# New Blazer fan lexicon: "Pulling a Swirsky"



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

I can't take credit for this one. Stole it from the blazersedge.com blog:



> I might regain a thimbleful of respect for Swirsky on the day that he votes against one of his own players for an award that they obviously deserve. Until that point "Pulling a Swirsky" is officially part of the Blazersedge lexicon, defined as "making a point so obviously off-base that its lunacy makes the rest of us cringe".


So I think we should officially make this part of the board jargon when someone says something that doesn't make any sense. And I'll happily nominate myself to get this thing kicked off.

SodaPopinski appeared to pull a Swirsky when he said Dirk Nowitzki was not clutch in the playoffs and later had to eat his words when the Mavs forward scored 12 of his team's final 15 points to beat the Warriors in Game 5 of their western conference playoff series.

-Pop


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Everyone who gave the Blazers F- after the draft pulled a Swisky.

Not to mention Stephen A Smith.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

I think quite a few fans here Swirsky'd over Telfair - its all relative i guess.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I think crandc's avatar is a swirsky . . . am I getting the concept here?


----------



## Blazers1970 (Jan 23, 2007)

You can let Mr. Swirsky know how you feel about his ROY selection by dropping him an email:

[email protected]


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Blazers1970 said:


> You can let Mr. Swirsky know how you feel about his ROY selection by dropping him an email:
> 
> [email protected]



Thanks, just sent him a sarcastic email.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

I don't know about pulling a Swirsky...in my day we just called them being a *******.

Swirsky = *******. Easy enough.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Email also available here: [email protected]. That's the email for the station he works for.

Not sure where the aol addy is from.

Edit: Pulled this from the Raptors page as well, where Chuck maintains a blog: Thoughts on the NBA/Raptors e-mail me at [email protected] or call me at 416-815-6189.

-Pop


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

So KMD thinks my avatar is


> so obviously off-base that its lunacy makes the rest of us cringe


?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

crandc said:


> So KMD thinks my avatar is ?



Given my ADD, all I read was Swirsky=cringe. So my ADD logic goes as follow: Swirsky=cringe=crandc's avatar.

I'm guessing by your post that I'm not grasping the concept. :biggrin:


----------



## Blazers1970 (Jan 23, 2007)

SodaPopinski said:


> Email also available here: [email protected]. That's the email for the station he works for.
> 
> Not sure where the aol addy is from.
> 
> ...


[email protected] is his personal email. Let's just email him at all three addresses!


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

You guys are so out-of-date. Chuck Swirsky is simply this year's Ron Boone - a clueless homer bound and determined to vote for his guy no matter what. Therefore, the correct lexical reference is:

"Pulling a Booner"

BNM


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

The countless masses who pulled a "Swirsky" and flamed the hell outta me for saying we should draft a kid from UW named Brandon Roy at about this time last year.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

OK, the guy is a doofus, a homer, etc. Bargs did not have a better rookie season than Roy......but if he winds up with a better *career*, who gets the last laugh?

That's why I won't be e-mailing Mr Toronto Clownshoes - why tempt karma?


----------



## austinpowers (Jun 29, 2006)

Ok then, how about he's a "Booner Swirsky"..........


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Here's his response to my email:

Put brgnani on a non playoff team he gets at least 17 a game Without him raps don't win the division Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Given my ADD, all I read was Swirsky=cringe. So my ADD logic goes as follow: Swirsky=cringe=crandc's avatar.
> 
> I'm guessing by your post that I'm not grasping the concept. :biggrin:


Crandc's avatar is no Swirsky... and even it it was I fully support her right, as an American, to show it.

Crandc... You go girl!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Spud147 said:


> Crandc's avatar is no Swirsky... and even it it was I fully support her right, as an American, to show it.
> 
> Crandc... You go girl!



You do know that crandc's avatar is a picture of me . . .


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Here's his response to my email:
> 
> Put brgnani on a non playoff team he gets at least 17 a game Without him raps don't win the division Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network


Maybe an Eastern Conference non-play off team but I don't see that happening in the Western Conference with all the dominant forwards. I don't see him putting up 17 a nice playing most of his games against Dirk, Duncan, Brand, Garnett, Randolf, Marion/Stoudemire, AK47, etc. 

Still doesn't explain how our rookie guard (who is at least 6 inches shorter) out rebounds him. He's dealing in hypotheticals that didn't happen, this is an award for the best rookie performance THIS SEASON. Brandon was better in everything.


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> You do know that crandc's avatar is a picture of me . . .


Really... well it's definitely a good thing you have your looks to fall back on. :lol:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Spud147 said:


> Really... well it's definitely a good thing you have your looks to fall back on. :lol:



Well thank you . . . and you of course have very nice . . . hands. :drool:


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> "Pulling a Booner"


That's a Minnesotan's idea of a good time.

-Pop


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Here's his response to my email:
> 
> Put brgnani on a non playoff team he gets at least 17 a game Without him raps don't win the division Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network


And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his *** a hoppin'

Stupidest reply ever. He's basically admitting he didn't base his vote on facts.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Here's his response to my email:
> 
> Put brgnani on a non playoff team he gets at least 17 a game Without him raps don't win the division Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network


So he makes his votes based on what MIGHT HAPPEN in a different world?

What a dip-****!

Oh wait, I already called him that.

What a ****ing moron!

How about this Chuck: If Brandon Roy were on the Raptors instead of Bargnani, he would be starting and leading them to the finals. You going to argue that wouldn't happen? How do you know it wouldn't?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

What is great about this whole Chuck episode is that among those (few) who have been paying attention, Chuck has lost ALL credibility as a source for any opinion or information. He just exposed himself.

