILL hasn't signed an offer sheet... who would have predicted that?

The political comment is, again, something I don't really know why you mention.

I never commented about the likelihood of Roy or Aldridge being extended. There's no way I would have expected either of them to get maximum dollars at maximum years--which is more than Paul or James or DWilliams or Wade or Bosh got.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

Bargnani was not a free agent.

Gee, really? He was extended, is from Roy's draft class, and has an owner not as rich as Paul Allen.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Of COURSE the market has changed in the last month. David Lee STILL hasn't signed an offer sheet... who would have predicted that?

The political comment is, again, something I don't really know why you mention.

I never commented about the likelihood of Roy or Aldridge being extended. There's no way I would have expected either of them to get maximum dollars at maximum years--which is more than Paul or James or DWilliams or Wade or Bosh got.

Ed O.

Paul, James, Bosh, and Williams all wanted the shorter contracts to get to UFA faster. In Roy, the team has a franchise player wanting 5 years.

And again, the after the fact arguments aren't impressive. The economy has been tanking for almost a year.

 

[Ed O]

Gee, really? He was extended, is from Roy's draft class, and has an owner not as rich as Paul Allen.

What does that have to do with being a free agent?

You bolded my statement about free agents, and then you typed "Bargnani" so I would anticipate that you would have some sort of connection. Bad assumption on my part.

Paul, James, Bosh, and Williams all wanted the shorter contracts to get to UFA faster. In Roy, the team has a franchise player wanting 5 years.

Who gives a shit? It's too much money, it appears, for the Blazers to want to pay. It's also more than any of those players received.

And again, the after the fact arguments aren't impressive. The economy has been tanking for almost a year.

It's not after-the-fact. It's current fact.

Ed O.

 

[LOTBfan]

Thanks for butting in, by the way.

This isn't your board, this isn't your thread, this isn't your team, there is no butting except for our foreheads against the wall trying to decipher why you continue to spout your misinformed drivel. Take criticism for acting like a dolt, or go somewhere else.

The fact that you can not understand the definition of a word you continue to throw around, despite several people correcting you, prompted me to offer you the opportunity to educate yourself, if you choose to stick your head in the sand and continue repeating yourself, that would be an unnecessary intrusion into the topic, and this community... butting in, if you will.

 

[PapaG]

What does that have to do with being a free agent?

You bolded my statement about free agents, and then you typed "Bargnani" so I would anticipate that you would have some sort of connection. Bad assumption on my part.[/QUOTE}

It was a connection to Roy's situation, and also LMA's. Weren't you big on the "market" argument a few weeks ago?

Who gives a shit? It's too much money, it appears, for the Blazers to want to pay. It's also more than any of those players received.

Who gives a shit, facts be damned! You compared LeBron James' extension to Roy's potential extension, not me. Different cases entirely.

It's not after-the-fact. It's current fact

Ed O.

Nah, it's after the fact. You assume to know what the Blazers are thinking by your CBA lock-out talk, and how Roy/LMA will be screwed at that point. That CBA argument would have applied prior to July 1st, since a potential lock-out has been know for quite some time. Hence, an after the fact argument.

I don't get why beating people up for being concerned about how this will impact the team is a good idea for the board's conversation, but then again, I'm not a Producer. Adversarial dialogue seems to be the MO these days.

 

[Ed O]

It was a connection to Roy's situation, and also LMA's. Weren't you big on the "market" argument a few weeks ago?

Of course I was. I still am.

Why did you bring up Bargnani when I made my point about free agents? Why not bring up evidence that actually has to do with the point that you bolded and seemingly intended to address?

Who gives a shit, facts be damned! You compared LeBron James' extention to Roy's potential extension, not me.

I made a point. You said, "Yes, but..."

"Yes, but..." is irrelevant. Until and unless you can explain to me how James or Bosh or Wade or Paul or DWilliams signed for longer and more money than four years at max money, I don't think you can counter the point that Roy wants more money than they got.

Nah, it's after the fact. You assume to know what the Blazers are thinking by your CBA lock-out talk, and how Roy/LMA will be screwed at that point. That CBA argument would have applied prior to July 1st, since a potential lock-out has been know for quite some time. Hence, an after the fact argument.

Seriously... I am so confused.

Why is July 1 relevant? We're talking about NOW. I'm not looking back and saying anything other than that before the market demonstrated RFAs are screwed and before the economy went down, Roy and Aldridge might have expected more money.

