Thread Tools

Display Modes

zagsfan20 · 11-22-2005, 03:55 AM

Deleted Content

zagsfan20 · 11-22-2005, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STOMP

Come on Schilly. Ruben is being the same guy he's been for a while, and since Ed predicted this sort of problem happening with Rube being one of 5 SFs on the club, it's pretty silly to place all the blame on him for acting in the predictable way he has. Don't you think it's a pretty important componenet in a club's success for management to be able to correctly access what their players are like when assembling the roster? Many other posters (myself included) thought that he was the one that they should have cut under the one time out they used on DA.

Of course Rube is to blame for acting out like this, Ed hasn't contended otherwise, but so is management for not being proactive in correctly accessing this obviously volatile situation.

STOMP

Deleted Content

RPCity · 11-22-2005, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barfo

Well, whether it changes your agreement or disagreement is up to you of course.

As for the assessment... well, maybe there are other questions to ask. In the example, you are laser-focused on "is the driver guilty or not?". Yes, he's guilty. Everybody agrees with that. That's not the whole story.

Why was that guy staggering out into traffic in the first place? Did he just come out of that bar next door? Is there something attractive on the other side of the street? Is there a history of accidents here? Is a pedestrian overpass needed here? Or did the pedestrian actually know the driver? Were they, in fact, once married to each other? [Yes, gay marriage, this is Multnomah County]. Was it really an accident? Was it a coincidence? Was the pedestrian pushed? Who was that man dressed in black seen running from the scene?

But maybe it is easier just to say "he was drunk, so he's guilty, lock him up, the rest of that stuff doesn't matter"?

If you are interested in punishing Ruben, no additional considerations are needed. He screwed up, punish him. If you are interested in improving the Blazers, you have to ask the question "why did Ruben screw up?" And "because he's a bad bad man" is not the only possible answer.

barfo

Aaaah....you make me sound like a crazy "hanging judge" here man. I know things are always black and white. But now you're taking that example a step further. This example is simply going too far to be consistent with what it was meant to show to begin with. And no, while "Because he's a bad bad man is not the only possible answer," you'd be stubborn to be unwilling to admit that he has no history of things like this. Even removing his troubled legal history.....he's got a history of opening his mouth and not controlling things that don't come out. To take the example still one step further....if this is a driver's fourth time driving drunk, I think that's the more predominant issue in the situation rather than the street he was driving on was not well lit. Sure you're going to have multiple factors going into anything that happens....but I think there's clearly one overriding factor here.

But maybe thats just because I don't like Ruben....never really have.

I've more than said my piece in this thread. I'm finished.

BIG Q · 11-22-2005, 08:43 AM

I was just reading some of the posts on page seven of this thread and had to jump ahead and post this without reading all posts before I forgot my thought.

To all that are trying to say Rubens outburst was inevitable because of the five sf's we have I sure hope that come draft time you do not suggest we take the best player available like so many people point out is why we should have had MJ. Odds are high that come draft time the best player available will be a sf. When Portland traded for Miles, they were getting back young talent while dumping a malcontent. We had drafted Outlaw who was considered the best player available, and subsequently the Russians.

It was not "inevitable for Ruben to blow up because management created this situation." They were just following the draft plan most posters here subscribe to; "draft the best player available regardless of position, thin it out later." For Patterson, later will be the end of the season if he opts out, or some time next season when he is an expiring deal. I suspect that Patterson, who had little trade value to begin with has done as most of last years Blazers free agent crop did; killed his own trade value to the point where it is easier to just keep them and let them expire. You would be hard pressed to get more than a six pack and a pizza for this moron.

**gatorpops** · 11-22-2005, 09:19 AM

I confess that I am poor when it comes to argument, but why did Ed' O say management was the "jaywalker"?
Looks to me like managementy may very well have been in the crosswalk.

