# Brandon Backstabber?



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/07/02/brandon-roy-got-z-bo-traded/


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I agree that Pritchard talks a little too much. It really wasn't necessary to tell the press that a prominent player wanted Zach traded--the fans were already hoping Zach would be dealt, and they supported the trade, so Pritchard didn't need any extra "ammo" to justify what he did.

However, I don't think the "prominent Blazer" was necessarily Roy. It could have been Aldridge, Jack, or Pryzbilla. If it was Roy, I don't really care. In fact, it reinforces my belief that Roy plays the game the right way and wants the rest of the team to do so as well.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/07/02/brandon-roy-got-z-bo-traded/


Your third-hand speculation aside, how would this make Roy a backstabber?


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

> n the same breath, why on Earth is Pritchard disclosing things like this to The Oregonian? While it's hard to fault KP too much for covering his tracks so haphazardly in revealing the Oden offers, this is inexcusable. I'm not sure Randolph had many friends left in Portland's locker room. If he did, how do you think they feel about this rook who came in and sent their boy to New York? Even excluding that possibility, how would any of these veterans feel about Roy holding so much sway? How would Oden feel? Not to bolster the whole 'Stop snitching' ridiculousness... but how would you feel if a young and able coworker got you transferred to another department behind your back/against your will? Basketball's different, but it still reflects poorly.


What vets are there to be pissed off? This is Roy's team and everyone knows it. As time goes on, it may become Odens or Aldridges team, but as of right now, this team is Brandons. I am not sure if I agree with KP trading Zach for squat, but I have no problem with Roy (if it was Roy) asking for Zach to leave. 

Other players that could have influenced KP to trade Zach:
Aldridge
Sergio
Perhaps Jack


My guess is that Roy was the one, but Aldridge had the most to gain since Zach and he play the same position.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> However, I don't think the "prominent Blazer" was necessarily Roy. It could have been Aldridge, Jack, or Pryzbilla. If it was Roy, I don't really care. In fact, it reinforces my belief that Roy plays the game the right way and wants the rest of the team to do so as well.


I'm not sure about that. I think most people would assume that it had to be either Roy or Aldridge, and most likely, it'd be Roy. I could see Jarrett Jack saying something to Nate (since they seem pretty close), but I don't think he'd have the balls to ask the team's best offensive weapon be traded. I don't see Aldridge doing it, either, since it would probably come across as self-serving. Przybilla? I just don't think he qualifies either as "prominent" or someone that KP would listen to. 

I don't see Pritchard necessarily talking too much on a regular basis, but this was not something he should have said. Perhaps once he's been in the GM chair a little while (he is still new, and relatively young), he'll wise up to the fact that just like the best moves can be the ones you don't make, sometimes the smartest things you ever said were things you didn't say.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Public Defender said:


> I could see Jarrett Jack saying something to Nate (since they seem pretty close), but I don't think he'd have the balls to ask the team's best offensive weapon be traded.


I doubt anyone really asked to trade Zach - but I would not be surprised if someone noted his lack of effort on defense - and I do not think JJ would have any issue in the appendages section - he was reputably the one that called D-Miles for his lack of effort in practice while he (JJ) was a rookie...


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Stupid subject line. This isn't high school where Brandon squeeled on Zach for having pot. Roy cannot take the initiative and talk to management about Zach because he believes he's giving half effort on the court and holding the team back? That's back stabbing or improving the team? I don't even think Brandon did say anything, but if he did? Kudos.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

andalusian said:


> JJ ... was reputably the one that called D-Miles for his lack of effort in practice while he (JJ) was a rookie...


Apples and oranges. It's one thing to go to your co-worker and say "hey, you're not pulling your weight, come on!" It's quite another to go to your boss's boss and say that a guy ought to be fired. You make a good point, but I think there's a distinction between whether you'd confront a fellow player, and whether you'd go over his head to the Big Boss and use whatever influence you _might_ have, to get him moved. I wouldn't put it past him, but I doubt Pritchard moves Zach, or even thinks about moving Zach, because JJ says so. And I would think JJ knows that he doesn't have that kind of pull.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

The last line in that article is the one that should give everyone pause. Our team becoming Shaq/Kobe II may not be the worst case scenario - but it is damn close!

If said "prominent player" pulls this again, the team needs to seriously consider who the real problem is. One Kobe Bryant in the league is enough!


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Clyde was a backstabber too.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

good lord people..first we have the "back stabber" crap, and now brandon might be as bad as Kobe?

first, Zach isn't even remotely the player Shaq was (or is actually). So to ask someone who didn't play defense worth beans, was a dip**** off the court and not much better on the court, to accept a team first attitude, and then going to the team, in theory, to ask him to be traded isn't anything to get upset about, or start making slippery slope type fallacies about him.

If the teams choice was Roy or Zach, I would hope they'd make the same choice 7 days a week and 6 times on sunday.

secondly, if you guys honestly think that brandon was the only guy who wanted Zach gone, you are dumber than piss.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

As I understand these things teams rarely trade guys they don't want to trade unless he's an absolute poison off the court.

