Portland signs Blake

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Treaty_of_Batum said:
But why does someone have to come up with an alternative? If someone didn't like the Wright signing, they didn't have to come up with an alternative to be correct about not liking the Wright signing.

Personally I don't know what was out there. How do we know if Olshey offered max yrs of the MLe to Hawes or Colllison or whoever. Any name I come up with for an MLE could be rebutted "well you don't kow if Olshey didn't try" Also I'm not going to pretend to know what the market is. All these "reality" people were swearing that Hawes would get well over the MLE. Wrong. We don't know what is going on or who is available for what.

But is it so hard to look at a transaction and give an opinion if it is a good one or bad one. So many here say all these other contract being given out are bad deals (like Frye). So basically Blazers make good deals and other teams make bad deals. Got it.
Click to expand...

Some people are hypersensitive. Just leave it at that. :lol:
 
Natebishop3 said:
Well, I was pretty underwhelmed with the Kaman signing at first, but honestly who else could we have gotten that was better? Hawes turned us down. Frye signed for a stupid contract with the Magic. What's left? We only signed him for a couple years. It's a cheap deal. I'm really not that upset about it. Whether you like Kaman and Blake or not, I think everyone should realize that backup PG and backup C were needs that had to be addressed, and this is most likely the best Neil could do with what he had.
Click to expand...

If you say so . . .
 
Treaty_of_Batum said:
So, as a fan you have to like the Kaman signing or because if you don't than it is because fan thinks the Blazers should be able to get a bigger name. You can't just not like the Kaman signing. OK . . .

Same situation with Blake I guess (which I personally don't mind that signing).

Basically you have to like the Blazers moves or you don't see what is going on around the league. That's one way to think about it . . .
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm just going by what I've read some people post in other threads. I've seen that you've been against the Kaman signing since it was announced. Not sure why exactly, other than he's not the most exciting name out there. That's fine in my book, but I think that it's not fair to Olshey to cast it as though he didn't reach out to other centers, but simply didn't have the resources to outbid other teams. IIRC, you were down with the idea of getting Hawes, and so was Olshey. He made as strong of a pitch as he could, but Hawes, for whatever reasons, decided the Clippers were a better fit. After him, is there another center out there that was available, could be had for MLE money, and is better than Kaman? I can't think of any...and that's the point. In my book, Olshey got the best player he could at the position we most needed help. He covered his bases by making it possible to make a different move next summer if he wants, as that's when the Blazers will actually have room to make a splashy signing. Basically, it's the same deal with Blake. If you think that there's someone out there that would accept a 2 year deal at BAE money who's better than Blake, I'm all ears.
 
e_blazer said:
Hey, I'm just going by what I've read some people post in other threads. I've seen that you've been against the Kaman signing since it was announced. Not sure why exactly, other than he's not the most exciting name out there. That's fine in my book, but I think that it's not fair to Olshey to cast it as though he didn't reach out to other centers, but simply didn't have the resources to outbid other teams. IIRC, you were down with the idea of getting Hawes, and so was Olshey. He made as strong of a pitch as he could, but Hawes, for whatever reasons, decided the Clippers were a better fit. After him, is there another center out there that was available, could be had for MLE money, and is better than Kaman? I can't think of any...and that's the point. In my book, Olshey got the best player he could at the position we most needed help. He covered his bases by making it possible to make a different move next summer if he wants, as that's when the Blazers will actually have room to make a splashy signing. Basically, it's the same deal with Blake. If you think that there's someone out there that would accept a 2 year deal at BAE money who's better than Blake, I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

Kaman has shown in the past to have attitude problems and I believe he is a lazy undisciplined center who gets injured at the drop of the hat and cares very little for the team he plays on . . . and I have said this on many occasions. I try not to say it every psot and have often said i'm done doggin on him because he is now a Blazer and I will try to like him.

But all posters hear, like you, is I don't like him and think Olshey could have done better. People read what they want to read . . .
 
So I haven't heard an answer to my question. If someone didn't like the Wright signing but couldn't give an alternative player to sign . . . were they wrong about the Wright signing?

(Which is funny because I liked the Wright signing . . . and still do)
 
Treaty_of_Batum said:
Kaman has shown in the past to have attitude problems and I believe he is a lazy undisciplined center who gets injured at the drop of the hat and cares very little for the team he plays on . . . and I have said this on many occasions. I try not to say it every psot and have often said i'm done doggin on him because he is now a Blazer and I will try to like him.

But all posters hear, like you, is I don't like him and think Olshey could have done better. People read what they want to read . . .
Click to expand...

See, I don't mind this. What annoys is (And I think E-blazer and Schilly also are saying) that they go "We could have gotten more". I don't mind if you don't like the Kaman or the Blake for whatever reason, but if you are thinking that there was something MORE we could have gotten, then when broached about the subject, can't come up with one.... then it just becomes air.
 