There's no "I told you so" coming from me. There's simply no reason for there to be.

I don't get why beating people up for being concerned about how this will impact the team is a good idea for the board's conversation, but then again, I'm not a Producer. Adversarial dialogue seems to be the MO these days.

I don't know who's beating up whom. You've taken it on yourself to make those clever "Value added" posts lately. You've whined about getting "double teamed". You've mocked someone for "butting in".

Looking at your history, it's pretty consistent and not a shocker that you're acting this way. More generally, stating like "these day" are any different than a year ago, or five years ago, or a decade ago in this community is just plain wrong.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

This isn't your board, this isn't your thread, this isn't your team, there is no butting except for our foreheads against the wall trying to decipher why you continue to spout your misinformed drivel. Take criticism for acting like a dolt, or go somewhere else.

The fact that you can not understand the definition of a word you continue to throw around, despite several people correcting you, prompted me to offer you the opportunity to educate yourself, if you choose to stick your head in the sand and continue repeating yourself, that would be an unnecessary intrusion into the topic, and this community... butting in, if you will.

Thank you for patronizing me and telling me what a "luxury" is, according to your dictionary. I really had no clue, so I am eternally grateful for this teachable moment. What a great person you are, to take the time to address an idiot like me and educate them on the art of semantics.

Meanwhile, back in reality, the team is obviously being run as a business.

 

[LOTBfan]

Thank you for patronizing me and telling me what a "luxury" is, according to your dictionary. I really had no clue, so I am eternally grateful for this teachable moment. What a great person you are, to take the time to address an idiot like me and educate them on the art of semantics.

Meanwhile, back in reality, the team is obviously being run as a business.

Your appreciation is recognized, you are welcome... now use it.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

There are no hard and fast rules, I wasn't attempting to codify anything. I simply felt that the sources of information you were using weren't sufficient to demonstrate who was at fault, since neither side had any reason to reveal anything that might reflect negatively on them AND neither side had a lot to gain by criticizing the other side. In a battle for winning over the public, in a team/player negotiation, both sides want to come across as gracious unless things have truly turned ugly. So, in my view, you're not going to see what is actually causing the problems (if any actually exist) from the remarks by the agent/player or team.

To me, there's nothing Allen or his direct subordinates have to gain from revealing that they want to rein in costs. Fans don't generally like to hear that money will be an issue. So, since I don't view there being a clear reason to spin, I believe it. If you see a reason why it might be spin, and therefore not trustworthy, I'd be open to hearing it.

To me, they were two different situations (different for the reasons provided above), so I treated them differently.

Well I can think of lots of reasons Blazers management puts spins on public statements about the finacial sitaution of the Blazers. This is an owner who built an arena then declared BK, publically said his NBA model was broken, publically dclared his team was for sale only to pull it from the market after buying back the Rose Garden (with other groups showing interest).

So when managment says the want to break even, they could be saying that to garner sympathy for a billionaire owner who is about to make cuts to Blazer personel (many being local residents) . . . when the truth is PA doesn't care what impact he has on local employees, and that he is willing to spend money to win, but if they can't win then he wants to break even and to hell with local employees.

I don't know what PA is thinking . . . but I found it odd you can have such convictions about your opinion and they are based on your analysis if the statements by the Blazers are real or not. You basically say there are times not to believe what the Blazers say, there are times to believe what they say . . . and your opinions seem based on your own ability to determine when you can believe a press statement and when you can't.

It's hard to follow you when I say look at what the Blazers are saying (and Roy, and his agent , and what other teams did)and you say that means nothing you can't trust what they say. But when you want to make a point you say look at what the Blazers are saying.

 

[e_blazer]

Well, if they play the next season without an extension, why wouldn't they play one more season without one? Or why not force a trade to a team that will extend them? I find assessing "credibility" based on speculation a bit of a stretch. I'm not saying accepting a QO is likely, but talking about the possiblility doesn't make a person any less credible, does it?

Geez, stop taking everything so personally. I wasn't referring to YOU being credible, but rather the idea that the Blazers might lose out on Roy and/or Aldridge because they could accept the QA and later become UFAs. I think the possibility of that is so remote that it doesn't merit significant concern.