I would assume that no matter who said what the Blazers traded Randolph because the guys in charge wanted to trade him.Since they traded him for almost nothing I feel very confident in this assessment.A _prominent player_ might have some influence,but he certainly isn't going to convince the team to do something they were not already ready and willing to do.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

Backstabber nothing. He has the teams needs in mind. Not Zach Randolphs.


----------



## ljm (Jan 17, 2006)

Here's a possibility. Since every player has an exit interview, it's quite possible that one of the questions Pritchard and McMillan asked the "young core" is: would you be more comfortable with zach off the team? If Brandon just answered that question, is he still a backstabber or even trying to manipulate the roster? Seems like everyone is jumping to conclusions. If I were KP, I'd ask my best player his opinion on things too.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

Hap said:


> good lord people..first we have the "back stabber" crap, and now brandon might be as bad as Kobe?
> 
> first, Zach isn't even remotely the player Shaq was (or is actually). So to ask someone who didn't play defense worth beans, was a dip**** off the court and not much better on the court, to accept a team first attitude, and then going to the team, in theory, to ask him to be traded isn't anything to get upset about, or start making slippery slope type fallacies about him.
> 
> ...



Exactly how dumb is piss? I never knew piss had a brain, or was either smart or dumb. But hey, whatever. However, wouldn't this make either Nate, or whoever the GM is now (Prichard I guess) even dumber then that for listening to a 2nd year player as if he's the second coming of Clyde Drexler? Hell, he's not even the most important player on your team. A 7 footer from Ohio State VIA Indiana named Greg Oden is. I'd hope that at least one of the top 5 smartest Blazers fans knew this. And hell, let's get a little deeper with it? 

Maybe, just MAYBE it was a management decision to not want to have one of Aldridge Oden or Randolph having to come off the bench? I call that smart, not a puny 2nd year player who isn't even the most important guy on your team, or a career backup (Jarret Jack) pulling management. Hell, I'd be embarrased as hell being the GM who traded Zach Randolph "Because Jarret EFFIN Jack told me so."


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Wild, I thought it was either Dickau or Jones that asked for Randolph to be traded.......so you're saying it's Roy? That is just ludacris....(I've always wanted to use that word in a sentence). :biggrin:


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

> This isn't Roy's fault, though. He had to do it; Randolph was preventing Brandon from asserting himself as the credible leader in the locker room with his various transgressions (not limited to half-assing it).


Utter bull****. Roy was already the leader in the locker room according to Nate, KP, and other players. He didn't need to justify that fact by having Zach traded.


----------



## jwhoops11 (Nov 26, 2003)

Ahhh, one persons "backstabber" is another persons "team leader"...

I have nothing but respect for whomever it was that recomended that Zach be moved, becuase it was the right decision (albeit a ballsy one). If it came from one of our firt year players, then I have the utmost confidence that this organization is in the hands of the right people.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

knicksfan said:


> *Exactly how dumb is piss*?


Since you are a Knick fan, my guess is you'll be finding out during the upcoming season exactly how dumb piss can be.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hey, I just provided the link.

The author is the one who says it was the wrong way for the player and for Pritchard to handle things.

I do agree it shows poor management skills to publicly lay it on a player, and lack of leadership for the player to go to management instead of getting in the player's face or calling a players-only meeting to get the message across.

Funny. Zach's the only player who ever had the balls to call a players-only meeting.

Got immediate positive results as I recall.

Brandon's got some big shoes to fill.


----------



## Rip City Reign (Jul 1, 2007)

MARIS61 said:


> Hey, I just provided the link.
> 
> The author is the one who says it was the wrong way for the player and for Pritchard to handle things.
> 
> ...


Brandon's already filled those shoes, and MORE.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Public Defender said:


> I could see Jarrett Jack saying something to Nate (since they seem pretty close), but I don't think he'd have the balls to ask the team's best offensive weapon be traded.


Considering that without Zach, Jarrett would have had a total of about 3 assists last season I don't think he wanted him gone at all.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

knicksfan said:


> Exactly how dumb is piss? I never knew piss had a brain, or was either smart or dumb. But hey, whatever. However, wouldn't this make either Nate, or whoever the GM is now (Prichard I guess) even dumber then that for listening to a 2nd year player as if he's the second coming of Clyde Drexler? Hell, he's not even the most important player on your team.


actually, he probably is the most important player on the team until Greg Oden plays a game. 


> A 7 footer from Ohio State VIA Indiana named Greg Oden is. I'd hope that at least one of the top 5 smartest Blazers fans knew this. And hell, let's get a little deeper with it?
> 
> Maybe, just MAYBE it was a management decision to not want to have one of Aldridge Oden or Randolph having to come off the bench? I call that smart, not a puny 2nd year player who isn't even the most important guy on your team, or a career backup (Jarret Jack) pulling management. Hell, I'd be embarrased as hell being the GM who traded Zach Randolph "Because Jarret EFFIN Jack told me so."


a "puny 2nd year player who isn't even the most important guy on your team" that you'd probably just love to have on the Knicks, then he'd be the best player on your team.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Hey, I just provided the link.
> 
> The author is the one who says it was the wrong way for the player and for Pritchard to handle things.
> 
> ...



if Zach's shoes are the one that Brandon has to fill, he basically doesn't have much to go (if anything). Plus, as for the "players only meeting" being called by Zach? Big deal. You act as though that was a season changing event. But I notice you fail to remember that it was Brandon who chewed out Zach for loafing it during the season.

This team was Brandons from about the 3rd game into the season. Zach never was the leader on the team, nor was he the best player on the team once Brandon returned from his injury.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Considering that without Zach, Jarrett would have had a total of about 3 assists last season I don't think he wanted him gone at all.


Although your point is to emphasize the great importance of Zach Randolph, it's kind of a really stupid way to go about it. That implies that Jack was responible for over half of Zach's points. And considering 400 points of Zachs points were free throws, that means that Zach was soley responsible for 400 points on his own...which we all know isn't how the breakup of his points went. But since you meant that in your normal "hey, I like to make big statements that sound so ignorant that most people ignore because they know I'll not respond " how about we agree that you would've been, at best, better to have said that Jack would average 3 assists last season (that is until LaMarcus started playing better) had Zach been gone"?

Otherwise, you just come off as a homer who doesn't have a firm grasp on reality (or the faintest idea what logic is).


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> if Zach's shoes are the one that Brandon has to fill, he basically doesn't have much to go (if anything). Plus, as for the "players only meeting" being called by Zach? Big deal. You act as though that was a season changing event. But I notice you fail to remember that it was Brandon who chewed out Zach for loafing it during the season.
> 
> This team was Brandons from about the 3rd game into the season. Zach never was the leader on the team, nor was he the best player on the team once Brandon returned from his injury.


Opinions are like...well, you know the rest.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Opinions are like...well, you know the rest.


so you're admitting you talk out your opinion?


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Hey, I just provided the link.


Correct. This is why I called your "*backstabber*" comment third-hand gossip. BTW, the author never mentions the word *BACKSTABBER*. Those are your words, so live with them. I won't forget them.



> Brandon's got some big shoes to fill


Again with the third-hand gossip. Roy is a *backstabber* in your words. I get it.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> Although your point is to emphasize the great importance of Zach Randolph, it's kind of a really stupid way to go about it. That implies that Jack was responible for over half of Zach's points. And considering 400 points of Zachs points were free throws, that means that Zach was soley responsible for 400 points on his own...which we all know isn't how the breakup of his points went. But since you meant that in your normal "hey, I like to make big statements that sound so ignorant that most people ignore because they know I'll not respond " how about we agree that you would've been, at best, better to have said that Jack would average 3 assists last season (that is until LaMarcus started playing better) had Zach been gone"?
> 
> Otherwise, you just come off as a homer who doesn't have a firm grasp on reality (or the faintest idea what logic is).


Can you just once respond to a post of mine without completely twisting my point?

Anyone who understands the game knows how important Zach was to last year's team. I'm pretty sure even you know that last year we'd have won maybe 12-20 games without him at best. This year we have Oden, and Steve Blake is back to replace Jarrett, and other players have a year more experience, and we're going on without him and we'll EVENTUALLY recover from the loss. I understand.

And I get that you hate Zach (I assume for some perceived personal slight towards you) and consider his nearly 8 DEFENSIVE rebounds per game, his 23/10, and his ability to keep 3 defenders totally occupied every time he touches the ball while nearly always outscoring his opponent somehow a detriment to the team (talk about losing your grip on reality) but my point was simply that without him Jarrett did pretty much nothing at all last year.

That is why they brought Blake back, because unlike Jarrett he can distribute the ball to everyone where and when they need it to score. Jarrett is a one-trick pony. Walk it up, hold it until he can hand it to Zach, get credit for an assist.

The day Zach was traded, Jarrett had outlived his usefulness. This is why it was not Jarrett who went running to Daddy, which was, and still is, my point.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

MARIS61 said:


> Considering that without Zach, Jarrett would have had a total of about 3 assists last season I don't think he wanted him gone at all.


Like for example, this game? http://www.nba.com/games/20061210/PORTOR/boxscore.html

Oh wait, Zach was not there and JJ has 22 points, 9 rebounds, a steal and *8* assists (yes, he sends the ball to someone that does not take 5 seconds to think how to attack the rim thus negating any chance for an assist).

If Sergio played with Zach in the first team last year instead of Jack - people would wonder why he can't get any assists...

Just for fun, compare the other game against Toronto where Zach did play, not only did Toronto win this game (unlike the previous one) - but look what happened to the PG's assists playing next to Zach....

http://www.nba.com/games/20061222/TORPOR/boxscore.html

I do not hate Zach - but he is just about the worst guy any PG wants to play next to when it comes to stat-padding...


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

papag said:


> Correct. This is why I called your "*backstabber*" comment third-hand gossip. BTW, the author never mentions the word *BACKSTABBER*. Those are your words, so live with them. I won't forget them.
> 
> 
> 
> Again with the third-hand gossip. Roy is a *backstabber* in your words. I get it.


Hilarious that my posts always have such an emotional effect on you and Hap.

Every time, no matter what I post, you seem to take it as some kind of attrocious personal affront to you, the great and powerful papag.

It's just a message board forum, and we have opposing views and different favorite players.

Not worth having an aneurysm over.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

andalusian said:


> If Sergio played with Zach in the first team last year instead of Jack - people would wonder why he can't get any assists...


If Sergio played with Zach in the first team last year instead of Jack, Zach would have added 3-4 assists a night to his game and we wouldn't have Oden because we'd have made the playoffs.

When Jarrett holds the ball for the first 15 seconds there's no time for another pass.

When you have a real PG who pushes the pace and distributes the ball EVERYBODY gets assists. It's called teamwork.

Ask Nate why he insisted on a 2-man game. Zach said many times he wanted to play a fast-break game with Sergio. Don't blame Zach for Nate's SNAILBLAZERS "style" of play. Or are you willing to blame LaMarcus for it this year?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

How can we all be so sure a player told KP to trade Zach . . . we have already established it's KP's job to do what's best for the organization, including misleading the media if need be.

I didn't want to say anything but here goes . . . when talking to "my source" apprently there was some back lash with regard to the trade. What management was hoping was going to be a festive and joyess draft night turned into a lot of emails and telephone calls from some upset ticket holders the next day. (did anyone see any announcements about season ticket sales after the draft like there was after the lottery)

There was somewhat of a panic to rectify the situation (appently some fans were even requested to be taken off the emial listing). 

I'm not going to go so far to say that I know mangement made stuff up to make justify the trade, but I think in this case we should apply the rule of who cares what KP says, let's just judge the end product.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> How can we all be so sure a player told KP to trade Zach . . . we have already established it's KP's job to do what's best for the organization, including misleading the media if need be.
> 
> I didn't want to say anything but here goes . . . when talking to "my source" apprently there was some back lash with regard to the trade. What management was hoping was going to be a festive and joyess draft night turned into a lot of emails and telephone calls from some upset ticket holders the next day. (did anyone see any announcements about season ticket sales after the draft like there was after the lottery)
> 
> ...



So, you're saying KP pretty much lies any time his lips are moving and to deflect the heat he laid it all on (KP's words, not mine) "one of our core players"?

The meaning of "Culture" gets more blurred with every word he speaks.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> So, you're saying KP pretty much lies any time his lips are moving and to deflect the heat he laid it all on (KP's words, not mine) "one of our core players"?
> 
> The meaning of "Culture" gets more blurred with every word he speaks.


Why you going to get me in trouble Maris? :biggrin: 

I didn't say he lies every time he speaks . . . but that we shouldn't automatically take everything he says as gospel.

What is stranger, a young player would go to managment and ask them to trade Zach and KP announces this to the media . . . or KK panicked to the reaction about the Zach trade and made a radio apperance the next day guaranteeing that it was the best deal possible and that a player request Zach be traded. :whoknows: 

I should say: I was never told or even implied to that KP was distorting the truth. Only that the reaction they got the next day was not one they were expecting.

Edit: the only player that it would make sense to me who told management to do this would be Joel.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Obviously, none of us know for sure if Brandon is the person that KP was talking about (ill-advisedly), but it certainly wouldn't surprise me any. Zach may be a scoring machine, but he's not the kind of guy that I'd want as a teammate and he's not the kind of guy that you build around. Trouble clings to him like a bad odor on feces. If Brandon is the guy, then he was showing the kind of leadership that will serve this team well.

It would serve KP well to learn to keep this kind of stuff in-house. He's new to his job, so I'll chalk it up to inexperience.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

MARIS61 said:


> If Sergio played with Zach..... we wouldn't have Oden because we'd have made the playoffs.



I get you're trying to make a point, but enough with the hyperbole.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Can you just once respond to a post of mine without completely twisting my point?


if they had a well thought out point maybe. 


> Anyone who understands the game knows how important Zach was to last year's team. I'm pretty sure even you know that last year we'd have won maybe 12-20 games without him at best. This year we have Oden, and Steve Blake is back to replace Jarrett, and other players have a year more experience, and we're going on without him and we'll EVENTUALLY recover from the loss. I understand.
> 
> And I get that you hate Zach (I assume for some perceived personal slight towards you) and consider his nearly 8 DEFENSIVE rebounds per game, his 23/10, and his ability to keep 3 defenders totally occupied every time he touches the ball while nearly always outscoring his opponent somehow a detriment to the team (talk about losing your grip on reality) but my point was simply that without him Jarrett did pretty much nothing at all last year.


ah, the old "I get that you hate Zach" and then "some perceived personal slight towards you" horse ****. Besides the fact I don't actually "hate" him, it can't be that he had poor dundementals, was lazy on defense and selfish on offense. It has to be that I "hate" him for some "perceived personal slight".

and you wonder why people compare you to talkhard.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

yuyuza1 said:


> I get you're trying to make a point, but enough with the hyperbole.


I just posted the link because I thought it made a couple of good points.

I made no further comment until I was attacked and accused of everything but the war in Iraq.

I'm movin' on to other threads. :biggrin:


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

MARIS61 said:


> Ask Nate why he insisted on a 2-man game. Zach said many times he wanted to play a fast-break game with Sergio. Don't blame Zach for Nate's SNAILBLAZERS "style" of play. Or are you willing to blame LaMarcus for it this year?


Why then did Jack get more assists without Zach around and the team played a more flowing game? Was Nate not coaching when Zach had his different reasons to miss games?

Give me a break. You obviously think Jack is an awful PG. That's fine - but it is clear that the main reason the offense was so stagnant the last year was because the main focus of the offense was Zach and while Zach can say that he can and wants to play fast - he was just as likely to get the ball, survey the entire court and grow a beard before making his move as he was likely to spin his way to the basket (and he did that fantastically, I have nothing but a great appreciation for Zach's one on one game - I have seen him put Elton Brand on his heels with moves that make you think of Hakeem at his prime).


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Title of this thread should be Brandon Team Player,or Brandon knows this team is better off without Zach


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Title of this thread should be "Much ado about nothing".

We don't know anything here. We don't know that Brandon was the player involved, or what, if anything, he said. We don't even know there was a player involved. We don't know what, if anything, Pritchard said. All we know is that Quick reported that 



Jason Quick said:


> Pritchard had known he eventually would trade Zach Randolph since a prominent player on the team requested at the end of the season that the high-scoring but troubled forward be dealt.


Note that that is not a quote from Pritchard. That is an assertion by Mr. Quick, who, although no doubt a handsome fellow, loving husband and father and kind to animals, has been known on occasion to be, well, wrong. And since he is asserting here knowledge of Pritchard's _thoughts_, being wrong is not unlikely.

barfo


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Dumbest ... thread ... ever.

-Pop


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

more like brandon the realist.

...and this is speculatory gossip anyway. thats why this clown is writing for aol and not espn.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

barfo said:


> Title of this thread should be "Much ado about nothing".
> 
> We don't know anything here. We don't know that Brandon was the player involved, or what, if anything, he said. We don't even know there was a player involved. We don't know what, if anything, Pritchard said. All we know is that Quick reported that
> 
> ...



This is actually a good point. (what the hell is *wrong* with you? :biggrin: )

I'm sorry if my response seemed like an over-reaction. I just have no patience with players who point fingers at team-mates. Obviously, some of you disagree, but I consider it unprofessional. 

When you are stuck in a lifeboat, you can grab an oar and row, or you can sit around and argue over who should get tossed overboard.


----------



## Jermaniac Fan (Jul 27, 2003)

To be honest, I think Randolph for Frye was great a deal. It's good for chemistry.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

MARIS61 said:
 

> Hilarious that my posts always have such an emotional effect on you and Hap.
> 
> Every time, no matter what I post, you seem to take it as some kind of attrocious personal affront to you, the great and powerful papag.
> 
> ...


I asked you how your third-hand gossip makes Roy a "*backstabber*".

You won't answer it and instead reference my emotional state. I'll take this to mean that you made an outrageous claim that you can't or won't back up about Roy.

:azdaja:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

papag said:


> I asked you how your third-hand gossip makes Roy a "*backstabber*".
> 
> You won't answer it and instead reference my emotional state. I'll take this to mean that you made an outrageous claim that you can't or won't back up about Roy.
> 
> :azdaja:


he went to the John Canzano school of how to argue. Instead of saying you got something wrong, or purposely pulled something out of your opinion (or in the case of Canzano, don't know what the hell you're talking about but act like you do), you pull the "emotional state" references. 

I remember Canzano saying he "really worried about me", so I said "thanks. I've always wanted to have a moron worry about me".


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap, I don't worry about you, I worry about those around you.

The author called him a tattle-tale, which since Zach had done nothing wrong, I felt was less accurate than backstabber.

As a supposed teammate of Zach's, the term backstabber fits like a glove, if indeed a player did this, which we can't know for certain since said player supposedly did this in secret.

I agree it's much ado about nothing, I don't really care if it happenned or not, I just posted the link for those who wanted to read another Blazers story in the news.

I should have known certain posters with a penchant for over-dramatization and distortion would go off on me once again.

Have a nice Sunday, I'm going fishing out back for awhile.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Hap, I don't worry about you, I worry about those around you.
> 
> The author called him a tattle-tale, which since Zach had done nothing wrong, I felt was less accurate than backstabber.
> 
> ...


Titling a thread "Brandon Backstabber?" makes you the over-dramatic poster in this case. One could easily also call it distortion.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

papag said:


> Titling a thread "Brandon Backstabber?" makes you the over-dramatic poster in this case. One could easily also call it distortion.


If it happenned at all, my title is right on the money:


Main Entry:
back·stab·bing Listen to the pronunciation of backstabbing
Pronunciation:
\-ˌsta-biŋ\ 
Function:
noun 
Date:
1946

: betrayal (as by a verbal attack against one not present) especially by a false friend


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Guys, there's no need to be upset with threads like this anymore. Here's the step-by-step procedure on how to use the Ignore User feature on this forum.

Click on the steps to see pictures:

Step 1 - Select User CP at the top of the webpage

Step 2 - Select Buddy/Ignore Lists from the left side column of your User CP

Step 3 - Enter the username of the person you wish to ignore in the text box, and click Update ignore List to confirm.

Peace of mind is only a few clicks away! :yay:


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

And miss any possible insights papag and Hap might provide me?

NEVER!


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

knicksfan said:


> Exactly how dumb is piss? I never knew piss had a brain, or was either smart or dumb. But hey, whatever. However, wouldn't this make either Nate, or whoever the GM is now (Prichard I guess) even dumber then that for listening to a 2nd year player as if he's the second coming of Clyde Drexler? Hell, he's not even the most important player on your team. A 7 footer from Ohio State VIA Indiana named Greg Oden is. I'd hope that at least one of the top 5 smartest Blazers fans knew this. And hell, let's get a little deeper with it?
> 
> Maybe, just MAYBE it was a management decision to not want to have one of Aldridge Oden or Randolph having to come off the bench? I call that smart, not a puny 2nd year player who isn't even the most important guy on your team, or a career backup (Jarret Jack) pulling management. Hell, I'd be embarrased as hell being the GM who traded Zach Randolph "Because Jarret EFFIN Jack told me so."


The complete fact that your tried to defend yourself by contemplating piss having a brain proves his point.


----------



## AudieNorris (Jun 29, 2006)

Definition of an internet troll:
A troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.
That is the intent here. This is trolling.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

AudieNorris said:


> Definition of an internet troll:
> A troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.
> That is the intent here. This is trolling.



Then that makes your post baiting/feeding the troll. Everyone has there own opinion and some people aren't going to like it, that's the internet for ya!


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> And miss any possible insights papag and Hap might provide me?
> 
> NEVER!


Yeah, I don't agree with MARIS in many instances, but at least he puts his opinion out to be discussed. 

A troll I'll ignore; someone with a different opinion?

NEVER!!


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

papag said:


> Yeah, I don't agree with MARIS in many instances, but at least he puts his opinion out to be discussed.
> 
> A troll I'll ignore; someone with a different opinion?
> 
> NEVER!!


Hey, thanks.

I do know we both agree we want the Blazers to get back to contending for a title, as do most posters here.

We just have many different opinions on how to best pursue that goal.

I was completely against blowing up the team, and still think all we needed was a better coach, but I like the talented guys we have now also and the pain endured through the lottery years has subsuded a bit.

I still think we need a different coach as Nate stubbornly refuses to even consider that he might be flexible and explore a running game with all these young, high-flying athletes he has been gifted.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

> Dumbest ... thread ... ever.
> -Pop


Agreed.
We knew about this "prominent player" crap weeks ago, why the fuss to bring it up again now?
It's not like this author has any more inside info than Quick does. This article is from a sports blog on the AOL FANHOUSE site. Please... this isn't ESPN or anything. Just some random dude making his own opinion.
And this article was posted NEARLY THREE WEEKS ago anyway.

Why bring up or even want to talk about "Brandon Backstabber" crap when we're in the midst of a huge upswing? Terrible...

Yeah, good idea, let's just make our Rookie of the Year the big scapegoat and make him our No. 1 enemy for getting rid of a guy that a majority of fans were happy to see leave.

Brandon Backstabber... what a joke.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

You are an interresting charactor Maris. Are you even a real fan? Any "real" fan would be absolutely happy that Zach is gone. In a couple years (if not next year) when LaMarcus puts up better numbers then Zach, you will then see your ignorance. Also, you never throw your A-1 top class team leader and good guy under the bus for a high scoring (and high) troubled player.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Resume said:


> You are an interresting charactor Maris. Are you even a real fan? Any "real" fan would be absolutely happy that Zach is gone. In a couple years (if not next year) when LaMarcus puts up better numbers then Zach, you will then see your ignorance. Also, you never throw your A-1 top class team leader and good guy under the bus for a high scoring (and high) troubled player.



agreed..


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Resume said:


> You are an interresting charactor Maris. Are you even a real fan? Any "real" fan would be absolutely happy that Zach is gone. In a couple years (if not next year) when LaMarcus puts up better numbers then Zach, you will then see your ignorance. Also, you never throw your A-1 top class team leader and good guy under the bus for a high scoring (and high) troubled player.