Treaty_of_Batum said:
So I haven't heard an answer to my question. If someone didn't like the Wright signing but couldn't give an alternative player to sign . . . were they wrong about the Wright signing?

(Which is funny because I liked the Wright signing . . . and still do)
Click to expand...

Who is they? The Blazers? It isn't about the BLAZERS being wrong or right... it's about when the poster is giving an opinion and give some outlandish answer to who they thought they should have gotten (like say trying to get Lowry for the MLE, for example) and when Kaman gets signed for it, get pissed cause they thought they could get more... then when approached for comment, can't -actually- come up with an answer.

Hate the signing, I'm fine with it. But when you say we could have gotten more and then don't answer it (Or worse, do answer it with outlandish out-of-price-range players) then it's just a nusience.
 
should have saved the MLE to make an amnesty claim on boozer /dennybait
 
BigGameDamian said:
Why would we need Boozer? Portland has enough big guys. What can Freeland/Wright/Claver net you?
Click to expand...

they would only net you big guys, so it wouldnt work either. hmm.

crap. im sure if we keep brainstorming we will figure this thing out.
 
Treaty_of_Batum said:
Kaman has shown in the past to have attitude problems and I believe he is a lazy undisciplined center who gets injured at the drop of the hat and cares very little for the team he plays on . . . and I have said this on many occasions. I try not to say it every psot and have often said i'm done doggin on him because he is now a Blazer and I will try to like him.

But all posters hear, like you, is I don't like him and think Olshey could have done better. People read what they want to read . . .
Click to expand...

First, I'll just say that my initial comment was not directed at you, personally, but you seem to have taken it that way. You're entitled to your opinions, as am I. A lot of posters here have been, in my view, unfairly ripping the Blazers because they didn't make a splashier move. I don't think that's fair given what assets were available to them.

Regarding Kaman, he's had his struggles with ADHD, which have been pretty well documented. He's had some issues in New Orleans that I don't know the details about. I do know that Olshey knows him from his Clippers days and thinks he's a good fit. I also read that Blake is very positive about Kaman from his stints playing with him on both the Lakers and Clippers. He's had some injury issues, but I don't think an unusual number of them given his age. Hopefully, the Blazers will be able to get more out of him given his lower usage rate as a backup. I'm optimistic about what he can do for this team, but it has to be proven on the court.
 
e_blazer said:
First, I'll just say that my initial comment was not directed at you, personally, but you seem to have taken it that way. You're entitled to your opinions, as am I. A lot of posters here have been, in my view, unfairly ripping the Blazers because they didn't make a splashier move. I don't think that's fair given what assets were available to them.

Regarding Kaman, he's had his struggles with ADHD, which have been pretty well documented. He's had some issues in New Orleans that I don't know the details about. I do know that Olshey knows him from his Clippers days and thinks he's a good fit. I also read that Blake is very positive about Kaman from his stints playing with him on both the Lakers and Clippers. He's had some injury issues, but I don't think an unusual number of them given his age. Hopefully, the Blazers will be able to get more out of him given his lower usage rate as a backup. I'm optimistic about what he can do for this team, but it has to be proven on the court.
Click to expand...

Mother Fuggin' Repped.
 
My view on what posters say is that if all you want to do is express a preference, you can just express it and leave it. I don't like Swiss chard. I can't explain why I don't like the taste and I'll never really be interested in trying to explain it. If you don't like Kaman or Blake, fine. There's really not much to discuss there, if that's all you say, and you're welcome not to like anything or anyone.

If you make a statement, like "Signing Kaman was a bad move" or "Portland could have gotten a much better player," then you should make an effort to substantiate it with either some logic or some data points, especially if someone challenges the statement. You might have to be a GM or NBA insider to know anything for certain, but you can have well-substantiated opinions without being either of those things.

These forum threads are essentially debates (with some observations and jokes tossed in). You have to expect any assertions you make to be challenged. That's not unfair. If you can't defend your assertion, you should consider whether it's a good assertion.

Again, though, if it's just an expression of preference that's not meant to make a point wider than your particular likes or dislikes then so be it.
 
Minstrel said:
My view on what posters say is that if all you want to do is express a preference, you can just express it and leave it. I don't like Swiss chard. I can't explain why I don't like the taste and I'll never really be interested in trying to explain it. If you don't like Kaman or Blake, fine. There's really not much to discuss there, if that's all you say, and you're welcome not to like anything or anyone.

If you make a statement, like "Signing Kaman was a bad move" or "Portland could have gotten a much better player," then you should make an effort to substantiate it with either some logic or some data points, especially if someone challenges the statement. You might have to be a GM or NBA insider to know anything for certain, but you can have well-substantiated opinions without being either of those things.