How many people prior to this summer thought Roy would not be extended for 5 years, and at/near the max, by now? I didn't see a single person say that it was even a possibility prior to the offseason. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but I do not recall a single poster thinking that Roy and even LMA would not be extended by now. In fact, I posted that the first calls would be made to Roy/LMA, which the Oregonian reported, and nobody said that after a month negotiations would be at an impasse. In fact, it was a basic assumption that they'd both be getting 5 year deal, and both at max/or near max.

How many people here have significant knowledge of the impact that the probable changes to the CBA in two years are likely to have upon player salaries, salary cap, the luxury tax, etc.? I, for one, didn't give it much thought until I saw the Blazers balking at giving Roy a max contract. Because of the economy and the fact that multiple teams are losing money under the current situation, it's likely that a max contract for Roy and one close to max for LA will look bloated a few years down the road. KP and Tom Penn have to work to control costs so as to be able to continue to keep this team financially feasible in a changing economic landscape.

 

[PapaG]

I made a point. You said, "Yes, but..."

"Yes, but..." is irrelevant. Until and unless you can explain to me how James or Bosh or Wade or Paul or DWilliams signed for longer and more money than four years at max money, I don't think you can counter the point that Roy wants more money than they got.

Of course it is. That's consistently been your position. Taking into account the player's desire is relevant, however.

Seriously... I am so confused.

You're not the only one.

Why is July 1 relevant? We're talking about NOW. I'm not looking back and saying anything other than that before the market demonstrated RFAs are screwed and before the economy went down, Roy and Aldridge might have expected more money.

There's no "I told you so" coming from me. There's simply no reason for there to be.

I don't expect an "I told you so". BTW, are the Blazers lowering ticket prices due to the bad ecomony? Will concessions be lowered? I'm waiting for that press release since they are a "luxury" to Paul Allen.

I don't know who's beating up whom. You've taken it on yourself to make those clever "Value added" posts lately. You've whined about getting "double teamed". You've mocked someone for "butting in".

Value added is lame, I admit. I also said "tag teamed" not "double teamed", although I'm not sure how you can infer "whining" from that post. As for mocking someone, they posted a definition from the dictionary in order to make some absurd point. I'll mock somone who is clearly mocking me, all day long.

Looking at your history, it's pretty consistent and not a shocker that you're acting this way. More generally, stating like "these day" are any different than a year ago, or five years ago, or a decade ago in this community is just plain wrong.

Ed O.

Sorry Ed, I'm off on a tangent (yet so are you), and I'm incapable of a cogent thought anymore. I still can't get my arms around the "luxury" argument. I mean, it was so brilliant and nuanced. Do any other posters care to chime in with other definitions from an online dictionary? I really need some help here.

 

[Minstrel]

Well I can think of lots of reasons Blazers management puts spins on public statements about the finacial sitaution of the Blazers. This is an owner who built an arena then declared BK, publically said his NBA model was broken, publically dclared his team was for sale only to pull it from the market after buying back the Rose Garden (with other groups showing interest).

So when managment says the want to break even, they could be saying that to garner sympathy for a billionaire owner who is about to make cuts to Blazer personel (many being local residents) . . . when the truth is PA doesn't care what impact he has on local employees, and that he is willing to spend money to win, but if they can't win then he wants to break even to hell with local employees.

Possible. Just doesn't/didn't strike me as very likely.

I don't know what PA is thinking . . . but I found it odd you can have such convictions about your opinion and they are based on your analysis if the statements by the Blazers are real or not.

I don't have "such conviction." You're imputing a certainty to me that I don't actually feel. I considered my opinion just that...an opinion, which could be in error.

You basically say there are times not to believe what the Blazers say, there are times to believe what they say . . . and your opinions seem based on your own ability to determine when you can believe a press statement and when you can't.

Of course. Aren't all our opinions based on our own abilities to analyze? I never said that you were factually wrong or that I was factually correct. I said that I didn't believe you had any real information about how the negotiations are going. I believe I do have an idea of what Allen wants out of the Blazers, financially. In both cases, publicly reported statements are involved and clearly I feel some of these are more trustworthy than others. You're free to disagree with that, and I've never suggested otherwise.

 

[Minstrel]

Adversarial dialogue seems to be the MO these days.

These days, really? Things didn't get aggressive or adversarial on the previous forum?