I also agree with most of your post. There is very few if any Whitsitt players I would want on my team now or ever. I did like Sabas though and would have loved if we could have gotten him over here when we had Drexler/Buck/Porter/Kersey. I think we could have won at least one championship with that team and Sabas instead of Duck. I would have given Zach away for nothing if they would have also taken Miles and his contract. I actually am happy we got Frye, Jones and Rudy for Zach. I don't want anything to do with Zach on this team and highly doubt the player was the main reason KP traded him.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't think you can judge a fan as being "real" or "not real" based on whether or not they wanted Zach gone, or are happy he's gone.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Hap said:


> I don't think you can judge a fan as being "real" or "not real" based on whether or not they wanted Zach gone, or are happy he's gone.


I also agree with you. I wasn't saying he wasn't a real fan of the Blazers. I just don't agree with his opinion about Zach and someone probably Roy backstabbing him.


----------



## AudieNorris (Jun 29, 2006)

Todd said:


> Then that makes your post baiting/feeding the troll. Everyone has there own opinion and some people aren't going to like it, that's the internet for ya!


Nope. Nothing I said was in response to the original poster. I didn't say that I agree or not. Just stated that this appears to be trolling based on the widely accepted definition of such. This is, by the way, a violation (#2) of bbb.net rules.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

AudieNorris said:


> Nope. Nothing I said was in response to the original poster. I didn't say that I agree or not. Just stated that this appears to be trolling based on the widely accepted definition of such. This is, by the way, a violation (#2) of bbb.net rules.


I like KP and Brandon just as much as I like Zach, but they are human beings and therefore they will from time to time make mistakes in how they handle themselves in certain situations. Looks like they both could have handled this thing in a better way. That's what the linked story and this thread were intended to point at.

Refusing to believe they might not be super beings with no faults at all would suggest someone needs to take a break from fandom.

And you are wrong about the baiting thing. Many disagree with my opinions, which is kind of why I like to post here. One-sided threads are as dull as mud. How long would this board last if we all just posted "I like the Blazers and they never err" over and over?

I never bait, but sometimes an eager guppy will strike at anything shiny cast into the water. :biggrin:


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

I told everyone it was Brandon when this rumor first came out, though some people thought it was Jack or LaMarcus.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

KP is really the one who should be faulted for slipping this internal info to the media.

The thread title is silly as a backstabber is someone looking to be hurtful while pretending to be a friend. The "prominent player" appears to have been looking out for the best interest of the team.

Did anyone think Brandon and ZBo were good friends? Did ZBo think Brandon was one of his good friends?


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Barfo, honest question. Journalists strongly differentiate opinion from fact. Quick has definitely been wrong on some of his speculations/opinions. Is Quick known to have misquoted people?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Bwatcher said:


> Barfo, honest question. Journalists strongly differentiate opinion from fact. Quick has definitely been wrong on some of his speculations. Is Quick known to have misquoted people?


To answer your question, no, I do not know of an instance where he misquoted someone. 

However, as I said in my previous post, he was _not_ quoting Pritchard (or anyone else) here, so I'm not sure your question is relevant. 

He may have written what he wrote based on something Pritchard said, or he may not have. He might have based that sentence on something someone other than Pritchard told him, or something he overheard, or it might be just speculation. 

barfo


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

Hap, the Zach deal may not be a deciding point if you are a real fan or not, but it does say a lot about the charactor of the poster if they are a fan of Zach. Professionals in any profession, whether it be sports or sales, need to hold themselves to a higher standard of excellence. I see zero excellence in anything Zach does. He is a classic case of "you can take a guy out the hood, but not the hood out the guy". Everyone knows Zach is poison, and if you want poison on your team, I question your loyalty.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Im sure it's well documented that I wanted Zach gone, but I just can't get myself to agree to questioning someones "loyalty" to the team, based on them liking Zach on the team or not. I see what you're saying, I just don't think it's as black and white as you made it out to be.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

Good point! I could be laying on it too hard. But I am also trying to defend our ROY


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

I do not think it is accepted practice for journalists to attribute information to identified parties using "speculation".


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Resume said:


> ...it does say a lot about the charactor of the poster if they are a fan of Zach. Professionals in any profession, whether it be sports or sales, need to hold themselves to a *higher standard* of excellence.


This kind of judgemental attitude makes me wonder what the poster's secret shortcomings/sins really are.

I was raised to believe every person has a responsibilty to be the best person they can be, and to be a credit to society.

There can be no "higher standard of excellence" for an athlete, salesman, supermodel...to achieve, as we are all responsible for the same high standard of excellence.

People who say they seek to hold others to a "higher standard" are merely looking for excuses as to why they themselves fall far short of this high standard of excellence.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Bwatcher said:


> I do not think it is accepted practice for journalists to attribute information to identified parties using "speculation".


I agree. However, he didn't attribute the source of his information.

I'm not saying he's making it up - but he did not claim the information came from Pritchard, so there is no reason why we should assume it did.

barfo


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

He attributed the information to KP. He did not quote KP directly, but he did directly tie the "prominent player" info to KP. This is what I meant by "attributing information to identified parties". He did claim that KP said this. I believe that this sort of thing is called "indirect quoting". I think it would be terribly wrong if the basis for this was speculation. I don't think Quick does speculation of this sort.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

Maris, I do love your posts. The are so comical and entertain me!