Same thing happened with Steven Smith at last year's draft, where he ripped on the Blazers for their moves. All Smith did is serve on a platter the complete vindication of his many detractors who have said he is a lightweight - all flash and no substance.

If either of those two ever wanted to be taken seriously, ITS OVER.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Fork said:


> Stupidest reply ever. He's basically admitting he didn't base his vote on facts.


Yep, and maybe someone needs to remind the Chuckster the Raps went 11-3 and clinched homecourt with Bargnani out in March/April. Seems like the Raptors success was much more dependent on their four new starters and the improved play of Chris Bosh than their rookie 6th man.

Nah, why bother considering the FACTS when you can make up things and play "what if" and "if only" games to "justify" your vote.

BNM


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Whats all the fuss about? Didn't Roy just win the rookie of the year. I know its the offseason and all, but I know we can come up with better things to wine about then the fact that he didn't win it unanimously. 

Maybe I just don't get it.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> Whats all the fuss about? Didn't Roy just win the rookie of the year. I know its the offseason and all, but I know we can come up with better things to wine about then the fact that he didn't win it unanimously.
> 
> Maybe I just don't get it.


Winning it unanimously would have put him in the same mention as David Robinson and Ralph Sampson as guys who have won the award unanimously. That's pretty esteemed company. Instead, one ******* with a vote took away that opportunity. Seems worthy enough to me for us to ***** about it.

Doesn't take away Brandon's excellence, though.

-Pop


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

POOR CHUCK! 



> May 3 - Chuck Swirsky, the only person who didn't vote for Trail Blazers guard Brandon Roy as Rookie of the Year, said he is receiving hate mail because of his decision to vote for Toronto's Andrea Bargnani. "This is not an anti-Brandon Roy thing, I hope people understand that," Swirsky said Wednesday from Toronto. "This was strictly a case of me seeing Bargnani day after day. He was a significant player on a playoff team. I can understand why people are frustrated, but I don't understand why people are so hate-centered," Swirsky said. "It's been borderline disgusting."


I do agree with him... no need to be so hateful. Our guy won, Chuck looks like a fool. Mission accomplished.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Andrea may very well end up being a more dominant NBA player than Roy, long-term. LaMarcus probably will be too. But that isn't what the vote was for. It was for Rookie of the Year; this year. And that was Brandon Roy. So what if Toronto was in the playoffs? BFD! He voted Bargnani because he saw him in practice every day? So...everyone should only vote for the player they watch practice? This Swirsky guy is not just a joke; his vote, and his explanations, were disengenous. No need to get hostile about it though, I agree. But at least he knows there are a lot of people who take these awards pretty seriously. Maybe he should too; or just not vote.


----------



## Scarlett Black (Jan 2, 2003)

crandc said:


> So KMD thinks my avatar is ?


Holy Cow. That dude looks like he's had ribs removed. 

SB


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I thought the definition of pulling a swirsky would be something to effect of "sipping of the kool aid" a little too much...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> Winning it unanimously would have put him in the same mention as David Robinson and Ralph Sampson as guys who have won the award unanimously. That's pretty esteemed company. Instead, one ******* with a vote took away that opportunity. Seems worthy enough to me for us to ***** about it.
> 
> Doesn't take away Brandon's excellence, though.
> 
> -Pop


Do you think anyone will look back at past Rookie of the Years and say, oh but he didn't win it unanimously?

No.


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

Soda, you're pulling a Swirsky for even making this thread. :cowboy:


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Do you think anyone will look back at past Rookie of the Years and say, oh but he didn't win it unanimously?
> 
> No.


You bet.

Years from now few will remember that Swirsky, the Toronto homer was the sole voter that denied him the unamimous win.

Years from now few will remember that Roy was one vote away from the unanimous win.

Had he got every first place vote, years from now many stories about Brandon's career, comments from announcers, trivia tidbits recounted, would have said: one of only 3 (or 4).....

Now, that won't happen.

Is it a huge deal? No.

Is Swirsky a chump for being the only wet-blanket at the party? You bet.

And in all this, you know what's even worse than Swirsky's original vote:

His lame, pathetic rationalizations and justifications for his homer vote. If he had just been a stand-up guy and said something like, "I like Andrea and think he has been great and will be great. I didn't really see much of Roy or the other rookie candidates and didn't study the stats. So I may be off."

Nope, he spews his b.s. I have seen many justifications for Swirsky that say, "leave him alone, he is just a homer." Fine, but Swirsky didn't say that. He said his vote was rational and justified. That is what makes him a dip****.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Masbee said:


> You bet.
> 
> Years from now few will remember that Swirsky, the Toronto homer was the sole voter that denied him the unamimous win.
> 
> ...


God, If this isn't a case of small town syndrome I don't know what is.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Criticizing Swirsky for his homerific petulance is kinda like hunting cows with an AK-47.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> God, If this isn't a case of small town syndrome I don't know what is.


Is this supposed to mean something?

First you ask a question, answer it yourself, and your answer is obviously WRONG.

Too bad you made yourself look the fool.

Isn't that indicative of a small town rube? I think it might be.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Instead of "pulling a Swirsky," I'm just replacing
the word "worst" with "Swirkiest".

Not voting Roy for R.O.Y. is the Swirkiest thing
I've ever heard. Bill Walton was an HOFer on the court,
but he's the Swirskiest Analyst I've heard this year!:biggrin:


----------

