# Breaking News: Blazers pull all their advertising out of Oregonian



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I knew about this last night, but couldn't run it until I got the Ok.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_11539.shtml


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Ha! Awesome stuff!


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

Wow. It is sad that the Blazers dont feel like they can advertise through the very mechanism that can reach thousands of sports/Blazers fans a day. This certainly does not speak well for The Oregonian, but hey, I think they had it coming. I wonder what amount of money The Oregonian (or the Blazers overall for that matter) will lose in this situation.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

I like it.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

They should send us all the checks!


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

This is disastrous. If The Oregonian and The Blazers can't get along, then this team is just not gonna last. Sad.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Now, they should buy the paper...

Good for them...


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Actually Nathan, if I were Paul Allen I would pull the Oregonians credentials as well. The team doesn't owe these guys anything.

In fact, I think the Oregonian has forgotten that it's a privilege to even be there. 

I'd make Quick, Canzano, and the crew PAY to get in.

I'm trying to find out more, I'll let you guys know when I do.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

I think the Blazers are grandstanding and trying to force Canzano to name his source.

They are smoking out a rat. It will likely work too.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> This is disastrous. If The Oregonian and The Blazers can't get along, then this team is just not gonna last. Sad.


I hope thats a joke.

NICE JOB TRAIL BLAZERS!


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

it's about time the O reeps what they've been sowing. Expect Canzano and Co to write indignant collumns tomorrow, but the worm might be finally turning. Hopefully their heads will roll.

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

they should also not allow crapzano and quick to be courtside, or have press passes.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

This is a very well contrived move....It'd be intersting to know what kind of Budget thealotted to Oregonian advertising. 

I know what My company has spent on little adds, so I have a suspicion we are talking in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year kinda range.

$$$ talks, the Oregonian will listen.


----------



## sanfranduck (Jan 31, 2005)

Pulling all of your advertising in the city's only paper with legitimate circulation ought to work wonders for turning up the dial on the 28th-lowest-attendance in the league. 

Is the team trying to wage war on the paper? Seems ridiculous to me. Yes, Canzano and Quick are very critical of the team. So pull their credentials. 

I don't understand the move.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sanfranduck</b>!
> Pulling all of your advertising in the city's only paper with legitimate circulation ought to work wonders for turning up the dial on the 28th-lowest-attendance in the league.
> 
> Is the team trying to wage war on the paper? Seems ridiculous to me. Yes, Canzano and Quick are very critical of the team. So pull their credentials.
> ...


Theink about the kind of money the Blazers likely spend on advertising in the Oregonian. Id gather a guess a few hundred thousand dollars a year.

That's called putting the screws to the check book my friend.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

The Oregonian has been so negative toward the team of late, I don't see how an absence of advertising presence in the paper will be a detriment to attendance. The O can't be any more negative, so it can't be worse in that respect, and simply removing coverage would probably be a pretty big positive.

Negative coverage fuels negative perception, and that's what most fans feel right now. Any attempt to eliminate that source of negativity is a good thing.

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sanfranduck</b>!
> Pulling all of your advertising in the city's only paper with legitimate circulation ought to work wonders for turning up the dial on the 28th-lowest-attendance in the league.
> 
> Is the team trying to wage war on the paper? Seems ridiculous to me. Yes, Canzano and Quick are very critical of the team. So pull their credentials.
> ...


I think they should pull their credentials anyway.

but the old saying goes. Money talks and bull **** walks.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Sure the Oregonian is the big fish in town as far as newspapers... but there are other options, The Tribune, billboards, more radio ads, TV ads. etc.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Another issue is if the Oregonian really starts to blast at the Blazers now, most people will think it is out of revenge.


----------



## sanfranduck (Jan 31, 2005)

Let me clarify: I understand why the Blazers did it, what I don't understand is their thinking in doing it. 

Do you really think that Portland will pull ALL of its advertising for the rest of the year? 

No way. People who are hard-core blazer/nba fans such a ourselves don't necessarily get our blazer information from the newspaper. But you have to understand that there are thousands of fans in the Portland metro area who -- unfortunately -- get their sports information via the Oregonian and from the 60 seconds of sports on local news. these are the people who attend anywhere from 0 to 3 games per year -- and these are the people that the team is trying to reach. Folks like us will watch the team and attend games regardless -- folks like the people I'm talking about actually make decisions about the team based on this crappy information. Actions like the Blazers' last night will be very negative towards trying to reach those people. 

I know that most of you already know this. I think it's funny that the Blazers did this; I just think it's adverse towards their supposed goals.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I like it, but it only makes sense if the Blazers follow up with pulling the credentials of all of The Oregonian's... ahem... "writers". Get those guys as far away from the team as possible. Make them buy their own tix to the games, and force them to write only about what they see happen _during_ the games.

Waging war on the paper? Where you been, sanfranduck? The Oregonian's writers have been waging war on the Blazers since mid-way through the 2000-2001 season. The Blazers are just firing back here. And about friggin' time, too.

Now, granted, The Oregonian's writers have brought a number of scandalous Blazers' occurrances to light. Problem is, they have lost all their objectivity over the past few years. They've adopted a full-on smear campaign mentality. And, to the Blazers' credit, they've been patiently weathering the storm waiting for an end that, as they've now apparently decided, will never come.

Good for you Blazers. I have no problem with the media keeping you guys honest (one of the positive functions of the media, IMO). But even I can see that what The Oregonian has been doing has gone way beyond that.

Again, about friggin' time.

