# Canzano Responds



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

OK, he didn't answer them all, but did make an effort. If you feel the desire to e-mailing him directly, he can be reached at: [email protected]

Here they are....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Q. Does Martell Webster look better in practice than he does in games?
*
I like Martell Webster's size, and work ethic. He looks terrific in practice. He's usually one of the players who ends up shooting late. And I talked to Blazers GM John Nash the other day and even Nash said he feels much more certain about Webster (over Telfair) becoming a big-time talent because he has NBA size.
*
Q. Did upper managment coax McMillen into benching Monia in favor of Outlaw? Monia is a more well-rounded player at this point. ie. doesn't suck at defense and shooting.
*
McMillan's system favors thinking players. I love Outlaw's athleticism, but he's not going to play here until he can play within the system.
*

Q. When are you going to get an elementary understanding of the collective bargaining agreement?
*
I have a very good understanding of the CBA. 
*
Q. Why did he feel the need to taint the UoP Women's soccer team semi-finials victory?
*
I have high expectations. "Taint" is a strange choice of words. I think what you really mean is, "Why was I critical of Lindsay Huie and Christine Sinclair?" And the answer there is that they didn't play well in the semifinal, and left what should have been a sure victory to a shootout. Title IX guarantees equality of opportunity for women athletes? Well, how about equality of expectation? I hope you're not suggesting I should have gone soft on them because they're female. Point is, they stepped up in the final. And UP doesn't win if they don't step up.
*
Q. What are you most proud of in your writing about the Blazers?
*
I attend a lot of practices. I write a lot. I report. I have good relationships with the people I need to cover. But I think what I really value is that I know what's going on with the team. Period. 
*
Q. Where do you and Jason Quick get all your information for the Collective Bargaining Agreement? Do you think it's important to understand the CBA when discussing trade options with the Blazers? For example, you've complained that Portland wasn't doing enough to retain Przybilla, when it's obvious to anyone who understands the CBA that their hands are tied. Where do you go to for CBA information?
*
I'd love to see where I wrote that Portland wasn't doing enough to retain Przybilla. Go on, I dare you. Because it doesn't exist. I was among the first a year ago to write that the team couldn't negotiate with him until the end of the season. Where do we get CBA information? From the CBA itself. From attorneys who are paid to study these things. From GMs. I know what you're asking, but seriously….
*
Q. What is the biggest mistake you've made in writing about the Blazers in the past year?
*
How about my column in the early season that said the team was good enough to make the playoffs? I still think they were good enough, and I clarified that in the column by saying they needed A) Zach/Darius healthy and engaged; B) Young players to grow; and C) to scrap night to night ---- and they're 0-for-3 there. But still, even if they go nuts, they're going to fall short this season.
*
Q. How often do you attend Blazer practices?
It really depends. Remember, I'm a columnist. I'm answering these questions from the press box in Seattle at an NFC playoff game. I cover more than the Blazers. So I'll say that I attend anywhere from 2 to 5 practices a week, depending. But it's one of the most valuable resources any journalist can have.
*
Q. When our team was filled with "knuckleheads" that the community (and you) couldn't stand, the Rose Garden had far better attendance than it does now. Why?
*
Hope.
*
At that point, even with the bad characters, you had the hope that things would work out. Now, you know this team isn't going to win consistently. Don't sacrifice your morality, though. You should expect the team to be competitive and behave itself in society. This isn't an 'either or' situation.
*
Q. You said that Portland would never be a playoff team with Miles on our team. Since he's been out, we've gone 6-20. He was easily our second or best player, playing through a lot of injury. Has your opinion changed about him? If so, do you think it's newsworthy?
*
I'd argue that Darius was the team's best player in the early season. And my original column what that the team couldn't win*big*with Darius and Theo --- not just Darius. The reason for that is that I don't think Theo and Darius*are the best complement to Zach as a teammate. I think you needed someone, at the small forward or shooting guard, who could stretch the defense a little. Zach loves to be on the low block. Darius loves to get to the basket. And I don't think Darius' attitude, for a long time, was solid. I still don't think he can stay engaged long-term. One assistant last season said that Darius would get his "next five coaches fired." I like the fire he played with for 5-6 games early in the season, but again, he needs more consistency.
*
Q.*If you were GM what viable moves would you make if any?
*
Right now, they've tied their hands with the Darius, Zach, Theo contracts. Joel, because of his contract, can't be dealt with until the end of the season. The rest of the team is too young, or not an attractive commodity. Zach, as a base-year compensation player, becomes a more attractive trade possibility at the end of the season. Me? I'd move Miles, if possible at the end of the season. But I don't think anyone wants him.
Q. What would your draft strategy for the Blazers be? Best Player Available? PF? SF? Youngster or 4 year Grad? 
*
Best available player. It's why I wrote a column prior to the last draft urging the team to take Chris Paul. 
*
Q. What will the Blazers have to do to overcome their national media stigma? 
*
Win, with good characters, over an extended period of time. And management needs to deal with players/coaches on the level. Remember, I came here after covering MLB, the NFL, and Notre Dame Football and Indiana basketball and I can tell you that people were talking then about things that happened WAY, WAY in the past. The national reputation won't change overnight. 
*
Q. How is Ha coming along? Does he have a legitimate starting or backup role in his future or is he a permanent "look at this huge guy we found"?
*
Ha will go down as one of John Nash's successes, but it's going to take more time. He has soft hands. Good feet. And he's giant.
*
Q. Does he think there is any positive aspect at all going on with the Blazer organization or any of the players and if so has he written any articles about it?
*
I've written lots of positive columns on the Blazers. Juan Dixon's upbringing? 'Blazer Betty' on Christmas*Day?*Steve Blake? Nate McMillan? Damon Stoudamire? Brad and Melody Lowe? I can go on and on, and on. And on. The interesting thing to me is that some readers don't remember the positive ones until I direct them to my Oregonlive.com archive. Maybe it's human nature for readers to recall the negative columns.
*
Q. Ask him if he thinks Telfair is 6 feet tall or under 6 feet tall.
*
Telfair was measured at 5-11 ½ by the Blazers. 
*
Q. Was it a conscious decision to make yourself a hated Blazer columnist?
*
I write what I feel. I don't really worry too much if people like me or dislike me. I have lots of friends. I came here to write columns, and sometimes people aren't going to like hearing*what I think. That's ok. Turn the channel. Or listen and write me. I answer all email.*Again, this is sport. Not life or death. It's not war. We can disagree. Doesn't mean we have to dislike each other.
*
Q. Which is your favorite NBA team?