 

[LOTBfan]

As for mocking someone, they posted a definition from the dictionary in order to make some absurd point. I'll mock somone who is clearly mocking me, all day long.



Sorry Ed, I'm off on a tangent (yet so are you), and I'm incapable of a cogent thought anymore. I still can't get my arms around the "luxury" argument. I mean, it was so brilliant and nuanced. Do any other posters care to chime in with other definitions from an online dictionary? I really need some help here.

Nobody needs to chime in, you can not be taught... you will never catch the fly with the chop stick.

Get some rest, later, when you can wrap yourt head around people pointing out basic problems in your arguments, like oh say, you not knowing the meaning of the word you are arguing the definition of, then you can come back, have a nice cup of tea, and feel refreshed.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Possible. Just doesn't/didn't strike me as very likely.



I don't have "such conviction." You're imputing a certainty to me that I don't actually feel. I considered my opinion just that...an opinion, which could be in error.



Of course. Aren't all our opinions based on our own abilities to analyze? I never said that you were factually wrong or that I was factually correct. I said that I didn't believe you had any real information about how the negotiations are going. I believe I do have an idea of what Allen wants out of the Blazers, financially. In both cases, publicly reported statements are involved and clearly I feel some of these are more trustworthy than others. You're free to disagree with that, and I've never suggested otherwise.

No, according to you my opinion is not based on analysis but on emotional reaction that I try to pass off as evidence.

Maybe you don't have strong convictions, but I have seen you on here with what I percieve as a mantra about the Roy sitatuion that there is not enough information to determine if someone is being unfair. That we are not privy to the negotiations and we can't trust what anyone says publically. You seem pretty convinced about this.


And to charcterize my arguements as trying to pass off my emotions as evidence seems to fly in the face of what you are saying now. That I can in fact base my opinion of public statements (evidence) and we just differ about the value of the evidence. Before it was, I was all emotional about Roy and all I'm doing is giving an emotional reaction and trying to fool people that my emotion is really evidence.

I can't follow you . . .

 

[Minstrel]

No, according to you my opinion is not based on analysis but on emotional reaction that I try to pass off as evidence.

Agreed. That's not contrary to what I just said, in my opinion.

Maybe you don't have strong convictions, but I have seen you on here with what I percieve as a mantra about the Roy sitatuion that there is not enough information to determine if someone is being unfair. That we are not privy to the negotiations and we can't trust what anyone says publically. You seem pretty convinced about this.

That's not how I feel. It's merely an opinion, not a "mantra" or a certainty. The topic has certainly come up a lot, though, so I have said it a lot.

And to charcterize my arguements as trying to pass off my emotions as evidence seems to fly in the face of what you are saying now. That I can in fact base my opinion of public statements (evidence) and we just differ about the value of the evidence. Before it was, I was all emotional about Roy and all I'm doing is giving an emotional reaction and trying to fool people that my emotion is really evidence.

I don't consider the PR spin provided by the team and player to be "evidence" of what is happening within the negotiations. That is, essentially, where we are not connecting, I guess. My impression of your approach is that your opinion is based more in emotion (for example, the Darius Miles/letter to GMs incident...you began talking about how you'd get very angry if another business tried that with you and such and how dare the Blazers act like that). You then attempt to bolster your emotional stand with whatever you can point to as evidence.

I'm sorry that you're insulted by my impression of how you argue. I certainly wasn't planning to say it, since I figured you wouldn't like it. But you implicitly accused of me being unwilling to change my mind, so I gave my honest assessment of why you have never changed my mind. There really was no malice intended.

 

[PapaG]

Nobody needs to chime in, you can not be taught... you will never catch the fly with the chop stick.

Get some rest, later, when you can wrap yourt head around people pointing out basic problems in your arguments, like oh say, you not knowing the meaning of the word you are arguing the definition of, then you can come back, have a nice cup of tea, and feel refreshed.

I don't know the meaning of luxury. I get that, at least according to you.

Again, though, are ticket prices being lowered for this "luxury" due to the economy? Are concession prices being lowered? Or are other people, most of whom live in a city with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, going to help Paul Allen pay for his "luxury", while he tries to break even on his "luxury", and while he tries to lower/limit salaries for his key, natch, franchise employees for his "luxury".

Seriously, just stop.