PBF


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

BRAVO! :clap: 

You know, they always talk about the Blazers playing in a one horse town, how is the Oregonian any different? Really, is there any other paper in the Portland area that makes them compete? Gee, I can't wait for PRIME TIME SPORTS to hear the breakdown of how this is Mo Cheeks fault! 

I wonder if they will introduce Jason Quick and a Blazer OUTSIDER now? :laugh:


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sanfranduck</b>!
> Let me clarify: I understand why the Blazers did it, what I don't understand is their thinking in doing it.
> 
> Do you really think that Portland will pull ALL of its advertising for the rest of the year?


The Blazers have plenty of other direct advertising channels that they can put all that money into. Other local papers. TV. Radio. Internet. Billboards. Bus signs. Etc. They'll keep advertising...

...just not through The Oregonian.

Bravo.

PBF


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

No they won't pull it for a year....But they will dictate who replaces Canzano and perhaps Quik. 

This is all about leverage....Remember what Ron Tonkin did to the Blazers? That's what the Blazers are doing to the Oregonian, who like the Blazers are suffering in the Public Appeal department.


----------



## sanfranduck (Jan 31, 2005)

I realize that there are other mediums the team can advertise in. I work for an ad agency for crying out loud. 

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying it's the wrong thing to do. I'm saying I don't understand it because if they are trying to connect with the everyday fan, which they say they are trying to do, unfortunately the Oregonian and the local news are the two main vehicles to do this. 

Clearly, the team at this juncture is saying that leveraging its product to try and halt some of this negative press -- or at least get an apology out of the the Oregonian and make them think twice about publishing some of this stuff -- is worth the cost of eliminating one of its mediums to meet this audience. 

It will be very interesting to see what happens next and how well this works.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

so will the Oregonian retaliate by not publishing game times in the inside section? 

I somewhat doubt it, but it's a possibility. 

I'd be a little surprised if the Oregonian doesn't find a reason to fire Canzano or Quick in order to make this situation better. the Oregonian's ad revenue is more than the salaries of these two idiots. 

the Oregonian is owned by Newhouse, a nationwide newspaper chain. this is not a business owned locally looking to make moral stands. like Gannet or the other media conglomerates, it's about the bottom line. 

judging by ads I've seen them run in the sports secion, I suspect the Blazers are probably one of the Oregonian's top 10 or 20 customers. no business should piss off customers who are that big.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

The only thing I'm afraid of seeing out of all of this is the Oregonian being pressured to hire "rah rah" sports writers. 

I don't want to go from one extreme of negative smear campaign to Polyanna everything-is-great-about-the-Blazers!

That's what I miss about the Schonz...telling it like it is...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> judging by ads I've seen them run in the sports secion, I suspect the Blazers are probably one of the Oregonian's top 10 or 20 customers. no business should piss off customers who are that big.


I would think they'd be one of their bigger ads. What other company is there, outside of Fred Meyer and Meier and Frank?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't think the Blazers want rah rah wirters, none of their Radio guys are Rah rah. 

What they want is someone who tells it like it is, not someone that tilss a sliver, but only the sliver that makes somehting as controversial as possible.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sanfranduck</b>!
> I realize that there are other mediums the team can advertise in. I work for an ad agency for crying out loud.
> 
> Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying it's the wrong thing to do. I'm saying I don't understand it because if they are trying to connect with the everyday fan, which they say they are trying to do, unfortunately the Oregonian and the local news are the two main vehicles to do this.
> ...


I think you understand the situation pretty well, sanfranduck. The Oregonian has, on the whole, been more of a burden for the Blazers than a boon in recent years. Yeah, great, they print ads for upcoming games. But it's the _articles_ that people read. The _articles_ that turn people on or off to the team. And for the past several years, the general trend there has been "off".

So the Blazers are pulling their advertising $$$ from The Oregonian because there isn't much point as long as the articles are negative. The Oregonian will feel the loss of $$$ at some level. Maybe it will force them to change their tune. Maybe it won't. But they will feel it. And as theWanker points out, that $$$ is probably much more than Canzano & Quick's salaries. And if they _want_ to keep that $$$, they'll find some way to get back into the Blazers' good graces.

And if not, the negative articles will continue... except I suspect that they'll be written from a much greater distance from the team than they have been previously. Hard to dig up dirt from the 200-level, if you know what I mean.

PBF


----------



## MercyKersey (Jul 22, 2003)

BRAVO BLAZERS:yes: This is a real stand FINALLY! Im so sick of the negativity of quick, canzano and the Oregonian.. 
Now that they are no longer together with the Oregonian do the blazers have the right to take away the press passes for quick and canzano? Please tell me yes..I would give my left nut to watch those two go down in flames...


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> I would think they'd be one of their bigger ads. What other company is there, outside of Fred Meyer and Meier and Frank?


I haven't read an Oregonian in months (being I live in Idaho). however, a huge source of revenue for newspapers is in car dealership advertising and all the Home Depot/Albertsons/etc inserts. . 

for a little idea of how important advertising is, in most newspapers ad revenue generates more money than the subscriptions and newsstand sales combined. 

unlike subscriptions and newsstand sales, though, display ads generate a lot of revenue for relatively little amount of work. you don't have to sink massive amounts of dough into advertising layout and copywriter guys like you do for delivery vans, drivers, people to take phone orders, etc. 

newspapers charge customers for their paper to cover some of the cost. but make no mistake--the real profits are in the advertising.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I am proud to say that I am finally happy with a move our GM has made. Good job! I buy the NY times for the news and the O for local sports. I am not going to buy the O any more until I hear that the blazers are advertising again. That to me will signify when the blazers are happier with their relationship with the O. 