I don't really have a favorite team. I can't. I root for good stories. And when I was in Athens for the Olympics, I really got to see some of the NBA players such as Tim Duncan, Lamar Odom, Carmelo Anthony, Allan Iverson on a daily basis. 
*
Q. Do you feel that the Blazers players are worse/better character wise then the athletes on other pro franchises, or more or less about the same?
*
The Blazers right now? Or the Blazers of the past? Because right now, they're about the same. The teams of the past were record setters in league tech's, and were in a lot more trouble.
*
Q. Why don't you (or anyone at the O) devote some collumn space to the games instead of focusing on petty nonsense and making mountains out of molehills from bland post game quotes? Do the editors feel that covering the actual games is boring and that readers instead want soap operas?
*
We cover the games with stories and columns. If you don't think the off-court stuff affects the on-court stuff, you're pretty naïve. The Oregonian has a tremendous national reputation and is one of the 25 largest papers in the country. If a player is berating a coach, or showing up late to shoot-around, it absolutely can affect the on-court performance, team chemistry, coaching, etc. That is, it's relevant. Again, your choice to read or not to read.
*
Q. Regarding memogate... since the Blazer's initial public posturing of withholding Darius's money obviously wouldn't stand up to the rules of the CBA, why did you feel the need to paint their behind the seen retraction as a scandal? Omitting the relevancy of the rules seemed to be an intellectually dishonest stance towards your readers.
*
Is that what you think the team did?
*
Seriously. They fined Darius. Then, attempted*to negotiate a settlement behind the back of fans, and the coaching staff. It never got to the*CBA, and it would have very likely been upheld, in some form, had it.*The whole situation was only revealed because it was reported in the newspaper, and even then the team waited a week to figure out how it could salvage the mess it created. Management screwed up. It got caught. You should hold the team to a higher standard. And the team's initial reaction should have been, "Look, we screwed up." Fans would have forgiven them for what amounted to a ridiculous negotiation. They cut the coaching staff off at the knees. Again, one of the times I knew much, much more than I could ever write.
*
Q. Do you feel that the coverage that you and Quick provide has in any way influenced the current pathetic state of the franchise and it's negative image around the country?
*
No.
*
Sorry. That's a cop-out. We're all responsible for our actions. You can't blame the media, or your neighbor. If you do something that ends up painting the franchise in a negative light, that's not the media's fault. Zach understands that. We had the same conversation. He gets it.
*
Q. Given the nature of your coverage, why do you blame players for not being willing to talk to you? 
*
Who doesn't talk to me?
*
I have good relationships with management, and players. Even when Rasheed was here, I had good conversations with him. The players understand that I'm doing my job. And that I write what I feel, and I walk into the gym the next day. If they want to discuss it, I'm there.*If they don't, that's ok too.
*
Q. Has the success that Rasheed has gone on to enjoy as a key member of the Pistons at all made you reevaluate the reasons you derided him?
*
No.
*
Rasheed's window of opportunity in Portland closed in the fourth quarter of that Lakers loss in the Western Conference Finals. He wasn't going to win in Portland. What you may not know? Rasheed wasn't going to re-sign in Portland. He'd already expressed that in a closed-door meeting prior to the end of the season.
*
Q. Who is John Galt?
*
Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand.*John Galt is the heroic potential in each of us.
*
Q. Going back to your first column in Portland, wherein you suggested the Beavers should get rid of Erickson and hire Fresno State's Pat Hill - is it still your position that a coach who has yet to win a single WAC championship (unlike Nevada, Boise State, Hawaii, etc) is the best thing since sliced bread?
*
Again, re-read the column. I wrote that Erickson had taken Oregon State as far as he could, without a lick of trouble. So again, I wondered if this wasn't a good time for both parties to say goodbye, and thanks, and move forward before something went wrong. 
*
A week later, Erickson was gone.
*
Q. John, is Adam Morrison the next Larry Bird?
*
No.
*
But he's a touch better than Luke Jackson.
*
Q. John, is the payscale at the Oregonian significantly lower than at comparable newspapers?
*
The Oregonian payscale is probably much higher than most papers nationally. I've worked at six newspapers. It's a great newspaper with a fantastic reputation. 
*
Q. How much of your hate mail mentions your baldness?
*
I'm bald?
*
Q. Why do so many sportswriters consider it their duty to be petty moralizers, when they are trained to write about sports and have no particular qualifications or demonstrated superiority in commenting on human character or motivations?
*
Because I have expectations for college and pro athletes, and they relate to more than the actions on the court.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

Hmmm....interesting responses. I findit particularly interesting to see his response to Stomp's question about Memogate. He got defensive rather quickly, especially considering it seemed that Stomp was on his side over Nash/Patterson's side of the issue.

I also like how he included that Rasheed was not going to to resign. I think that should finally be the end of that whole debate/discussion.

He does seem to view himself as a moralist though.....I didnt like the wording of a lot of the questions. I think that they sort of came off as direct attacks sometimes and that's not what you want if you're trying to get decent answers.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Q. Where do you and Jason Quick get all your information for the Collective Bargaining Agreement? Do you think it's important to understand the CBA when discussing trade options with the Blazers? For example, you've complained that Portland wasn't doing enough to retain Przybilla, when it's obvious to anyone who understands the CBA that their hands are tied. Where do you go to for CBA information?
> *
> I'd love to see where I wrote that Portland wasn't doing enough to retain Przybilla. Go on, I dare you. Because it doesn't exist. I was among the first a year ago to write that the team couldn't negotiate with him until the end of the season. Where do we get CBA information? From the CBA itself. From attorneys who are paid to study these things. From GMs. I know what you're asking, but seriously….


what a load of crap. as was plainly pointed out here, when his ignorance in his original piece was pointed out he edited it without any admission of error. here's what he originally wrote, copied from the article before he changed it: 



> I watched with great interest the other day at practice when the post players were working on their inside moves with assistant Maurice Lucas. Joel Przybilla's footwork was tremendous and he has a great grasp of things. To me, he's bursting with potential this season, but again, if he has a good year, I doubt the Blazers will be able to afford him in the offseason. Unless, that is, Paul Allen decides he doesn't mind being a tax team again.


so he's challenging me to point out where he wrote it, when he's already destroyed the original evidence that he wrote it. 

and this guy rants about the immorality of the Blazers. 

seriously.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> *
> 
> Q. When are you going to get an elementary understanding of the collective bargaining agreement?
> *
> ...


you can't find it, because he changed it on his blog once several people sent him emails saying he muffedit.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

I find this quite refreshing, that a reporter/columnist would be willing to respond, at some length, to these (our) questions.

On one point I'll certainly give Canzano his due - he does write some good, positive articles on the Blazers. I recall several that deal with season ticketholders for whom going to Blazer games is something more than just a sporting event - it's a family ritual - and that's something that ought to be remembered. Pro and college sports deserve an entire section of the newspaper for a number of reasons, but one of them is certainly that they capture a certain dimension of American culture like no other activity. Canzano gets that. 

I would have liked him to respond to the whole blow-up about Zach's money. My feeling is this: we all have trouble from time to time balancing our checkbooks, whether we make $30k a year, or $3 mil. Is the fact that Zach wrote a bad check for a donation really matter, if he made good on it soon afterwards? Seemed kinda silly to me. #1, it happens to everyone, and #2, Zach's job is not "city manager" or something where his management of money has anything to do with how I conduct my life. Really - Zach attended a year of college, and is in his early 20's. Fiscal management wasn't my strong suit at that age, and I actually got my BA. 

I don't know that Canzano will check this thread, but if he does, I'd just like to pass along my thanks for the insights.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Nice job, ABM. :greatjob: Interesting reading.

Can we do a Q&A with Ha next?


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Public Defender said:


> I find this quite refreshing, that a reporter/columnist would be willing to respond, at some length, to these (our) questions.
> 
> .......I don't know that Canzano will check this thread, but if he does, I'd just like to pass along my thanks for the insights.


I forwarded to him a link to this thread. Ya never know.......


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Pretty much confirms what most of us thought - Canzano sees himself as moral judge of the Blazers, and they just don't meet his exacting standards. 

barfo


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

Backboard Cam said:


> Nice job, ABM. :greatjob: Interesting reading.
> 
> Can we do a Q&A with Ha next?



actually that would be rather interesting


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

John Canzano said:


> I'm bald?


Now that's funny.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

> If you do something that ends up painting the franchise in a negative light, that's not the media's fault.


On the one hand, he wants to be seen as objective media, just showing the reality around him without bias or influence. On the other, he wants to be a columnist, not a reporter, who writes opinion. That's a nice spot to be in, since you can then condemn freely and just claim you're reporting the Truth.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I would try and defend Canzano, but I just think a lot of posters here are pre-disposed to dislike Canzano, and no matter what I say, that won't change.

But does this end the speculation that I am Canzano? :biggrin:


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

RPCity said:


> I also like how he included that Rasheed was not going to to resign. I think that should finally be the end of that whole debate/discussion.


Why? Was Canzano in this 'closed door meeting'? I seriously doubt it. And even if he was, I wouldn't personally trust his interpretation of what was said. 

barfo


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

wastro said:


> I would try and defend Canzano, but I just think a lot of posters here are pre-disposed to dislike Canzano, and no matter what I say, that won't change.


Well, it's like Canzano says, a bad reputation takes years to erase once you've earned it. He's earned it.

barfo


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

barfo said:


> Well, it's like Canzano says, a bad reputation takes years to erase once you've earned it. He's earned it.
> 
> barfo


I don't see how he's earned such hatred. I don't think he's as bad as people make him out to be.

And truth be told, I don't agree with everything he says, but I respect his position, his right to have an opinion and his right to express it.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

wastro said:


> I don't see how he's earned such hatred. I don't think he's as bad as people make him out to be.


He's intellectually dishonest and takes it upon himself to be some moral arbiter.



> And truth be told, I don't agree with everything he says, but I respect his position, his right to have an opinion and his right to express it.


I don't think anyone has a problem with him having an opinion. Most just see him as obnoxious, often factually incorrect and invested with a sense of moral superiority.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> He's intellectually dishonest and takes it upon himself to be some moral arbiter.
> 
> I don't think anyone has a problem with him having an opinion. Most just see him as obnoxious, often factually incorrect and invested with a sense of moral superiority.


And I just don't understand how he's a 'moral aribter.'

How often is he factually incorrect? I do recall the bit about Zach or Darius having their card denied and Zach's check returned, but other than that ... how often is he incorrect?


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I've Email Canzano when I see something I particularly like. I figure you all let him know about the crap. =) There has never been a columnist that most people here have liked... the old guy was good... can anyone even recall his name? (Something with a P) He was pre-Duin.... but he started to loose a bit of touch when he got older. I liked him though. I HATED Duin. He wrote crap about the Blazers when they were pretty well liked. =) Remember Canzano is a columnist... so he gets to have his personal take. Sometimes I think they should separate the reporting and the columns a little more... sometimes it is easy to lose track of which you are reading.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Paxil said:


> I've Email Canzano when I see something I particularly like. I figure you all let him know about the crap. =) There has never been a columnist that most people here have liked... the old guy was good... can anyone even recall his name? (Something with a P) He was pre-Duin.... but he started to loose a bit of touch when he got older. I liked him though. I HATED Duin. He wrote crap about the Blazers when they were pretty well liked. =) Remember Canzano is a columnist... so he gets to have his personal take. Sometimes I think they should separate the reporting and the columns a little more... sometimes it is easy to lose track of which you are reading.


George Pisarrio, I belive (spelling is off).

Canzano has made me wish that Chuck "Dullpepper" Culpepper was back.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> George Pisarrio, I belive (spelling is off).
> 
> Canzano has made me wish that Chuck "Dullpepper" Culpepper was back.


George Pasero, I think? Used to write for the Oregon Journal, back before the Borg assimilated it?

barfo


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

RPCity said:


> I also like how he included that Rasheed was not going to to resign. I think that should finally be the end of that whole debate/discussion.


I fail to see why you would assume that.

He offers no details, no mention of witnesses, whether he was there or was told this by a kid at 7-11....wouldn't be the first lie he told.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> I fail to see why you would assume that.
> 
> He offers no details, no mention of witnesses, whether he was there or was told this by a kid at 7-11....wouldn't be the first lie he told.


Because he usually takes the anti-Blazers position? Wouldnt the anti-management position be to say that Sheed would have resigned? Why would he LIE to make Blazers management look better?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

RPCity said:


> Because he usually takes the anti-Blazers position? Wouldnt the anti-management position be to say that Sheed would have resigned? Why would he LIE to make Blazers management look better?


He also usually takes the anti-Sheed position. So in this case, he had to choose who to make look bad.

barfo


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

Perhaps......but to assume he's lying here without any really CLEAR motivation for it....well....it requires quite the leap of faith. You have to admit.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

RPCity said:


> Perhaps......but to assume he's lying here without any really CLEAR motivation for it....well....it requires quite the leap of faith. You have to admit.


I don't assume he's lying. I assume he doesn't know what he's talking about. He probably wasn't in the meeting, he doesn't actually know what was said. He heard it third-hand, and interpreted what he was told (which may or may not have been true or complete) through the prism of his own viewpoint. It's not reporting. 

barfo


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Damn, some of you are flat out relentless. Ease up. Quit busting Canzano's balls. He took the time to answer the questions. What more do you want? 

I'm sure most of you believe you could do a better job? Then do it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

The Professional Fan said:


> Damn, some of you are flat out relentless. Ease up. Quit busting Canzano's balls. He took the time to answer the questions. What more do you want?
> 
> I'm sure most of you believe you could do a better job? Then do it.


it's not about us doing a better job, as much as it is someone actually doing a good job in the first place. 

So when we complain about Clinton, or Bush, we have to be able to do a better jobs ourselves?

Um...no?

It means that we hold media up to a standard that these guys (Quick, Canzano, the morons at KFXX) aren't even trying to meet. 

Sorry if I think our media should actually know what they're talking about and not act like they're writing for a soap-opera type situation. This isn't wrestling we're talking about, where if you ignore it long enough, it 'never happened'.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

The Professional Fan said:


> I'm sure most of you believe you could do a better job? Then do it.


If I could get the job without the journalism major and relevant experience, I think I _could_ do a better job than Canzano.

But it's really not even about that. If your car crashes due to shoddy engineering, are you disallowed from criticizing the engineering unless you can design a better car? That's a fairly absurd contention.

If someone takes on a job professionally, they're judged against everyone _in their field_, not against anyone off the street.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

barfo said:


> I don't assume he's lying. I assume he doesn't know what he's talking about. He probably wasn't in the meeting, he doesn't actually know what was said. He heard it third-hand, and interpreted what he was told (which may or may not have been true or complete) through the prism of his own viewpoint. It's not reporting.
> 
> barfo



I still say its making a bit of an unreasonable leap. We've not heard from two sources that Sheed wasn't going to resign. One is Canzano and the other is Nash (who EdO has repeatedly discredited because "of course" that's what Nash would say). 

At some point you have to believe somebody. I have yet to hear a reliable person say that Sheed would have resigned....unless I'm forgetting something....so you can only go off of what you have.

And I was (and still am) a _huge_ fan of Chuck Culepepper. He's doing good work now for Newsday here in NY.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

RPCity said:


> I still say its making a bit of an unreasonable leap. We've not heard from two sources that Sheed wasn't going to resign. One is Canzano and the other is Nash (who EdO has repeatedly discredited because "of course" that's what Nash would say).


damon said it on local TV late in the season that year, that Sheed had told him months prior to him being traded, that he wasn't going to re-sign. Of course, there's no way to prove that, and even if there was proof that he said it, it'd just get discounted.



> At some point you have to believe somebody. I have yet to hear a reliable person say that Sheed would have resigned....unless I'm forgetting something....so you can only go off of what you have.


there hasn't been anyone. It's just speculation (even less relibale speculation) that he was going to and that therefore, Nash screwed up. It's a cycle. Sheed was going to re-sign, Nash screwed it up. Nash made a bad trade, and poisoned Sheed's well, therefore, Nash screwed up.

see the pattern?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

RPCity said:


> I still say its making a bit of an unreasonable leap. We've not heard from two sources that Sheed wasn't going to resign. One is Canzano and the other is Nash (who EdO has repeatedly discredited because "of course" that's what Nash would say).


Canzano is not a source. Sheed didn't tell him that. Canzano is repeating what somebody else (Nash? A bus driver? Who knows?) said. Nash has every reason to claim that he 'had to' trade Sheed.



> At some point you have to believe somebody.


I don't see why. Everyone involved has an ax (or three) to grind, and there's no way to ever determine the truth. Whether or not Sheed said to person X or Y that he wouldn't re-sign is not proof that he would not have re-signed. There are lots of reasons why Sheed might have said that - he might have been angry (imagine that!), he might have been negotiating, he might have been jerking people around for the fun of it. He might have meant it, he might not have. If he did mean it, he might have changed his mind prior to the signing date, he might not have. 

Asserting that we had to trade Sheed for crap because of something he may have said is silly. Sheed says lots of stuff. 

I notice that people are still worried about whether Joel will re-sign, despite the fact that he _said_ he wants to stay. 

barfo


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

The Professional Fan said:


> Damn, some of you are flat out relentless. Ease up. Quit busting Canzano's balls. He took the time to answer the questions. What more do you want?
> 
> I'm sure most of you believe you could do a better job? Then do it.


I wouldn't want to take the pay cut.

I do appreciate him bothering to respond, though. I think the only chance for him and similar columnists to maintain relevancy (see this long tail summary for stats) is to become a lot more "interactive" in some fashion. I come here for my Blazer news and opinions first, never the Oregonian. That's partly because of more content linked to from here, but also because the commentary about any articles will go a long way toward filtering out the chaff. His articles fare poorly here, and he ought to be defending himself with a bit more than a "just read" or "just email me". Good of him to start (or at least do it once).

The more fans who talk to each other, like here in this forum, the better off folks like Nate Bishop or Henry Abbot look, despite the difference in direct access and full-time pay.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Incidentally, I copied and pasted my earlier post regarding his ineptitude and unethical behavior. His first reply was this:



> If you want to debate something, at least try to make it clear what you're debating.
> 
> I had 176 emails today.
> 
> ...


my reply:



> I'm not sure how it's possible to be more explicit than below. [I re-pasted my first email.] It's plainly been proven that you were clueless about the CBA, were corrected by your readers, rewrote your story online, and never acknowledged you were mistaken.
> 
> It'd be a little less obnoxious if you didn't constantly harp on the integrity of the Blazers. For a guy who seems to think of himself as the moral arbiter of the Blazers, your own ethics don't live up to your initials.


his reply:



> The team, as I reported two seasons ago, isn't able to re-sign Przybilla until the end of this season. In that sense, they're like everyone else.
> 
> I can understand why you'd be confused. But those are the rules.
> 
> JC


uh, yeah.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

canzano should write for wrestling. Their motto is, ieven if it's on tape and infront of thousands of people, if we say it didn't happen/we didn't say it, it *didn't[/i] happen.*


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

theWanker said:


> Incidentally, I copied and pasted my earlier post regarding his ineptitude and unethical behavior. His first reply was this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



:rofl:

Thanks for posting that! :biggrin:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I just want to thank ABM and Canzano. This thread really separates this board with the ESPN board (and probably the O-live board?). You just don't get stuff like this. At least Canzano takes his job seriously enough to sit down and put some thought into answers to poster who clearly dislike him. I don't think all sports writeres would do that.

It's pretty funny that ABM forwarded my joke question about UoP soccer and that it was answered. John, if you are reading this, you pissed off a lot of UoP fans with that article. I told them that was Canzano doing what he does. : )


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

barfo said:


> Canzano is not a source. Sheed didn't tell him that. Canzano is repeating what somebody else (Nash? A bus driver? Who knows?) said. Nash has every reason to claim that he 'had to' trade Sheed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I suppose you can believe what you want about what happened. There is, however, more evidence (whether you want to consider it credible or not) that he would not resign than there was that he would resign. Of course, that doesn't take into consideration whether it would have been good for the team to resign him considering the image change they needed to go through so desperatly. Sheed needed a change of scenery...whether he got that by trade or by leaving as a free agent....I am relatively certain he would have gotten it one way or another. 

And personally....I dont think we traded him for crap. Bonzi...him we kind of traded for crap. But not Rasheed.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

RPCity said:


> I suppose you can believe what you want about what happened. There is, however, more evidence (whether you want to consider it credible or not) that he would not resign than there was that he would resign.


I'm not a believer. I'm a skeptic. I haven't been arguing that he would have re-signed. I've been arguing that the evidence isn't anywhere near strong enough to know either way. 

barfo


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

theWanker said:


> Incidentally, I copied and pasted my earlier post regarding his ineptitude and unethical behavior.


This is just too funny/pathetic. Can this possibly be a coincidence? Nay, I think theWanker has been dubbed 'Confused reader' by the Hon. John Canzano:



Canzano said:


> Tuesday, January 17, 2006
> 
> Confused reader wrote yesterday asking, in part, why the Blazers aren't moving now to re-sign Joel Przybilla. Long-time readers of the blog know that because of his contract status, and the CBA, the team isn't allowed to negotiate with Przybilla until after the season, like other NBA teams.
> 
> At the end of the season, the Blazers can offer Przybilla the mid level exception, and go up to six years. That likely equates to about $38 million over 6 years. Other teams over the cap can use their midlevel exception but can only offer 5 years and the increment is 8 percent vs. 10.5 percent from the Blazers, GM John Nash says. There are a handful of other teams under the cap that could bid more, but would they? That's the magic question when it comes to Przybilla and it's the real risk the team runs.


barfo


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

hey, I'm just impressed that all the badgering we have done has forced him to actually sit down and have somebody explain the CBA a little to him.

now if only somebody could sit down with him and teach "Journalism Ethics 101" plus "How to Read an Email 99 (Remedial)," I could die a slightly less annoyed man.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

regarding whether Sheed would have signed up with the Blazers again, I don't need Nash or Canzano to tell me; I believe that his body language and lack of hustle in his final year with the Blazers told the whole story.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

1. Why did you leave Fresno? Seriously.

2. At what point in this season can we expect you to write your annual "Blazers fans should boycott games and root for The Lakers" thread?

3. Is your true goal to be an investigative reporter/columnist and the sports gig was your only "in"?
Like being a weatherman got Letterman his start in TV?


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

> Telfair was measured at 5-11 ½ by the Blazers.


*SCOREBOARD!*

And since he was measured by the Blazers I would bet that in reality he is an inch or two shorter.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

tlong said:


> *SCOREBOARD!*
> 
> And since he was measured by the Blazers I would be that in reality he is an inch or two shorter.


However, since this was reported by Canzano in I woudl expect the truth to be an inch or two higher. Well damn, back where we started. :biggrin:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

I've been getting my life back in order following a little vaca to Ecuador, and this seemed like it would require too much time to just tick it off over a cup-o-Jo. I've more then a spare moment now to respond to what I found of note.



> Q. When are you going to get an elementary understanding of the collective bargaining agreement?
> *
> A. I have a very good understanding of the CBA.



 sure you do JC, I guess you just suspend that understanding when you're writing.



> Q.*If you were GM what viable moves would you make if any?
> *
> A. Right now, they've tied their hands with the Darius, Zach, Theo contracts. *Joel, because of his contract, can't be dealt with until the end of the season.* The rest of the team is too young, or not an attractive commodity. Zach, as a base-year compensation player, becomes a more attractive trade possibility at the end of the season. Me? I'd move Miles, if possible at the end of the season. But I don't think anyone wants him.


This is the sort of understanding that I've come to gather from JC... understanding that he's acting like he knows whats what but is basically clueless. Joel can be dealt today and up to the trade deadline. This offseason, there is pretty much no reasonable senerio that another team would need to involve Portland to deal for him. Regardless of whether it would be for a contract under or over the MLE, they'd just sign him outright. 

duh...



> Q. What will the Blazers have to do to overcome their national media stigma?
> *
> A. Win, with good characters, over an extended period of time. And management needs to deal with players/coaches on the level. Remember, I came here after covering MLB, the NFL, and Notre Dame Football and Indiana basketball and I can tell you that people were talking then about things that happened WAY, WAY in the past. The national reputation won't change overnight.


especially when the local collumnists/beat writers that the nationally media take their lead from continue to blow up petty issues instead of concentrating on actual play.



> Q. How is Ha coming along? Does he have a legitimate starting or backup role in his future or is he a permanent "look at this huge guy we found"?
> 
> A. Ha will go down as one of John Nash's successes, but it's going to take more time. He has soft hands. Good feet. And he's giant.


Hey! I agree with Canzano on something! At this point I think drafting Ha, Khryapa, and trading for Darius are the things he's done right... lots of questions to egg on the face with the rest of managements moves IMO.



> Q. Do you feel that the Blazers players are worse/better character wise then the athletes on other pro franchises, or more or less about the same?
> *
> A. The Blazers right now? Or the Blazers of the past? Because right now, they're about the same. The teams of the past were record setters in league tech's, and were in a lot more trouble.


Ahhh, my questions... Here he uses a favorite tactic of his addressing but basically skirting the question. 

Getting caught doesn't directly equate to character, especially when a good percentage of the trouble the players got themselves into was in fact nonsense blown up into trouble by the local press. When JC writes that Wallace fired a laser beam basketball overhand/baseball style at a teammate's groin following practice and then runs off the court giggling, that creates trouble that gets reported around the country and drives local fans crazy. When others who were at the same practice say it was actually a high lob and that RBB turned around while it was in the air and that less then an hour later the same two teammates were seated and joking around side by side at a charity event... it makes me want to kill the messenger. 



> Q. Why don't you (or anyone at the O) devote some column space to the games instead of focusing on petty nonsense and making mountains out of molehills from bland post game quotes? Do the editors feel that covering the actual games is boring and that readers instead want soap operas?
> *
> A. We cover the games with stories and columns.


BS. The amount of game coverage, and breaking down whats working/not working in the individual players games and teams attack is almost non-existent... the coverage is almost exclusively picking apart player quotes and rehashing gossipy bleep



> ...If you don't think the off-court stuff affects the on-court stuff, you're pretty naïve. The Oregonian has a tremendous national reputation and is one of the 25 largest papers in the country. If a player is berating a coach, or showing up late to shoot-around, it absolutely can affect the on-court performance, team chemistry, coaching, etc. That is, it's relevant. Again, your choice to read or not to read.


 I've followed hoops for 30 years now my self, and happen to know that players getting into heated arguments and even fist-fights with teammates and coaches is not limited to the Blazers in any way. Those sorts of things happen a lot more often then they get reported. The O chooses to make that sort of stuff the focus of their reports and speculations... which is exactly why I don't read and why more then a few of my Portland friends and family don't subscribe. 



> Q. Regarding memo-gate... since the Blazer's initial public posturing of withholding Darius's money obviously wouldn't stand up to the rules of the CBA, why did you feel the need to paint their behind the seen retraction as a scandal? Omitting the relevancy of the rules seemed to be an intellectually dishonest stance towards your readers.
> 
> A. Is that what you think the team did? Seriously. They fined Darius. Then, attempted*to negotiate a settlement behind the back of fans, and the coaching staff. It never got to the*CBA, and it would have very likely been upheld, in some form, had it. The whole situation was only revealed because it was reported in the newspaper, and even then the team waited a week to figure out how it could salvage the mess it created. Management screwed up. It got caught. You should hold the team to a higher standard. And the team's initial reaction should have been, "Look, we screwed up." Fans would have forgiven them for what amounted to a ridiculous negotiation. They cut the coaching staff off at the knees. Again, one of the times I knew much, much more than I could ever write...