 

[Tince]

 

[LOTBfan]

Again, though, are ticket prices being lowered for this "luxury" due to the economy? Are concession prices being lowered? Or are other people, most of whom live in a city with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, going to help Paul Allen pay for his "luxury", while he tries to break even on his "luxury", and while he tries to lower/limit salaries for his key, natch, franchise employees for his "luxury".

This is a very good argument! I suspect at some point the players unions will have to look at what reasonable incomes are for their union members, and at the same time owners will have to determine just how much they can charge and still fill the seats. My guess is that they would argue that if you can sell out an arena, then the price is still reasonable, but at the same time, you can't rightly tell your players that they don't get their fair percent for supplying the product. I hope that the RG never looks like the Memphis arena, but at some point people are going to have to prioritize their expenditures, and tickets won't be at the top of the list.

On a side note, I have rented both yachts and ski cabins from owners who wanted to generate a little revenue from them, to defer costs a bit... not the exact same as a sports team, but it is a way to recoup costs on a hobby.

 

[oldmangrouch]

I'm sorry, but there is no diplomatic way to put this: this thread needs to die.

Arguing semantics? How pointless is that?

One side of this debate needs to understand that negotiations have not yet reached an impasse, and that there is no impending disaster - yet.

The other side needs to recognize that that Roy has only been here 3 years. There is no reason to believe in his undying loyalty. If the Blazers don't treat him right, it is perfectly credible that he could decide he wants out. (either by forcing a trade, or going for UFA)

Personally, I don't know which side will ultimately be proven right....but I do know that RIGHT NOW, both sides need to stop blowing smoke over pure speculation!

 

[LOTBfan]

dude, you are the one running around with his hair on fire!

 

[oldmangrouch]

dude, you are the one running around with his hair on fire!

Beware knave! The flaming-horned-death-viking is not to be lightly mocked!

 

[LOTBfan]

Bah, I completed the balls of fire challenge at Salvadore Molly's, I fear not viking fire!

 

[HailBlazers]

opinions...arguing...stupidity... Yup sounds like banter!

 

[Tince]

I'm sorry, but there is no diplomatic way to put this: this thread needs to die.

Arguing semantics? How pointless is that?

One side of this debate needs to understand that negotiations have not yet reached an impasse, and that there is no impending disaster - yet.

The other side needs to recognize that that Roy has only been here 3 years. There is no reason to believe in his undying loyalty. If the Blazers don't treat him right, it is perfectly credible that he could decide he wants out. (either by forcing a trade, or going for UFA)

Personally, I don't know which side will ultimately be proven right....but I do know that RIGHT NOW, both sides need to stop blowing smoke over pure speculation!

Despite what some may think, I agree 100%. Well put!

 

[LOTBfan]

Here is a video I made earlier today to lighten things up!

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Agreed. That's not contrary to what I just said, in my opinion.



That's not how I feel. It's merely an opinion, not a "mantra" or a certainty. The topic has certainly come up a lot, though, so I have said it a lot.



I don't consider the PR spin provided by the team and player to be "evidence" of what is happening within the negotiations. That is, essentially, where we are not connecting, I guess. My impression of your approach is that your opinion is based more in emotion (for example, the Darius Miles/letter to GMs incident...you began talking about how you'd get very angry if another business tried that with you and such and how dare the Blazers act like that). You then attempt to bolster your emotional stand with whatever you can point to as evidence.

I'm sorry that you're insulted by my impression of how you argue. I certainly wasn't planning to say it, since I figured you wouldn't like it. But you implicitly accused of me being unwilling to change my mind, so I gave my honest assessment of why you have never changed my mind. There really was no malice intended.

It is absolutely insulting. Basically I take an emotional stand and don't have the rationale to see past my emotions so I can't see evidence clearly. And the biggest kick I get out of this is you the Miles email as an example of my emotions controling my thoughts . . . it's a kick to me because although I may not know a lot about basketball, I have no doubt I have more real life business dealings already than you will ever have in your entire life.

So let me tell you about my impression of your arguments, not trying to insult . . . you act like you know everything about everything. You always need to get the last post in and you take whatever basketball issue there is as some kind of internet challenge on who can debate better on the internet rather than looking at the actual issue.

You conveniently use logic that you later contradict in other threads, then you try to differntiate your logic when called on. And you use the same cliches or creative internet saying to try to get in the last word (usually you get the last word because you outlast who ever is you are debating with).


Hope it's not insulting . . . that is just my impression of your posts.