I blame the O for at least 25% of lagging ticket sales, and most likely more. I have no problem with the O breaking a bad news story about the blazers, but I have a big time problem with most articles being written from the standpoint of shame on the blazers. Dont blow something out of nothing just to sell more papers, especially when it kills the company that supports the paper with ads.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I have to say that from what I've seen, the Oregonian is a pretty crappy paper, and Canzano and Quick pretty much dumbarses. That said, I think two points are worth making:

1. If the Blazers had pulled this stunt under Whitsitt, he would've been tarred and feathered, not applauded.

2. It doesn't matter how bad the reporting is, pulling advertising is a petty move. It makes the organization look two-bit. Now Canzano looks like a victimized hard-nosed reporter, rather than a self-aggrandizing moron.

I hate to say it, given that PR people are lower than pond-scum, but the Blazers really need better PR people.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> This is disastrous. If The Oregonian and The Blazers can't get along, then this team is just not gonna last. Sad.


Absurd.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't really have strong feelings about this one way or the other, but I find it very interesting... will the Oregonian cave? Will they scale back Blazers coverage?

Also it's interesting how anti-Oregonian our community is... even the people for whom "character" is a big issue seem to (for the most part) be applauding the move. Certainly nothing wrong with it, but this is all more interesting than watching the Hornets kick the crap out of the Blazers. 

Ed O.


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

> I hate to say it, given that PR people are lower than pond-scum, but the Blazers really need better PR people.


I don't think this is about PR... I think this is about the Trail Blazers drawing a line in the sand, and saying 'this far, no further.' They can not allow the media to trample all over them and reward them for it. The Oregonian is a mockery of journalism, and this is an excellent move, IMO. I fully support it and think it actually should be taken farther. The main offenders, Quick (because he's clueless about pro ball) and Conzano (clueless about ball and also just an ***) should not be allowed access to the team like before. Like others have said, they can pay for their tickets, and be shunned. 

Everything the Oregonian has done in the past few years has just been begging for a response like this from the team. They've gotten away with far too much already.

The garbage the Oregonian churns out every day about the Blazers is shameful and imo, they make this city and fans look bad.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

I have been looking for a place to put my two bits in and think here is a good as any. 

1. Carzano was wrong to report the way he did and with the lack of proof he had.

2. The Blazers were justified in pulling their Add Revenue. 

Who gave Carzano the right to set Moral Standards for the Blazers? 

Who gave him the right to set the bisiness ethics for the Blazers anyway? 

Who gave him the right to tell another bisiness how to run their dicipline of their imployees?

If The Oregonian and Carzano are allowed to keep escalating the attack I agree with Nathan that the Blazers may very well tire of this market and Paul Allen will either sell or more likely move the franchise to a better market. (Maybe Mexico City or something) Ha!

The continued "Bad Press" will definately cost more and more ticket sales. The Blazers had no choice but to do "something".

My rant for the day. Thanks for listening.

gatorpops


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Last time I heard something like this was when Exxon threatened to pull all its advertising out of Alaska magazine if they ran a negative article on the oil spill. The were such a high % of the add revenue, the magazine didn't run the article. 

Was it right?

Trying to influence the media like that is petty. If the Oregonian changes anything in their coverage it will however show that they really were biased all along. I don't like the Oregonian at all... don't get it... read it.. na da. I do like the Tribune though... really wish they'd go daily. There just isn't much accountability when there isn't another daily to challenge them. 

I didn't even read the article in question... but just grabbing a document like that and then publishing information about it without checking any facts... seems like very weak journalism to me.


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

I'm trying to be objective. What has the Oregonian done that is so wrong:

1. They report that Zach Randolph bounced two checks to the youth basketball league.
2. They reported that Darius Miles laced a racial tirade against their coach.
3. They reported that Mo Cheeks was very upset by this.
4. They reported that that a Blazer Employee gave them a copy of a drafted agreement, at first denied it and then acknowledged it but said the Oregonian was intentionally trying to smear them. Huh?
5. They reported on the numerous incidents that the Blazers have been involved in.

This is not a smear campaign. This is the truth. I think the Oregonian sucks as a paper, but I don't see what in the hell you are all talking about. Reporting the truth is not a crime and it is not a smear campaign. If the players would stop getting in trouble and acting like 2 year old retards, than the Oregonian would not have anything to write about. What has the Oregonian written that was a lie? Nothing. Do some positive things in the community, bring in some quality individuals, bring in some real basketball people to run the franchise, and maybe the local rag will write more positive articles. Until then, quit your whining, end the pointless spin campaign, and grow up and run your business like a business.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Paxil</b>!
> Last time I heard something like this was when Exxon threatened to pull all its advertising out of Alaska magazine if they ran a negative article on the oil spill. The were such a high % of the add revenue, the magazine didn't run the article.
> 
> Was it right?


thats apples and oranges here. It's not like the blazers player did something horribly wrong, and then the team demanded that they don't write the article. 

This is not just soley on the 1 article. It's probably built up over about 3 years now.



> Trying to influence the media like that is petty.


I don't know if they're necessarily "influencing" the paper in the aspect you're implying. Maybe they're saying "hey, you're hurting our business, which in the end, hurts your business. Be responsible for your actions, Oregonian".



> I didn't even read the article in question... but just grabbing a document like that and then publishing information about it without checking any facts... seems like very weak journalism to me.


which, to the blazers (who, get this, know more about the situation than we do, or John Crapzano, do) is the tip of the ice berg


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

Amen Furball......I'm thankful that there is media to expose the scoundrels in our society......I love it when 60 Minutes catches someone in a lie. If the Blazers want better coverage they should get their act together and stop continually showing their incompetence with one fiasco after another.

