Backboard Cam

I was with you until you dismissed the case.

__________________
' ////
( o )
////

Oldmangrouch

I still don't get what Quick is yapping about.

Patterson said certain attacks on Allen were unfair. Quick disagreed. Where's the problem? What is there to give him the benefit of the doubt about?

__________________
We enter this life naked, wet, and hungry - and it only gets worse!

barfo

That doesn't make much sense, Pop. Did the Blazers claim they were posting the complete transcript of the Allen interview? If they did I missed it. It isn't unethical to edit an interview - after all, isn't that what your boy Quick does with every single interview?

barfo

stevecolter

Blazers just posted retraction regarding Quick's interview with Patterson ...

chromekilla

Yeah the blazers worked out justin williams from wyoming that is very good.

__________________
Best song of all time!!!!! Seattle Mariners
Seattle Seahawks
Portland TrailBlazers
Oregon Ducks
Gonzaga Bulldogs
Portland TrailBlazers Resident Homer!

Schilly

No they didn't

Dan

if anything, the blazers posted a comment retracting Patterson saying "man, the oregonian ****ing blows"

__________________
A Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and says "Make me one with everything".

when will the loss of life end?

The world respects the power of our example, not an example of our power.

I'd like to say I made this, but I didn't

Dan

actually, Steve C is correct.

imagine that, someone admitting a mistake and owning up to it...

canzano (and quick to a lesser degree) could learn something from that.

__________________
A Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and says "Make me one with everything".

when will the loss of life end?

The world respects the power of our example, not an example of our power.

I'd like to say I made this, but I didn't

yakbladder

I believe what Pop is getting at is that they said they were going to publish complete transcripts of every interview in order to present every side and the full story. That way,they said, people could see the context in which things were being asked and said. But then with Paul Allen they convienently left certain portions out they may have cast an unfavorable light on things. It's like two little schoolgirls pulling pigtails back and forth.

For all the people who don't like Qanzanko, I still don't understand how they could give the Blazers any more benefit of the doubt. Both sides are aching to make this Portland's 2nd Superfund cleanup site.

barfo

And my point was, they put the Allen interview up BEFORE they announced the new policy.
If they'd posted it AFTER they announced the new policy, I think Pop would have a point. Although kind of a weak one, because the point of posting the transcripts, after all, is to keep the Oregonian from lying, not to fully disclose every word that anyone connected with the Blazers might utter.

barfo

Storyteller

My major problem is Quick's agenda. You can see it clearly because he keeps coming back to it. Jason's contention is this: the Blazers have cut a lot of good players without cutting a lot of salary. That's why he makes such a big deal out of the $72 million vs. the $105 million. But he oversteps himself with this:

WRONG! #1, you can't claim both $72 million and the cutting of Pippen and Sabonis. If you want to claim cutting them, you have to use the $105 million figure.

#2, you can't say that the only replacements are Khryapa, Skinner and Miles. What about Ratliff who came over in the Sheed trade? What about Dixon and Blake who were signed as free agents? If you kept Quick's list, you have no room for them. You also do not have room for other draft picks such as Telfair, Webster and Jack. Sorry, Jason, but the NBA only allows 15 players on the roster....to make room for new players, you have to let the old ones go.

Finally, Quick is the biggest hypocrite in the world with this question:

Oooooo, how I wish the search function was working so I could go back and find a particular thread where I discussed this issue right before Sheed was traded. Just over two years ago, Quick said in one of his chats that ANY trade for Rasheed would be a good one. No qualifier, just a blanket statement that to get ANYTHING back in exchange for Rasheed would be beneficial. But now, he gets to play Monday morning quarterback with Patterson and insinuate that the team didn't get enough back in exchange??????

Patterson needs to be held responsible for being in charge while the Blazers have dropped in the standings. But Quick comes across like he has a vendetta. That's not good journalism in my book.

BBert

Exactly right, Storyteller.

Quick spent quite a bit of time arguing with Patterson about the salary figures, and in true form conveniently misrepresented the facts and misused the (wrong) numbers.

But the part that frosted me the most was attacking Patterson for having done exactly what Quick himself had lobbied relentlessly for the Blazers to do.

Quick = Lying Hypocrite.

__________________
In KP I trust.

SodaPopinski

You guys are ridiculous. Where are the black helicopters? The men in dark sunglasses?

Seriously - what benefit does The Oregonian have to undermine the Blazers? I think you guys are just blaming the media for what amounts to some pretty obvious mismanagement of the organization. As soon as the Blazers start winning and stop doing stupid things, the media won't report on the crap anymore.

It's really interesting to me, because most of the people on this board strike me as fairly practical individuals. Sure, we have our own opinions that sometimes clash, but most of you seem to evaluate things on a pretty level-headed basis. But when it comes to The Oregonian and the Blazers, some of you suddenly turn into biased homers. "Oh, those hacks are just out to get the Blazers, blah blah blah."

Yeah - you're right - the Blazers have done nothing at all to warrant any criticism. Everything's hunky dory over at One Center Court.

-Pop

__________________

Dan