Ruben was not Nash's purchase, and although he needed to get rid of him as one of the "problems" they had only one cut they could logicly do and they elected to do DA. They did try it seems to trade Ruben and elected to showcase him to the league and it seems that no one has taken them up. Looks to me like they were "walking within the crosswalk" after all.

gaotpops

RPCity · 11-22-2005, 09:40 AM

I think Ed's bottom line point is that management basically set Ruben up for this outburst at worst and should have seen it coming at best. His argument is that Ruben is passionate and wants to win while management has built a team that is not capable of winning at the rate Ruben would like to see.

I don't really agree with him...but its not management's actions with Ruben specifically that make the team a "jaywalker," rather the direction they've taken the team as a whole.

**STOMP** · 11-22-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zagsfan20

~~Awww, I think its kinda cute that you like to stick up for your buddy....~~

~~huh... since when did they make a smiley of your fantasy date with Morrison?~~

Would you like me to link threads where I say the same things months ago? Or would that totally deflate your attempt at humor too much to be worth it?

STOMP

CelticPagan · 11-22-2005, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProudBFan

Yes, I'm dead serious.

No, I'm not joking.

I'm not in a frame of mind to mince words with you Ed, nor am I permitted to say here what I really think of you, your outlook on the team, or your agenda here on this forum because it most definately would qualify as a personal attack.

I said exactly what I meant to say, and that's all I'm going to say.

PBF

I have to agree with PBF here, I wonder if Edo seriously believes what he posts, or if he's just trying to stir up controversy.

Foulzilla · 11-22-2005, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trader Bob

Its funny the way they are handling this with Ruben compared to what Darius did last year???

Ruben seems to be getting set up for a much harsher penalty

What Ruben did was far worse in my opinion, so deserves a harsher penalty. It's one thing to get into a heated arguement with the coach behind closed doors, quite another to do it in the middle of a game. That's not to say what Miles did was ok, but they are on different levels in my opinion.

Ed O · 11-22-2005, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zagsfan20

Its disgusting that Ed would take Ruben's side on this situation and it affirms my own personal beliefs of what Ed's reasoning for posting on this board (which I won't get into detail about, because I don't feel like someone running off tattle-taling on me for "personally insulting" him) is.

With this guy though nothing ever ceases to amaze me...

Is this an appropriate post?

I keep asking over and over again: how many times can zagsfan take shots at me in the forum without some steps being taken to discipline him?

Ed O.

**Dan** · 11-22-2005, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed O

Is this an appropriate post?

I keep asking over and over again: how many times can zagsfan take shots at me in the forum without some steps being taken to discipline him?

Ed O.

you should know the reason of that ed. and not the reason you think.

ABM · 11-22-2005, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPCity

I think Ed's bottom line point is that management basically set Ruben up for this outburst at worst and should have seen it coming at best. His argument is that Ruben is passionate and wants to win while management has built a team that is not capable of winning at the rate Ruben would like to see.

I don't really agree with him...but its not management's actions with Ruben specifically that make the team a "jaywalker," rather the direction they've taken the team as a whole.

I related these thoughts, below, in another thread. I'd be curious to know what Ed's thoughts are related to it...

Quote:

One very pronounced complication with Ruben's status is, the Blazers HAVE tried to trade him - even gone to his agent (to me, that was HUGE) and gave him full freedom to attempt to work out a deal. Of course, this is not new news. As most of us are aware, this all happened LAST SUMMER. Obviously, the primary criteria being, the Blazers aren't taking on any "bad" (long-term, over-valued, or such) contracts in return. Thus far, no apparent takers or "workable" deals.

So, Ruben sits.............................................. ..and will probably continue to sit until his perception/attitude has been re-adjusted to fit within the team/management concept.

**Schilly** · 11-22-2005, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed O

Is this an appropriate post?

I keep asking over and over again: how many times can zagsfan take shots at me in the forum without some steps being taken to discipline him?

Ed O.

No it's not and he has been warned for it...I just logged in and have seen this for the first time, it isn't appropriate.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes