# Bold Faced Idiot



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

he's on KFXX right now (not sure why Im listening)..and the hosts (the goon and the idiot) are saying that the team should trade the#1 pick with Darius..and Canzano is saying that we should draft Brandon Roy.

and that the team really wants Noah, and that he wouldn't be surprised if they did a *wink wink* deal with Noah that they did with Telfair.

guh...seriously, why does that guy think he knows what he's talking about?


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

bunch of retards.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

I hate to admit it, but I've always thought trading down and drafting Roy would be a great move. Roy has the talent to be a good offensive and defensive player at the NBA level. We have one player who is above average on both ends of the floor (Miles when he tries). Jack and Webster have the most potential to become balanced players. I'm sick of players like Randolph, Blake, and Dixon who are solid on offense, but can't play a lick of defense. Likewise, guys like Ratliff, Przybilla, and Kryapa are nice defenders but a liability when we have the ball. 

The great teams are stacked full of players who are good on both ends, and I truly believe those are the types of players we need.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Tince said:


> I hate to admit it, but I've always thought trading down and drafting Roy would be a great move. Roy has the talent to be a good offensive and defensive player at the NBA level. We have one player who is above average on both ends of the floor (Miles when he tries). Jack and Webster have the most potential to become balanced players. I'm sick of players like Randolph, Blake, and Dixon who are solid on offense, but can't play a lick of defense. Likewise, guys like Ratliff, Przybilla, and Kryapa are nice defenders but a liability when we have the ball.
> 
> The great teams are stacked full of players who are good on both ends, and I truly believe those are the types of players we need.


uh oh we don't allow opinions like that sorry but u are gonna have to be stripped of ur prediction title. :joke:


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Zidane said:


> uh oh we don't allow opinions like that sorry but u are gonna have to be stripped of ur prediction title. :joke:


 First Reggie Bush, now me!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I feel sorry for the gullable garys who listen to, and believe, john canzano.

he's totally feeding people crap, so he'll have more to write about.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Last at this time he was advicating Portland to take Deron Williams....

Last year at this time he was saying Sean May would be a "Great Pick".....

He's struggling for material, you should expect this kinda crap from him.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> I feel sorry for the gullable garys who listen to, and believe, john canzano.
> 
> he's totally feeding people crap, so he'll have more to write about.


 I feel real dumb when he writes/talks about an idea I've previously had. It makes me rethink if it really is a good idea.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> he's on KFXX right now (not sure why Im listening)..and the hosts (the goon and the idiot) are saying that the team should trade the#1 pick with Darius


If that's the only way to get rid of Miles, I'm for it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> If that's the only way to get rid of Miles, I'm for it.


the thing is, it wouldn't be, nor should the team that. Because no matter who they get in return for Darius and the pick, it won't be a difference maker player. 

Unless it's like Darius and #1 for player X and #2.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> the thing is, it wouldn't be, nor should the team that. Because no matter who they get in return for Darius and the pick, it won't be a difference maker player.
> 
> Unless it's like Darius and #1 for player X and #2.


It will be a difference maker. Just getting rid of DMiles' bad influence on the team and his effort is more than sufficient.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Furness and Suke are morons...CLEARLY they are...for even suggesting that POR use its #1 pick (heck or even a top 3 pick) to offload Miles....

That is absolutely the dumbest idea I have heard...

POR can deal Miles seperately, and they will...They certainly don't need to use their #1 pick to entice another GM to take him...damm that is an absolutely stupid idea....

As for Roy...meh....

I seriously doubt he is better than Morrison, Gay, Bargnani, Aldridge or Thomas....

and he won't do much in the NBA unless he develops a consistent outside game....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

deanwoof said:


> It will be a difference maker. Just getting rid of DMiles' bad influence on the team and his effort is more than sufficient.


not at the expense of the #1 pick. despite what people think, the #1 (or 2 or 3) IS still a good thing...and trading it just to get rid of Miles?

thats just bad planning


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Trading down to get Roy is stupid. However trading up to get him might be a good move. If we could somehow parlay our later picks plus a player or two into Roy I wouldn't be opposed to a Noah, Roy draft.

I agree with Canzano (partly because I have had someone else in the know tell me the same thing) that the Blazers really want to draft Noah and will pick him if he declares. They have made it known that they will, so if he doesn't declare then we all know he doesn't want to play for Portland or he really does love college.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Trading down to get Roy is stupid. However trading up to get him might be a good move. If we could somehow parlay our later picks plus a player or two into Roy I wouldn't be opposed to a Noah, Roy draft.
> 
> I agree with Canzano *(partly because I have had someone else in the know tell me the same thing)* that the Blazers really want to draft Noah and will pick him if he declares. They have made it known that they will, so if he doesn't declare then we all know he doesn't want to play for Portland or he really does love college.


Jason Quick is not "in the know"...


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

The trouble with picking Brandon Roy is that he can really only play SG - and I think Martell Webster may, in time, be better than Roy. Webster's taller, has a quick release and more fluid shooting motion, and is more athletic. It's tough, because I like Roy's more refined skills, his Pac-Ten experience, and his demonstrated leadership ability. 

But perhaps that shouldn't be much of a concern? I mean, it's always hard to know how to fall on the continuum of picking for current-day need vs. picking the best player (and is that best player now, or best player eventually?). Tough. 

Regardless, anyone who wants to jettison a pick to sweeten a Darius Miles trade is really underestimating what John Nash ought to be able to do, with a player as talented as Miles.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

QRICH said:


> Last at this time he was advicating Portland to take Deron Williams....
> 
> Last year at this time he was saying Sean May would be a "Great Pick".....


Though I agree with you, I think it's a little early to be judging those guys.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Public Defender said:


> Regardless, anyone who wants to jettison a pick to sweeten a Darius Miles trade is really underestimating what John Nash ought to be able to do, with a player as talented as Miles.



It would be hard to underestimate the king of setting low expectations. I expect him to announce that he can't get a chair for Miles and after the draft he expects the Blazers to win 15 games next season. That is his MO, plain and simple.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> It would be hard to underestimate the king of setting low expectations. I expect him to announce that he can't get a chair for Miles and after the draft he expects the Blazers to win 15 games next season. That is his MO, plain and simple.


LOL. Point taken. Perhaps John Nash shouldn't be the one setting his expectations. Oh, that's right - he's NOT! Steve Patterson and Paul Allen - who may not be renewing Nash's contract for all we kno - are the ones who set the bar for Nash. 

Personally, as an occasional ticketbuyer, and (probably unwittingly) a consumer of products advertised during Blazers' games, I think Nash ought to be responsible to folks like me, and I believe that he ought to be able to get a decent player, who might be slightly overpaid (at $8 mil per, that'd be pretty likely), for Darius Miles and our late 1st round draft pick.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Public Defender said:


> Personally, as an occasional ticketbuyer, and (probably unwittingly) a consumer of products advertised during Blazers' games, I think Nash ought to be responsible to folks like me, and I believe that he ought to be able to get a decent player, who might be slightly overpaid (at $8 mil per, that'd be pretty likely), for Darius Miles and our late 1st round draft pick.


 I agree . . . and Nash may suprise me and pull that off. But until he does he will downplay any value Miles has. I don't know if he can go to the overpaid card since he signed Miles, but somehow he will spin the situation to make it sound like Miles can't be traded so anything we get for him (expiring contract) will be a good trade.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

deanwoof said:


> It will be a difference maker. Just getting rid of DMiles' bad influence on the team and his effort is more than sufficient.


Remember when we got rid of Sheed's bad influence? That was awesome! Just getting him off the team was enough - then, icing on the cake, we got Theo Ratliff at $12M!!!

Can you believe Detroit picked Sheed up?! HAhahahahahahh!!! Idiots!


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Public Defender said:


> The trouble with picking Brandon Roy is that he can really only play SG - and I think Martell Webster may, in time, be better than Roy. Webster's taller, has a quick release and more fluid shooting motion, and is more athletic. It's tough, because I like Roy's more refined skills, his Pac-Ten experience, and his demonstrated leadership ability.


I agree that Roy can only play SG, Webster is taller, and has a fluid shooting motion with a quick release. I haven't seen anything that points to him being a better athlete than Roy. Roy's side-side movement is much better, his basketball IQ is very high, defense is better, and ability to finish strong inside is on a whole different level. 

The nice thing you brought up is that Webster is taller, and isn't limited to playing SG, and I think that's the reason you go after Roy. Now, we'd have a SG and SF who can both shoot, and balance Telfair's weak perimeter game. Roy can already post up which is a great feature for a SG. Webster appears to be adding the post up abilities to his game. The two should compliment each other very well not allowing teams to focus on one player to shut down. 

As I've said earlier in the thread, Roy is a very solid offensive and defensive player, something we can't say about the majority of our team. If our future is Telfair, Roy, and Webster you have three guys you can count on to work hard, say (and mean) the right things, and be a positive face for the team. 

Obviously I don't think Roy is worth taking with a top 4 pick, but if we can get a solid 4/5 starter by trading down I think it would be worth it. Hap (err Smile) has mentioned that no player in this draft is going to turn the team around on his own, so why not trade for a proven starter and add Roy at the same time?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Tince said:


> The nice thing you brought up is that Webster is taller, and isn't limited to playing SG, and I think that's the reason you go after Roy. Now, we'd have a SG and SF who can both shoot, and balance Telfair's weak perimeter game.


Just my two cents, I agree with much of your larger post, Tince... and, I'm not sure Telfair's perimeter game _is_ all that weak. He ended the season shooting just over 35% for three (not much behind Webster) and, iirc, that percentage rose pretty consistently throughout the season. Clearly having more outside shooting is better than less and clearly Telfair's got plenty of things to work on in his game and, I'm really not so concerned about his outside shooting at this point.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Just my two cents, I agree with much of your larger post, Tince... and, I'm not sure Telfair's perimeter game _is_ all that weak. He ended the season shooting just over 35% for three (not much behind Webster) and, iirc, that percentage rose pretty consistently throughout the season. Clearly having more outside shooting is better than less and clearly Telfair's got plenty of things to work on in his game and, I'm really not so concerned about his outside shooting at this point.


 As I was typing the post, I stopped when I was writing about Telfair's perimeter game. I knew his three-point percentage was up this year, but it seems like his mid-range game was awful. I don't have the stats on his percentage inside the three point line, but I bet it wasn't much better than outside. I wasn't really trying to rip on Telfair, more point out that teams love to leave him to double team, daring him to beat them with his outside shot.

A major advantage (I forgot to mention earlier) to having two good shooters in Webster and Roy is the spacing it would give our offense, giving Telfair more room to drive and hopefully finish. 

Either way PorterIn2004, I agree with your points on Telfair, but IMO he needs to improve his shot to become a real threat.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Tince said:


> The nice thing you brought up is that Webster is taller, and isn't limited to playing SG, and I think that's the reason you go after Roy. Now, we'd have a SG and SF who can both shoot, and balance Telfair's weak perimeter game. Roy can already post up which is a great feature for a SG. Webster appears to be adding the post up abilities to his game. The two should compliment each other very well not allowing teams to focus on one player to shut down.


I don't know why I didn't think of moving Webster to SF, other than that I think I just liked the idea of having a SG who's on the taller end (something the Blazers haven't had since Steve Smith was traded). I had actually started writing in another direction, but I kept stumbling over what to do about Martell Webster.

I think before I'd agree with you, though, I'd want to see how the whole thing shakes out - it'd depend on what would go into the Blazers getting a high enough pick to insure nabbing Roy.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I'd rather keep Martell at the SG, and get a SF whos about the same height, and already a better outside shooter than Roy is. At least according to nbadraft.net, Roy is 3 inches shorter, and 25 pounds lighter than say, Morrison or Gay (altho Im not in favor of gay). He's also 45 pounds and 6 inches shorter than Bargani.

Roy made 14 three pointers his first 3 years in college, and shot a total of 57. Thats basically Adams freshman year (just as a direct relation). By comparison, this year Morrison had 100 more free throws, and 35 more 3's made, and 74 more shot. And thats with, arguably, much more defenders on him. And not forgetting he's just a slow, unathletic white guy who can't jump or move around fast. 

Yes, Roy's defense is better. I'm not sure that his defense is enough better to make up for their difference on O. Would I be upset ifhe was their pick? Probably not, especially if he wasn't picked over better talent (and as of right now, there seems to be several players who would fit that description).

Mostly, I think anytime Canzano backs a player, it's a huge sign of "he's not as good as Canzano thinks he is"

Plus, it's not like our SF right now is a great defender (Outlaw or Miles)..and you can pick up decent rebounders and defenders with the 30 and 31st picks. You really can't pick an effective, smart, good shooting SF with those picks.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Public Defender said:


> I don't know why I didn't think of moving Webster to SF, other than that I think I just liked the idea of having a SG who's on the taller end (something the Blazers haven't had since Steve Smith was traded). I had actually started writing in another direction, but I kept stumbling over what to do about Martell Webster.


eventually play him 30+ minutes at 2 and 3? Heck nobody plays 48 minutes, and there would be plenty of time for a quality 2 who can take the backup minutes plus log some minutes beside Martell. 

I'm really looking forward to seeing Roy's measurements. If he measures at 6'4 or up, I think he's got the game to be a productive player. He's seems like a very smart and competitive player, but possibly on the small side to match up on the frontline 2's.

STOMP


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

Man. Screw this year's draft. It's going to be 2000 draft all over again. 

#1: Injured PF in college, not a lot of real offensive moves, can't take over a game (Kenyon Martin vs. LaMarcus Aldridge)
#2: PF that can leap out of the building and that's it (Stromile Swift vs. Tyrus Thomas)
#3: SF that with a 'whole lotta upside' and can fly like superman (Darius Miles vs. Rudy Gay)
#4: Hmm.. can't compare Marcus Fizer to anyone from this draft besides Glen Davis but he's staying...
#5: Shooter who can't defend a lick (Mike Miller vs. Adam Morrison)

Hooray for keeping this year's draft!


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

deanwoof said:


> Man. Screw this year's draft. It's going to be 2000 draft all over again.


Good post, but there is one huge difference.

In 2000, Blazers picked #28 (of 29). 
In 2006, Blazers pick #4 or higher.

In 2000, it didn't matter that the draft was crap. We took Erick Barkley and we didn't much care.
In 2006, the future of the team rides on getting someone half-decent in the draft.

barfo


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> I'd rather keep Martell at the SG, and get a SF whos about the same height, and already a better outside shooter than Roy is. At least according to nbadraft.net, Roy is 3 inches shorter, and 25 pounds lighter than say, Morrison or Gay (altho Im not in favor of gay). He's also 45 pounds and 6 inches shorter than Bargani.
> 
> Roy made 14 three pointers his first 3 years in college, and shot a total of 57. Thats basically Adams freshman year (just as a direct relation). By comparison, this year Morrison had 100 more free throws, and 35 more 3's made, and 74 more shot. And thats with, arguably, much more defenders on him. And not forgetting he's just a slow, unathletic white guy who can't jump or move around fast.
> 
> ...


First, let me say that if we get the #1 pick, I would take Morrison over Roy. But my guess is that we would get more value in the long run trading down, getting a proven player and Roy. There is no way to prove this, but it's my feeling. 

Second, I understand everyone wanting to keep Webster as our SG because of his height. However, I think Webster is going to have a much easier time defending SF's than SG's. So if we take Morrison, we'll have our PG (Telfair) who struggles on defense, Webster who will have a hard time matching up with quick SG's, Morrison who is a below average defender, Zach who's a bad defender, and Joel (maybe) to pick up the slack for everyone. To me, that sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. 

Pointing out the fact that Roy only hit 15 threes in his first three years can easily be a positive considering he then made x2.5 as many threes his senior season than his first three years. To me, that's a sign that you've got a player who's still improving and on top of increasing the number of threes made, he still shot over 40% from downtown in the process. 

Hap, you brought up the point of picking up a good defender or rebounder with the 30th-31st pick, and I think it is something we could do. However, if I were to have a top pick, I would want it to be on a player who can really contribute on both ends of the floor. I don't want to rely on a 2nd round pick to do things that my #1 pick can't do. I don't want to have to sub out my #1 pick at the end of the game because he can't play good enough defense. 

You also said that we don't have a good defender at the SF position right now, and you are correct. I would put Morrison somewhere between Outlaw and Miles in terms of defense, so you could expect the poor defense to continue if you inserted him into the starting lineup next year. I believe if Webster were playing SF, he would be a better defender than any SF we have right now. 

The Pistons have no superstars, but outside of Ben Wallace they have four starters who are very solid on both ends of the floor. Even if you leave Ben Wallace on offense, he finds a way to hurt you by crashing the boards. What's the result? One of the best offensive and defensive teams in the league, with 60+ wins and a title under the belts.

We don't have a single player that brings a high level of offense and defense to the floor every night, and it was a major reason for the horrible season. I don't think we can build this team around players who can only play offense or defense, but not both. 

I understand why people love Morrison, he's an amazing talent, and will probably be very good at the NBA level. I can see why Aldridge, Gay, and Noah are all top prospects as well. At some point we need to build a team, not a collection of players. It appears were sticking with Telfair, Webster, and probably Zach. If that's the case, we need to plug the holes with a hard nosed defender, who can post up, knock down the open shot, and adapt to any role as the game changes. Roy is the only guy I see fitting that mold.


----------



## endora60 (Jan 5, 2006)

QRICH said:


> Last at this time he was advicating Portland to take Deron Williams....
> 
> Last year at this time he was saying Sean May would be a "Great Pick".....
> 
> He's struggling for material, you should expect this kinda crap from him.


Wellllll.....After the rookie wall fell in on him--every single brick of it--and he spent a couple months digging out of the wreck, Deron Williams turned out to be an excellent point guard. As for Sean May, there's no way to know what he is or isn't, since he spent most of the season hurt, sitting on Charlotte's bench.

Not a Canzano fan, but those two choices wouldn't've been so awful.

Laurie


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> Jason Quick is not "in the know"...



I know this must be hard for you to accept Zags, but there are actually people that follow basketball that don't think Morrison is the God you make him out to be.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> Furness and Suke are morons...CLEARLY they are...for even suggesting that POR use its #1 pick (heck or even a top 3 pick) to offload Miles....
> 
> That is absolutely the dumbest idea I have heard...
> 
> ...


:clap:


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

QRICH said:


> Last at this time he was advicating Portland to take Deron Williams....
> 
> Last year at this time he was saying Sean May would be a "Great Pick".....
> 
> He's struggling for material, you should expect this kinda crap from him.


Actually, about this time last year he was saying that Chris Paul would be the best pick.



John Canzano said:


> You've had time to scout. Now, pick the best player.
> 
> That's Chris Paul, if you ask me.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

If any of you think that John Canzano is any more knowledgeable on draft prospects than anyone in here then you are a fool....

Canzano knows little to nothing about draft prospects...

and he changed his mind like 4-5 times last year.....

and it it is STILL not decided whether Webster/Jack and this year's #30 will end up as collectively better than Chris Paul....

Paul has looked very good in his rookie year...but both Webster and Jack showed a lot of promise as well...


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I actually find Canzano entertaining. I *guarantee * he knows more about what's going on in the NBA than the majority of posters on this board. He's an intelligent dude in my opinion.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> If any of you think that John Canzano is any more knowledgeable on draft prospects than anyone in here then you are a fool....
> 
> Canzano knows little to nothing about draft prospects...
> 
> ...


Plus, Jack had 2 other point guards to compete for minutes with. I'm not saying Jack is better, but people would be glowing about him a lot moreso if he had 30-40 mpg.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> and it it is STILL not decided whether Webster/Jack and this year's #30 will end up as collectively better than Chris Paul....


I hope Webster and Jack continue to develop and it is true that the absolute answer on who is better has not been decided. But ask any NBA fan (other than a Blazer fan) who they would rather have Webster/Jack and the 30th pick or Chris Paul and I'm guessing it would be close to 100% would choose Chris Paul.

If you think what Webster did at the end of the season was exciting, imagine how hornet fans are feeling about Paul after what he did this season.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I hope Webster and Jack continue to develop and it is true that the absolute answer on who is better has not been decided. But ask any NBA fan (other than a Blazer fan) who they would rather have Webster/Jack and the 30th pick or Chris Paul and I'm guessing it would be close to 100% would choose Chris Paul.


Not that it affects your point all that much, but...

There would be two more correct ways of comparing. Either:

Paul & the 05 2nd vs Webster, Jack & the 06 30th, or:

Paul vs Webster & Jack.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> I actually find Canzano entertaining. I *guarantee * he knows more about what's going on in the NBA than the majority of posters on this board. He's an intelligent dude in my opinion.


cept when it comes to how the CBA works, how the team should and would and did handle things, and how trades happen..Outside of those very important factors (and others), you're right, he's an "intelligent dude".

but thats just your opinion, and I think we all basically know that you just say things to piss off people because you get off on that.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> ...Webster/Jack and the 30th pick or Chris Paul and I'm guessing it would be close to 100% would choose Chris Paul.





Masbee said:


> ...There would be two more correct ways of comparing. Either:
> 
> Paul & the 05 2nd vs Webster, Jack & the 06 30th, or:
> 
> Paul vs Webster & Jack.


I think we're caught in a time loop.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> There would be two more correct ways of comparing. Either:
> 
> Paul & the 05 2nd vs Webster, Jack & the 06 30th, or:
> 
> Paul vs Webster & Jack.


whatever....


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> but thats just your opinion, and I think we all basically know that you just say things to piss off people because you get off on that.


co-signed...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> I know this must be hard for you to accept Zags, but there are actually people that follow basketball that don't think Morrison is the God you make him out to be.


What does this have to do with Jason Quick being "in the know"....


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> What does this have to do with Jason Quick being "in the know"....




Nothing at all. Jason Quick is not the person I was talking about. I live in Houston for crying out loud.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Nothing at all. Jason Quick is not the person I was talking about. I live in Houston for crying out loud.


And people in Houston know who the Blazers want to draft...


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

tlong said:


> I actually find Canzano entertaining. I *guarantee * he knows more about what's going on in the NBA than the majority of posters on this board. He's an intelligent dude in my opinion.


must be cannedhammzano himself lol

roy? are you kidding me? lol lets see who i would pick before him:
(in no order)

bargnani
noah
morrison 
aldridge 
splitter


when do workouts start anyways?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> And people in Houston know who the Blazers want to draft...



Yes. However I was speaking of the NBA in general.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Yes. However I was speaking of the NBA in general.


and you think this guy in Houston has a better idea of who the Blazers are going to draft in April than you or me....?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> and you think this guy in Houston has a better idea of who the Blazers are going to draft in April than you or me....?





Yes I am certain of it. I say this knowing that although you are a little biased when it comes to Morrison you do know the needs of the Blazers, as do I.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Yes I am certain of it. I say this knowing that although you are a little biased when it comes to Morrison you do know the needs of the Blazers, as do I.


I'm not so sure that John Nash and Kevin Pritchard know who they are going to draft...Let alone some guy in Houston (I take it its that announcer you interveiwed or whatever)....

Especially not a guy who has yet to come out for the draft and only has 4 days to do so and so far has made no indications that he's going to...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> I'm not so sure that John Nash and Kevin Pritchard know who they are going to draft...Let alone some guy in Houston (I take it its that announcer you interveiwed or whatever)....
> 
> Especially not a guy who has yet to come out for the draft and only has 4 days to do so and so far has made no indications that he's going to...



All that I posted was that he said the Blazers were interested in Noah. He told me that because that's the word around the NBA, and that they will draft him if he comes out. Who knows if that's what they will do, it's just what's being said right now.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> cept when it comes to how the CBA works, how the team should and would and did handle things, and how trades happen..Outside of those very important factors (and others), you're right, he's an "intelligent dude".
> 
> but thats just your opinion, and I think we all basically know that you just say things to piss off people because you get off on that.



If you get pissed off at that then you get pissed off at ridiculously trivial items. Just because you don't agree with Canzano doesn't mean he's not intelligent.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> If you get pissed off at that then you get pissed off at ridiculously trivial items. Just because you don't agree with Canzano doesn't mean he's not intelligent.


it has nothign to do with me agreeing or disagreeing with him. It's that he constantly gets CBA facts wrong and in several discussions with him Laurel T has basically shown that he's dumber than a post-it-note..

well, lets put it this way. When he did the "more important" stuff in life article the other day, that was an obvious cop out article on his part. for all the crap that he gives the players, and MAKES things into bigger deals than they need to, he pulls the "it's not important" card?

And now that you're doing the same, it basically proves that you do the same thing. When it suits you, you pull the "ha, Tlong was only kidding" card.

so whatever. canzano is a moron and it doesn't surprise me that you're backing him.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> it has nothign to do with me agreeing or disagreeing with him. It's that he constantly gets CBA facts wrong and in several discussions with him Laurel T has basically shown that he's dumber than a post-it-note..
> 
> well, lets put it this way. When he did the "more important" stuff in life article the other day, that was an obvious cop out article on his part. for all the crap that he gives the players, and MAKES things into bigger deals than they need to, he pulls the "it's not important" card?
> 
> ...


It has *everything * to do with you disagreeing with him. That is obvious. I am aware of one instance where he mis-stated CBA facts. If there are more please provide a link. I probably disagree with Canzano more than I agree with him, but it is not difficult to see that he is a good writer.



> Canzano has won numerous writing awards, including Associated Press Sports Editors' awards in column and enterprise writing. In 2003 and 2005, Canzano was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in commentary. And in 2004, Canzano was recognized by The Press Club of Atlantic City with a first place among all sports writing entries in the National Headliner Awards.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

tlong said:


> I actually find Canzano entertaining. I *guarantee * he knows more about what's going on in the NBA than the majority of posters on this board. He's an intelligent dude in my opinion.


:laugh:
A guy who is supposed to be a sports writer, who often times writes about scenarios that are not possible under the current CBA is intelligent? 
:laugh:


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

If Canzano said we should draft Morrison, would people all of a sudden change their mind and say we shouldn't?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Tince said:


> If Canzano said we should draft Morrison, would people all of a sudden change their mind and say we shouldn't?


No...most of us would say.."Oh My God it's a ****in miracle, John Canzano is actually right about something."

Every Canzano can make a correct guess every once in awhile...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Tince said:


> If Canzano said we should draft Morrison, would people all of a sudden change their mind and say we shouldn't?


I'd say that if Canzano was gunning for Morrison, he was obviously doing it because it wasn't who the team wanted, and that he knew it would provide him with more fodder later on.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> It has *everything * to do with you disagreeing with him. That is obvious. I am aware of one instance where he mis-stated CBA facts. If there are more please provide a link. I probably disagree with Canzano more than I agree with him, but it is not difficult to see that he is a good writer.



if you don't know of other events, thats not my problem.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> if you don't know of other events, thats not my problem.


 :rotf:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> :rotf:


you sure showed me. that proves canzano never has gotten the CBA wrong before.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I can think of two instances he didn't know what he was talking about regarding the CBA...One of those times was just recently when he said the Blazers should just cut their ties to Miles and waive him and even Dwight Jaynes told me, "he couldn't believe that he would write that"...

Another time was last offseason and it was someone that he wrote about Prybilla's contract...I can't remember what the whole thing was about, but many posters on this board emailed him and he quickly changed it on his blog...

Those are just two instances off the top of my head...I'd imagine there's even more than that, but I don't have them in the back of my mind right now...

Any other professional writer who's main focus is basketball, particularly the NBA should know this kind of stuff, or atleast not write misinforming columns to the general public..


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> :laugh:
> A guy who is supposed to be a sports writer, who often times writes about scenarios that are not possible under the current CBA is intelligent?
> :laugh:


Well, possibly. See, he could be smart, but ignorant. Let's suppose he's smart enough to realize that the people who read his column (except, of course, for us, excluding tlong) don't know anything about the CBA and will take whatever he says as gospel. So, why would a smart man invest time in reading the CBA, when he can just write and get paid? He can then invest the time he saves by not doing his job properly to moonlight for another organization, doing a talk show where (what a coincidence!) he saves a lot of time by just saying whatever comes into his head, instead of wasting time doing research. Pretty smart cookie! Then he can invest all that time and brainpower he saves by doing his two jobs badly into curing cancer, solving the cold fusion problem, and ending famine - his real passions. 

Or, perhaps he's just a lazy hack.

barfo


----------