And I am pretty sure they can't deny access to a media outlet over editorial issues, the NBA would never allow it.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

The one thing I hope the Blazers do as a follow up is take out some radio and T.V. spots explaining why they did this. There are a lot of older people that live and breath by the Oregonian. They will do nothing but badmouth the team in the paper and on the radio. I hope the team doesn't sit back and let that happen. I hope they also go on the fan, and KXL to explain why. 



GREAT MOVE BY THE BLAZERS


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NBAGOD</b>!
> Amen Furball......I'm thankful that there is media to expose the scoundrels in our society......I love it when 60 Minutes catches someone in a lie. If the Blazers want better coverage they should get their act together and stop continually showing their incompetence with one fiasco after another.
> 
> And I am pretty sure they can't deny access to a media outlet over editorial issues, the NBA would never allow it.


hold on, how is what darius did a "fiasco"?

that was put in the article soley for the purpose of making him and the organization look stupid. It served not other purpose.

How is commenting that Zach's check bounced "twice" a fiasco?


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>gatorpops</b>!
> 
> 
> Who gave Carzano the right to set Moral Standards for the Blazers?
> ...


Um, the Blazers did by boasting their precious 25 Point Pledge. 

I know it was a stupid marketing gimmick but they set themselves up to be scrutinized. It would be remiss of the paper to not take them up on the challenge. Blazer management screwed up, plain and simple.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>furball</b>!
> I'm trying to be objective. What has the Oregonian done that is so wrong:
> 
> 1. They report that Zach Randolph bounced two checks to the youth basketball league.


things taken out of context for the purpose of making them look far worse than they are, is bad for business.


> 2. They reported that Darius Miles laced a racial tirade against their coach.


this isn't this issue really. They've reported things that have happened. But they've also reported a lot of things that didn't happen in the manner they were described.



> 3. They reported that Mo Cheeks was very upset by this.
> 4. They reported that that a Blazer Employee gave them a copy of a drafted agreement, at first denied it and then acknowledged it but said the Oregonian was intentionally trying to smear them. Huh?


considering the fact that crapzano actually doesn't know what the document ACTUALLY was, he's implying (slyly too) what it means. It's called poisoning the well.

It's the same as if I went up to darius and asked him "so, have you stopped beating your wife?"

it's planting a seed, and puts darius in a bad light, even if he's never done something. I'm misrepresenting the facts, in a manner which paints someone in a bad light.



> 5. They reported on the numerous incidents that the Blazers have been involved in.


it's not about this. They aren't complaining about that aspect. It's more that they're putting information out there thats not entirely true, and is written in a manner that paints the team in a worse situation than the facts actually should.



> This is not a smear campaign. This is the truth. I think the Oregonian sucks as a paper, but I don't see what in the hell you are all talking about. Reporting the truth is not a crime and it is not a smear campaign.


you're doing exactly what the oregonian is doing. You're acting like you're "reporting" everything, but you're convienently leaving out a LOT of facts. 



> If the players would stop getting in trouble and acting like 2 year old retards, than the Oregonian would not have anything to write about.


this is a stupid comment. The oregonian digs for **** to write about, and in some cases, makes things that normally wouldn't leave the cutting room floor, and makes it head line news.

Zach bounced a check. Big ****ing deal. 

Darius's credit card was maxed (which who knows if that version of the story is correct).

SO ****ing what?

seriously. Why is this even newsworthy??



> What has the Oregonian written that was a lie? Nothing. Do some positive things in the community


you just pointed out something I was going to post in another post.

This is a HUGE problem here. The team DOES do a LOT of positive things in the communty, more so than most other teams do. But you *NEVER* hear about it. 

So we fans ***** about not knowing the players that well, as does the paper. But the paper never promotes the team and what it's doing in the community.



> bring in some quality individuals, bring in some real basketball people to run the franchise, and maybe the local rag will write more positive articles. Until then, quit your whining, end the pointless spin campaign, and grow up and run your business like a business.


um...do you realize how stupid that last comment is? They *are* running the business like a business. Businesses handle problems *in house*.


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> hold on, how is what darius did a "fiasco"?
> ...


You don't think swearing out you coach is a fiasco? Especially a coach who constantly backs your ignorant butt up.. You don't think that Zack bouncing two checks to a youth group is not a fiasco? How is promising a bunch of kids money for their league and not having the sense to write them a check that wouldn't bounce, not a fiasco?
Canzano actually is the one who first talked about Zack being a good guy for doing this in the first place. Canzano probably feels like an idiot for pumping this guy up. It was his duty as a journalist to report that the checks never went through.


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

> um...do you realize how stupid that last comment is? They *are* running the business like a business. Businesses handle problems *in house*.


My business makes money. The Blazers lost millions. Spare me the business lecture.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>furball</b>!
> 
> 
> You don't think swearing out you coach is a fiasco? Especially a coach who constantly backs your ignorant butt up..


no, I don't. Because that happens a lot of the time. 



> You don't think that Zack bouncing two checks to a youth group is not a fiasco?


no. really, think about what you're asking me. If someone bounced a check is a fiasco. 

that's beyond sad that you think it is.



> How is promising a bunch of kids money for their league and not having the sense to write them a check that wouldn't bounce, not a fiasco?


because they got the money, right? 
Or are we to believe that zach wrote the check just for ****s and giggles?

it's a "fiasco" because crapzano made it one. You ask most people if bouncing a check is a big deal (infact, you can ask people here who admitted that they work in a place where people donate money and checks bounce...it's not a big deal). 


> Canzano actually is the one who first talked about Zack being a good guy for doing this in the first place. Canzano probably feels like an idiot for pumping this guy up. It was his duty as a journalist to report that the checks never went through.


why is it his duty??

what good does it do? really, please tell me what good it does to report it?

other than to make the team look bad, and you have more "ammo" to heave at them.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>furball</b>!
> 
> 
> My business makes money. The Blazers lost millions. Spare me the business lecture.


whats that got to do with your comment being niave?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>furball</b>!
> 
> 
> My business makes money. The Blazers lost millions. Spare me the business lecture.



Can I lecture if I made pennies?


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

> So we fans ***** about not knowing the players that well, as does the paper. But the paper never promotes the team and what it's doing in the community.


I agree and disagree. The Blazers do a tremendous amount of things in the community. Whether they do it for image reasons or not is not the point. At least they do something. And many of the players do a lot of great things. And I think guys like Theo, Damon, "Reef" do a great job. I also think the Oregonian and O'live do a good job of reporting these things. If you read Canzano's Blog, he actually reports a lot of good things the Blazers do.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>furball</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree and disagree. The Blazers do a tremendous amount of things in the community. Whether they do it for image reasons or not is not the point. At least they do something. And many of the players do a lot of great things. And I think guys like Theo, Damon, "Reef" do a great job. I also think the Oregonian and O'live do a good job of reporting these things. If you read Canzano's Blog, he actually reports a lot of good things the Blazers do.


how about he do it in his article, which by far more people read and know about.


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

> this is a stupid comment. The oregonian digs for **** to write about, and in some cases, makes things that normally wouldn't leave the cutting room floor, and makes it head line news.


How naive is this? The Oregonian digs for *****.....that's what the media does! C'mon, the Oregonian is the minor leagues....have you ever seen the reporting in papers like the New York Post or Boston Herald? Every team deals with this....the conflict between teams/athletes and the media is as old as sports itself......Portland is not unique.

I'll say it again, if the Blazers weren't so incompetant, the Oregonian would have nothing to report!

And yeah, I think a player and coach having it out....a player bouncing a check to charity.....and a team's repeated attempts at spin qualifies as fiasco. It never ends with this team......stop shooting the messenger.


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

> no. really, think about what you're asking me. If someone bounced a check is a fiasco.


Well if you ran a business or ran a charity that depended on Checks actually going through, maybe you would understand that a millionaire bouncing checks is a bit of a fiasco. 

By the way, if Hap thinks bouncing 57,000 checks isn't a fiasco, I would suggest you all put Hap on the CUF system. Cash up front.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>furball</b>!
> 
> Well if you ran a business or ran a charity that depended on Checks actually going through, maybe you would understand that a millionaire bouncing checks is a bit of a fiasco.


i could understand if he said he would write a check, but never did. Or I could understand if he wrote a check, it bounced, and he never made due with the money. 

But sweet jesus people, we need to really have better things to ***** about then a player writing a check and not having the money there right away.

Did you not read the post about bounced checks happening often at one of the places that takes charity?

I really cannot believe you're making such a huge deal about this. 



> By the way, if Hap thinks bouncing 57,000 checks isn't a fiasco, I would suggest you all put Hap on the CUF system. Cash up front.


im not even sure how to respond to this. You're really going to go there, and expect me to now take you serious?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>furball</b>!
> Well if you ran a business or ran a charity that depended on Checks actually going through, maybe you would understand that a millionaire bouncing checks is a bit of a fiasco.


Wrong. 

Again, I work for a large non-profit here in Portland. This kind of **** happens every week. 

We depend on donations, to a certain extent. But if we were living month to month, depending on a $47,000 check to pay the bills, so much so that we couldn't wait a week for the issue to get straightened out (which is generally how long it takes,) we wouldn't be in business for very long. 

Fiasco? That's silly. It's a pain in the *** to have to re-contact the donor. It's probably somewhat embarrassing for them. It causes mild tittering in the office when we hear about who has bounced a check. But it's not news outside the organization. It's certainly not news for the people who attend our events. It's not news to the general public. 

This kind of stuff happens all the time. 

It's not news.


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

Believe me Hap, I'm not being an Oregonian apologist. I really hate the rag. I think Canzano and Meehan's articles suck. I do like Canzano's blog, though. And I do think it is his job to report about Zach bouncing those checks when he is the one who wrote about the charitable donation. Yeah, the kids got the money, but they had to go to the Blazers who had to deduct money from Zacks check. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the Blazers actually paid it. 

The main point of the whole stupid argument is that if the Blazers are going to put these guys out there and single them out for the good they do, they need to be able to handle a few bad stories, no matter how petty they are. Grow up. If any one read the Oregonian to begin with, the Sports section wouldn't suck so bad. Probably just a reason not to advertise with such an over price advertising rates.


----------



## obiwankenobi (Jan 31, 2004)

For factual reference:

In Oregon writing a bad check is a crime. It is a Class A Misdemeanor if payment is not completed within 10 days of the return of the check.

Maximum fines are 3 times the value of the check or $100 wichever is greater, with a maximum fine of $500.

Balance your checkbook. Don't write bad checks.

Bad Check Info


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

> Again, I work for a large non-profit here in Portland. This kind of **** happens every week.


You have millionaire's bounce $57,000 checks twice, every week?


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

> certainly not news for the people who attend our events. It's not news to the general public.