These forum threads are essentially debates (with some observations and jokes tossed in). You have to expect any assertions you make to be challenged. That's not unfair. If you can't defend your assertion, you should consider whether it's a good assertion.

Again, though, if it's just an expression of preference that's not meant to make a point wider than your particular likes or dislikes then so be it.
Click to expand...

Thank you! You, Eblazers, Nate, and Schilly know what the hell is going on. It's really not that difficult.
 
e_blazer said:
First, I'll just say that my initial comment was not directed at you, personally, but you seem to have taken it that way. You're entitled to your opinions, as am I. A lot of posters here have been, in my view, unfairly ripping the Blazers because they didn't make a splashier move. I don't think that's fair given what assets were available to them.

Regarding Kaman, he's had his struggles with ADHD, which have been pretty well documented. He's had some issues in New Orleans that I don't know the details about. I do know that Olshey knows him from his Clippers days and thinks he's a good fit. I also read that Blake is very positive about Kaman from his stints playing with him on both the Lakers and Clippers. He's had some injury issues, but I don't think an unusual number of them given his age. Hopefully, the Blazers will be able to get more out of him given his lower usage rate as a backup. I'm optimistic about what he can do for this team, but it has to be proven on the court.
Click to expand...

I am taking this personally and maybe it is because I am being lumped into a group, but I also think that group is being unfairly characterized. Like you said, you remember I was against the Kaman signing from the beginning but really didn't understand why other than it wasn't an exciting signing. Well if that is how you remember my take, I can't help but wonder if everyone who doesn't like the Kaman trade is being grouped as having an opinion that really isn't their's. I think many want to read it the way that one poster generalizes that if you don't like the Kaman acquisition than you don't see reality, without taking the time to differentiate the different opinions of why posters don't like the Kaman move.

I eluded to this once before but it sure is hard to have a minority opinion on this board. It tends to get slaughtered and ridiculed from all angles and certainly has put me on the defensive (and have an appreciation of why MM gets upset) I did take yours, and other posts, personally because not liking the Kaman acquisition is being generalized on this board and I am falling into that generalized category. A generalization that i don't think is even fair.

But I'll try and step back and not take every blast at posters who don't like the Kaman move as an attack on me . . . again I realize I have become very defensive and argumentative when it comes to this issue and put this all on me.

Thank god I like Steve Blake. Not crazy about the move, but like Blake enough to support the idea he will be a Blazer next year. I would absolutely lose it if I felt as strongly about the Blake acquisitio . . . and FWIW-I currently support Kaman (but if the Blazers aren't winning and he starts losing time to younger players and copes an attitude, Blazer or not it will be hard to support him)

Hope it is good between us e . . .
 
Blast from the past! I wonder what the record is for most tours of duty with a team? At times last year, I actually thought Portland would be better off with a backup like Blake, someone who hits his 3s, controls the ball and doesn't commit a lot of turnovers. I think we have more firepower off the bench that can be utilized if it weren't for ball hog mo.
 
Geez what's up with the Blake hate? I know he wasn't that exciting as a starter, but he's definitely a player who won't hurt you off the bench. And with the way things have gone the last two years, Portland will take a bench that can hold it's own.
 
Minstrel said:
My view on what posters say is that if all you want to do is express a preference, you can just express it and leave it. I don't like Swiss chard. I can't explain why I don't like the taste and I'll never really be interested in trying to explain it. If you don't like Kaman or Blake, fine. There's really not much to discuss there, if that's all you say, and you're welcome not to like anything or anyone.

If you make a statement, like "Signing Kaman was a bad move" or "Portland could have gotten a much better player," then you should make an effort to substantiate it with either some logic or some data points, especially if someone challenges the statement. You might have to be a GM or NBA insider to know anything for certain, but you can have well-substantiated opinions without being either of those things.

These forum threads are essentially debates (with some observations and jokes tossed in). You have to expect any assertions you make to be challenged. That's not unfair. If you can't defend your assertion, you should consider whether it's a good assertion.

Again, though, if it's just an expression of preference that's not meant to make a point wider than your particular likes or dislikes then so be it.
Click to expand...
I love Swiss Chard
 
I prefer Blake over Mo.

I bet PapaG is tickled pink with this acquisition.
 
PapaG was always an admirer of BLANKEY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RR7
Deron staying in Brooklyn
Replies
11
Views
944
Wizard Mentor
Wizard Mentor
Fez Hammersticks
Blazers sign Chris Kaman
15 16 17
Replies
491
Views
34K
Hobbesarable
Hobbesarable
RR7
nate Fired!
2 3
Replies
76
Views
4K
Tince
Tince
SlyPokerDog
OT - Denver just dumped George Karl.
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
jlprk
jlprk
Fez Hammersticks
Blazers trade for Burke
Replies
7
Views
679
BlazerWookee
BlazerWookee

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top