Wow what an entitled idiot. This answer illuminates some of the many issues I have with his coverage. Management screwed up by taking a John Wayne tough guy public stance that wouldn't stand up to the rules of the CBA. Undoubtedly they did this to put out the public fire created by the O's reporting of the incident. This incident could have easily have been worked out between the coach and player behind closed doors like most player/coach flare-ups are. A fine and a suspension for a few games for conduct detrimental to the club was all we needed to know. We (the basketball lovin' public) were not on a need to know position beyond that, but JC acts like he's some sort of consumer advocate and that letting the public in on the details of is somehow a positive. I should hold management up to a higher standard??? What? I want management to acquire better players, thats the beef I have with them. Big load of dung.



> Q. Do you feel that the coverage that you and Quick provide has in any way influenced the current pathetic state of the franchise and it's negative image around the country?
> 
> A. No. Sorry. That's a cop-out. We're all responsible for our actions. You can't blame the media, or your neighbor. If you do something that ends up painting the franchise in a negative light, that's not the media's fault. Zach understands that. We had the same conversation. He gets it.


I bet as JC was having this "conversation", ZR was saying nothing, nodding his head, and thinking -what an idiot... remind me never to say anything to this loser. 

The O's Blazer coverage/actions has been a daily rehash of all offenses, real to imagined. Day after day of repeating and embellishing the same crap trying to rile up the fan-base. What a load that he states that he doesn't feel responsible for the reputation... 



> Q. Given the nature of your coverage, why do you blame players for not being willing to talk to you?
> 
> A. Who doesn't talk to me? I have good relationships with management, and players. Even when Rasheed was here, I had good conversations with him. The players understand that I'm doing my job. And that I write what I feel, and I walk into the gym the next day. If they want to discuss it, I'm there.*If they don't, that's ok too.


I guess thats why Sheed now openly talks to the press nightly and was regularly criticized in JC's columns for not doing so in Portland. He has also openly spoken to how little he respected some of the writers in Portland's press. 

Remind me of any sit down interview JC's had with any player... that is something that most columnists do right? It seems to me that they avoid him like the plague. The closest thing to this is when he dared Damon to pee in a cup to prove that he was pot free. Salacious details are his angle. I'm more interested in hoops.



> Q. Has the success that Rasheed has gone on to enjoy as a key member of the Pistons at all made you reevaluate the reasons you derided him?
> 
> A. No. Rasheed's window of opportunity in Portland closed in the fourth quarter of that Lakers loss in the Western Conference Finals. He wasn't going to win in Portland. What you may not know? Rasheed wasn't going to re-sign in Portland. He'd already expressed that in a closed-door meeting prior to the end of the season.


others have already addressed how silly his claim to be in the know of a meeting he was closed out of. Saying "trust me" to a fans who can recall numerous incidents when he distorted, embellished, and flat out lied about facts doesn't fly. Anyways, I'll address how silly the first part of his statement is. 

He wasn't going to win in Portland? His window of opportunity to win closed in 2000? What a load. When his teammates were talented and/or healthy, the club won... when they were not so talented and/or injured, the club lost. He was never the greatest player in the league, but he more then held his own at his position. I see no reason to think that if management could have put some decent pieces around him he couldn't have won again. Heck I still think that a front-court of Wallace, Zach, and Darius, was both very talented and complimentary, and I think that with some of the guards that have been moved for spare change since (like Baron) could have made that mix a force in the league. In the 10 games that frontcourt was together the club went 8-2.

In case John hasn't noticed, Wallace is still leading the league in Tech's. This year, last year, the year before as well... yet Detroit has managed to win and improve. Their press barely makes mention of this and when pressed their coaches claim that it's no big deal.



> Q. Why do so many sportswriters consider it their duty to be petty moralizers, when they are trained to write about sports and have no particular qualifications or demonstrated superiority in commenting on human character or motivations?
> 
> A. Because I have expectations for college and pro athletes, and they relate to more than the actions on the court.


I have expectations for sportswriters not to be petty moralizers and to cover the games... so obviously I'm very disappointed in what the O's sports section offers. I think most top athletes are pampered jerks, and think that criticizing them for their morality would make shooting fish in a barrel seem tough in comparison. I don't want Zach over for dinner, I want him to learn to pass out of the double team. I suffer no illusions that the smiling, cliche spouting, young player might be a great guy... I've seen enough of those guys turn out to be Palmeiro, OJ, and Kobe. I find sportswriters who make moralizing their bread and butter to be lazy and dishonest...:spam:zano

STOMP


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

STOMP said:


> BS. The amount of game coverage, and breaking down whats working/not working in the individual players games and teams attack is almost non-existent... the coverage is almost exclusively picking apart player quotes and rehashing gossipy bleep.
> STOMP


I don't have as lowly a view of Canzano that you do. What I don't like is his job. JC doesn't actually report
the news, he just gives him opinion. Any ******* can do that - and it's been that way for years.
Duin, Jaynes, now JC. I actually like JQ, because he appropriately interjects his opinion on
news he is reporting. With JQ, it's just his opinion - no news. 
Over half of Jaynes articles were very negative when the Blazers were in the conference finals. When 
they weren't in the conference finals all of his articles were all negative. I get the same vibes from JC.

I actually get more news reporting out of these boards than from JC - and Talkhard gives me something
to look at!


----------