Unfortunately it is news when the subjects are celebrities, who are among the richest and most recognizable people in the region. Just like it's not news when I get pulled over, or get into an arguement with my boss or get into a fight at a strip club......but celebrities are under the microscope. That's reality, whether it's the Portland Trail Blazers, Britney Spears or Monica Lewinsky. I have been in this business for the better part of 3 decades and there is not a team in the country that doesn't have an adversarial relationship with their local media, especially print media. That's what they do......they dig for dirt and then make a mountain out of a molehill. Unfortunately the Blazers make it extra easy for them to do that.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>furball</b>!
> 
> 
> You have millionaire's bounce $57,000 checks twice, every week?



You know there was a time in my life when I had a lot of extra income, and several different accounts. Trust me when I say that if you or an accoutant isn't on top of all of them it is really easy to bounce checks.


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>NBAGOD</b>!
> 
> 
> Unfortunately it is news when the subjects are celebrities, who are among the richest and most recognizable people in the region. Just like it's not news when I get pulled over, or get into an arguement with my boss or get into a fight at a strip club......but celebrities are under the microscope. That's reality, whether it's the Portland Trail Blazers, Britney Spears or Monica Lewinsky. I have been in this business for the better part of 3 decades and there is not a team in the country that doesn't have an adversarial relationship with their local media, especially print media. That's what they do......they dig for dirt and then make a mountain out of a molehill. Unfortunately the Blazers make it extra easy for them to do that.


Could any of you imagine if the Knicks or Bulls had as many off court issues as the Blazers? I don't think the Blazers should be complaining.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>furball</b>!
> 
> You have millionaire's bounce $57,000 checks twice, every week?


Did I say that? Nope. 

We do get bounced checks and NSF's on credit cards every week. Occasionally, it's from a person who is well known around town and/or loaded with money. Just like I said the first time.

I suspect you have reading comprehension problem. 

And, FYI...it was $47,650 not $57,000. Get your facts straight.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

I'm really surprised to read all of these comments taking the "Blazers' side" in this.

First off, the document is real. Talk to any attorney and he'll tell you that an agreement of that kind is not written until it's been discussed verbally. Miles probably didn't know what exactly was going on, but I can certainly imagine that his agent did. And Patterson sure as hell did. 

On tonight's news, Patterson said Canzano's piece contained "lies." You better back that up with a libel suit against the Oregonian, and you better push to have that fast-tracked so that Canzano can get busted down to paper boy before the All-Star break. What's that? Haven't filed anything? Hmm... if you don't think a judge will agree with you, why should I? 

The bounced checks are no big deal. But reluctantly suspending a player, then offering to pay him anyway (with interest!) behind the coach's back, after the player spewed racial epithets to such a degree that the coach offered to resign is just staggeringly stupid and disrespectful to the person in greatest need of organizational support - namely, Coach Cheeks. 

I'd like to see Paul Allen show some cajones and fire these two idiots. Is Cheeks worth all of this? That's completely beside the point. A player acted in a completely irresponsible manner and was rewarded for it. For the sake of the community's respect for the team - which is in the toilet thanks to the behavior of the Blazers not the Oregonian - Patterson and Nash should be fired, and Darius Miles should have to forfeit every penny he would have earned during that suspension. 

And pulling the advertising money? Whatever. The quarter page ad in the Sports section for the next home game isn't going to affect the bottom line, so long as pages and pages of ads keep coming from Meier and Frank and the other big sponsors. The Blazers are a joke, and have only themselves to blame. The Oregonian is just delivering the punch line.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NBAGOD</b>!
> 
> 
> Unfortunately it is news when the subjects are celebrities, who are among the richest and most recognizable people in the region. Just like it's not news when I get pulled over, or get into an arguement with my boss or get into a fight at a strip club......but celebrities are under the microscope. That's reality, whether it's the Portland Trail Blazers, Britney Spears or Monica Lewinsky. I have been in this business for the better part of 3 decades and there is not a team in the country that doesn't have an adversarial relationship with their local media, especially print media. That's what they do......they dig for dirt and then make a mountain out of a molehill. Unfortunately the Blazers make it extra easy for them to do that.



This is what is called in law "an argument that proves too much!"

Why does the public care about this stuff? Because the media tells them to. The media created this perverse "cult of celebrity". The media decided gossip sold better than hard news. We are all supposed to drink the kool-aid and shut up!

I firmly believe in the "burger-flipper rule." If this guy worked at a fastfood joint, would this story be news? Even if you somehow heard about the story, would you care?

If the answer is "no", then the story is bullfeathers - PERIOD! No amount of selfrighteous twittering can change that.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

I don't like most of Canzanos and Quicks articles, but I NEVER hear people being critical of KEX. They are such homers because of the Blazers contract with the team. Does it bother everyone that KEX never totally slam players who are out of line? Say the coach is not doing a good job? Say Nash isn't doing his job? Would you guys rather have Homers at the Oregoneon that only say positive things, when the team stinks or is underachieving? What is wrong with Canzano showing a document he received and giving Patterson a chance to respond? Now the followup article may have inconsistancies, but Patterson could have given more information, but elected not to. 

Anyway, I don't usually like Canzano's stuff, or Quicks, but digging dirt sells papers. Many people would be just as upset if they hid Blazers news like arrest, blowing up at the coach or trade demands.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Peaceman</b>!
> I don't like most of Canzanos and Quicks articles, but I NEVER hear people being critical of KEX. They are such homers because of the Blazers contract with the team. Does it bother everyone that KEX never totally slam players who are out of line? Say the coach is not doing a good job? Say Nash isn't doing his job?


I think that you mean KXL, as KEX rips on the blazers every morning.

and even tho KXL is owned by Paul Allen, the non "blazers game" people do rip on the team.



> Would you guys rather have Homers at the Oregoneon that only say positive things, when the team stinks or is underachieving? What is wrong with Canzano showing a document he received and giving Patterson a chance to respond? Now the followup article may have inconsistancies, but Patterson could have given more information, but elected not to.


people are confusing "being homoers" and always saying things are super duper, with actually doing a good job reporting on the team.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

Hap, I respect your point, but Patterson could have made a clearer statement and elected not to. Maybe the article would have been more positive to management if they explained their side more. Generally I like just facts, which is why it's hard to like the Oregoneon and KXL. They both distort what is going on with the team. Canzano in my opinion, better have backing to support his article. If the Blazers are going to pay Miles, they should say why they have to change the their minds, because of the CBA, or they had a weak case. We would all still probably not like that, but something appears to be going on behind the scenes, so Patterson should clear that up.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Peaceman</b>!
> Hap, I respect your point, but Patterson could have made a clearer statement and elected not to. Maybe the article would have been more positive to management if they explained their side more. Generally I like just facts, which is why it's hard to like the Oregoneon and KXL. They both distort what is going on with the team. Canzano in my opinion, better have backing to support his article. If the Blazers are going to pay Miles, they should say why they have to change the their minds, because of the CBA, or they had a weak case. We would all still probably not like that, but something appears to be going on behind the scenes, so Patterson should clear that up.


the thing is, they are limited to what they can and can't say, because what some of us fans (and media) want them to say, they can't say.

just like how everyone complained about the qyntel woods things and how the blazers were non-commital (and the media made a HUGE deal about it)...there's a LOT we fans don't know.

And in the end, we'll look foolish for pinching a loaf over something stupid that really, that wasn't worth going nuts over.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

OK for those of you congratulating the Oregonian for doing a good job of reporting.

How did you form your opinion of the Blazers?

Honestly....Is a person bouncing a check...even twice....legitmately newsworthy? I suppose to a tabloid.

How about when Canzano himself says he misrepresented the zach situation, in his blog, but not in print? 

What about a gas station attendant making a mistake? I guess it's a story if a "Jail" Blazer was the one buying the gas. Would it have been if it had been Danny Glover (Portland resident)? 

Sure no-one is doubting that Blazer players have made mistakes. What Myself and many are saying is Canzano in particular spins the truth and makes it sound like something it isn't, but if you actually read his stuff very, very closely, you can see that in most cases it is much ado about nada.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> How did you form your opinion of the Blazers?


I'm not sure really. I seem to be a "flip-flopper" lately. Every time I start to blame the media, I come across your posts and change my mind.. 

I'm not sure why. All I know is the devil flashes in my mind and I get mesmerized. The only thing that comes to mind during these times is, "The Blazers are Evil!" I find myself chanting this for at least 5-10 minutes at a time.. 

 




PS- Sweet avator Schilly. It's an instant classic.


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

> I love it when 60 Minutes catches someone in a lie.


I love it when someone catches 60 Minutes in a lie.

Poor choice of an example for "unbiased" journalism. :laugh:


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>furball</b>!
> 
> 
> My business makes money. The Blazers lost millions. Spare me the business lecture.


So you want the Clippers/Hawks/Bulls of the past 5 years? Give me a break you comparing your mom and popshop to an NBA team. Because Allen signed this guys to long-term contracts before the CBA changed? Now you/people come back in '05 and complain? Give them 2-3 years to turned around and they will be fine. If Allen wants to make money he could have starting this year. Allen could have saved a ton by gutting the team and not extending Darius and Theo. It is easy to judge from the sideline and complain. Why they did this and that. The way I remember everyone was happy about those two and about 60/40 about Z-bo. They made mistakes and BW was full of himself but I can see some positive signs with the team. With the Russians and Seabass, high pick this year and 3 contracts coming off the books. I hope they make a move in the next few days and get a high pick and or a serviceable guy back.

I read the Oregonian when it's free. They call me every other month to offer 4 weeks free. I read the sport and throw out the rest with out looking at an article. They do not write but syndicate from the NY times and Washington Post. Both are liberal rags.

If you have the urge to clip coupons you do not need the Oregonian
http://www110.coolsavings.com/scrip...N=coupons2&source=goto&keyword=coupon&RefURL= :devil: :laugh: 

I am glad they pulled their ads. Now if the fan could get rid of the 3 stooges. I called a great week.

BTW- we could choose who is who (Moe=Ian, Larry=Suke, Curly=Dennis)


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Public Defender</b>!
> I'm really surprised to read all of these comments taking the "Blazers' side" in this.
> 
> On tonight's news, Patterson said Canzano's piece contained "lies." You better back that up with a libel suit against the Oregonian...


Wasn't it you I was arguing with a few days back about journalistic integrity, or lack thereof, at the Oregonian? Assuming I'm remembering the right person, you responded very similarly to the above, saying that's libel on my part which must be backed up with references and that you find it hard to believe anyone would take that stance. I believe you even said something to the effect that surely the Blazers organization would have said something if indeed Quick fabricated much of his material, as I claimed.

Well, it now appears that the team feels the same as I and many others do, but you're still taking the O's side for some inexplicable reason. What gives? Did you used to have a paper route with them or something?

Dan


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

I can't stop laughing reading some of these posts....

Apparently hypocrisy knows no bounds with some of you.....

Zach bouncing a check is "newsworthy"? 
:laugh: Particuarly when the amount was indeed paid to the charity by Zach? An act of generosity that was not solicted to him and he certainly did not need to do, and yet some of you are going to hold this against him? WOW......

I have no idea what Zach's personal finances are like (nor do I care), but it certainly would not be a surprise if they are a mess...for goodness sake a majority of ALL americans finances are a disaster, and having more money has NEVER equated fiscal responsibility....And I guessed I missed the survey that rated NBA players as some of the most astute "money managers" in the known world......

BTW I am still waiting to here a good answer as to why Zach was brought into Canzano's article in the first place....

Wasn't Canzano's article about Miles and the Blazers super secret meetings to subvert the 25pt pledge? Which to me is laughable...I mean, Canzano insinuating in his article, and then down right accusing POR mgmt (on the radio) of not following through with their 25pt pledge when it came to Miles, IS A FLAT OUT LIE.

Miles was suspended for 2 games.....Anyone remember that? Mgmt held him accountable for his actions...Whether or not it was severe enough for Canzano, other members of the local media or some fans is beyond the point, b\c quite frankly, it is none of your damm business how the Blazers discipline their players....Heck Rafer Alston has a similiar episode two nights ago, and wasn't suspended AT ALL. But apparently POR should be holding an online poll or asking Canzano how long to suspending their players, instead of actual deciding themselves what they deem a suitable punishment.....I forgot that all companies handle disciplinary measures in such a manner..... 

As for whether POR was going to repay him under the table for his fine, A) Where is the proof? B) Who cares? An UNSIGNED document, let me say that again so it might sink in for a few of you..UNSIGNED....Is not proof...that is NOTHING, literally, especially when you cannot even deem the context in which it came into existence...

As for caring, again, So what if they decided to repay him? Players get suspended WITH pay all of the time. I have no idea why (or IF) POR decided to pay Miles back this way...and frankly I don't care...He is their employee, not mine. I hardly see the need for such righteous indignation by several of you, I mean really, it is quite sad..

Ethics\Morals are great to grandstand and criticize others on\about, as long as you don't have to examine your own in the process.......

BTW....Has Miles gotten his money back? Strangely, I haven't seen Canzano report THAT in any of his articles....Gee, I wonder why......That wouldn't help his slander...err....accusation now would it?


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
> 
> I can't stop laughing reading some of these posts....
> ...


Hot damn! I couldn't have said it better myself! Quality Post, Kmurph!


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

You know, aside from Nathan's article, I haven't seen any of the local major media news outlets here reporting on the Blazers pulling their advertising $$$ out of the Oregonian. Have you? If so, please provide a link.

PBF


----------



## sanfranduck (Jan 31, 2005)

I was just going to ask the same thing. How sure are we that this is the case? 

Typically, newspapers need 3-5 days to layout their ads -- so we wouldn't see the effect of this in the paper until probably early next week. 

Have you noticed that neither canzano or eric marentette have acknowledged it in their blogs? I've sent both of them inquiring emails and neither has responded. I'm sure the oregonian is probably negotiating with teh blazers in the background, and we'll probaby see some action taken early next week. Whether that's canning canzano, giving the team a discounted ad rate, publishing a recount column, or just in general publishing more positive columns about the team -- who knows.


----------



## sanfranduck (Jan 31, 2005)

*News about the document ...*

Okay, so now Kerry Eggers from the Tribune is reporting that the document was written up by Miles' agent, and that portland had not agreed to it.

If this is the case, then Canzano is a flat-out liar, and a borderline yellow journalist. He positioned the document in a completely different and false light. 

If that does end up being the case, I can completely understand why Portland is leveraging their advertising dollars in exchange for a bit of ownership and responsibility on behalf of the Oregonian. I guess they need to do some more checking to verify what they print ....


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sanfranduck</b>!
> Whether that's canning canzano, giving the team a discounted ad rate, publishing a recount column, or just in general publishing more positive columns about the team -- who knows.


I'd think that the Blazers would be happy with "more objective" columns. In just about every slam piece Canzano has done on the Blazers over the past several years, he has misrepresented facts... APPARENTLY with the intent of solidifying his negative spin. In this affair, he's saying that he's sticking with his story 100%, but now we see that Oregonlive.com has posted a "CLARIFICATION" to what he said about Zach and the bounced check...

PBF


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I didnt see any Trail Blazer ads in today's Sports section.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BEER&BASKETBALL</b>!
> I didnt see any Trail Blazer ads in today's Sports section.


I wouldn't know. I don't buy the Oregonian.



PBF


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Okay, so now Kerry Eggers from the Tribune is reporting that the document was written up by Miles' agent, and that portland had not agreed to it.
> 
> If this is the case, then Canzano is a flat-out liar, and a borderline yellow journalist.


Which would be exactly what many of us have been calling status quo for the O.

Dan


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: News about the document ...*



> Originally posted by <b>sanfranduck</b>!
> Okay, so now Kerry Eggers from the Tribune is reporting that the document was written up by Miles' agent, and that portland had not agreed to it.


Which is VERY interesting, because in Canzano's article, he quotes *Miles agent* as the one who asked Canzano where he got the document!

PBF


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ProudBFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I wouldn't know. I don't buy the Oregonian.
> ...


I havent cancelled my subscription yet. I'll then have to subsrcibe to The Columbian, because I cant eat breakfast without the comics and the Sports page.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

*Great Post Kmurph*

I tryed to say it eariler but do not have your skill. Good job.

gatorpops


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BEER&BASKETBALL</b>!
> I havent cancelled my subscription yet. I'll then have to subsrcibe to The Columbian, because I cant eat breakfast without the comics and the Sports page.


www.comics.com

www.espn.com

Now cancel that subscription.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Fork beat me to it. The internet is your friend, breakfast at the computer is the way to go.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Thanks guys, but that comic site doesnt have the comics I like... and I like to read about prep sports too. The sunday ads and the classifieds come in handy sometimes too.


----------