First off, I am a man of no relegion... So save your preaching for someone who cares. Second, much to your dismay, not all people are equal and yes there are people who hold themselves to a higher standard. Yes, professionals do need to follow suit. 

Basically your saying tha Mike Vick and Brandon Roy are the same caliber guy because no one should be held to higher standards and everyone is equal. Sorry but I would much rather Brandon Roy babysit my kids then Mike Vick, because Brandon holds himself to a professional, higher standard.

BooM!

Peanuts.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Bwatcher said:


> He attributed the information to KP. He did not quote KP directly, but he did directly tie the "prominent player" info to KP. This is what I meant by "attributing information to identified parties". He did claim that KP said this. I believe that this sort of thing is called "indirect quoting". I think it would be terribly wrong if the basis for this was speculation. I don't think Quick does this sort of thing.


No, he did not claim that KP said that. Here is what Quick wrote:



Jason Quick said:


> Some proposed trades involving Zach Randolph, the Blazers' star forward. Pritchard had known he eventually would trade Randolph since a prominent player on the team requested at the end of the season that the high-scoring but troubled forward be dealt. But most discussions focused on the No. 1 pick.


Quick is claiming to know what Pritchard was thinking, and claiming to know what some player told someone, but he does not claim anywhere that Pritchard told him these things, and it is entirely possible that Pritchard didn't. 

barfo


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

You are right, Barfo, that Quick didn't give the source of his information. So, I was wrong to label it "indirect quoting". It was more removed than that. He does though say, that KP had in KP's head that KP knew that some prominent player had indicated that that prominent player would like Zach to be traded. 

Should I understand that you don't think he was making this up, but maybe he was speculating that it took place? Or, was your previous statement really something indicating that you do not like the "lack of source identification" style of the the Quick piece, a la some of the books by Bob Woodward?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Bwatcher said:


> You are right, Barfo, that Quick didn't give the source of his information. So, I was wrong to label it "indirect quoting". It was more removed than that. He does though say, that KP had in KP's head that KP knew that some prominent player had indicated that that prominent play would like Zach to be traded.
> 
> Should I understand that you don't think he was making this up, but maybe he was speculating that it took place? Or, was your previous statement really something indicating that you do not like the lack of attribution style of the the Quick piece, a la some of the books by Bob Woodward?


Actually, I really don't know. KP might have told him that, or he might have got it from a secondary source, or he might have put 2 and 2 together, or he might have been speculating.

My original point was that posters here were treating the story as if KP had said what Quick wrote, and I wanted to point out that we don't know whether KP said anything about this to Quick at all. 

barfo


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Resume said:


> Maris, I do love your posts. The are so comical and entertain me!
> 
> First off, I am a man of no relegion... So save your preaching for someone who cares. Second, much to your dismay, not all people are equal and yes there are people who hold themselves to a higher standard. Yes, professionals do need to follow suit.
> 
> ...


I am an atheist, but I have read the Bible, The Koran, The Lord of the Rings, and many other religious texts. There is a wealth of knowledge to be gained from all viewpoints and many good tidbits of advice to guide one through life.

I guess maybe we're argueing the same point from opposite ends of the table.

You say there's a higher standard that SOME people should be held to. I'm not sure if you mean that's a higher standard than your everyday guy should be held to or not.

I'm saying EVERYONE should be held to that same high standard. That standard is the bare minimum one should be satisfied with. I know many people, rich and poor, healthy and invalid, genius and retarded, who attain and hold that standard. They don't pat themselves on the back or think they're special because they live that way. It's just a given. That's what a person is supposed to do.

There are many people who don't live that way. There are many reasons for that but no excuses IMO. I don't personally know any of the athletes we're talking about so I don't make judgements on what's in their heart on the basis of what I read in the papers or on a message board. I don't know for a fact that Zach is guilty of anything he has been "associated" with. I don't know if Vick fights and kills dogs. I do know Zach has done a lot of selfless acts such as visiting children he doesn't even know in the hospital, donating to charities...But what it really boils down to is I don't care about their PERSONAL successes and failures.

When it comes to rooting for a sports team all I really care about, within limits, is that they play hard, play together, and play fair. Their personal lives are IMO, their personal lives. They don't butt into my business and I don't butt into theirs. I have had great role models in my life, but even if I hadn't I certainly wouldn't look to strangers or celebrities for that example. Your next door neighbor, your teacher, or a co-worker would be far better bets.

I will say that the one Blazer out of all the ones I have met that I was disappointed in was JR Rider. In about 3 minutes of face-to-face conversation I decided he was a worthless POS. But I'm sure his mother loves him.

P.S. There's no way in hell I'd let ANY stranger babysit. Not even ROY.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

What KP said, in an interview I heard on the internet, I think it was a chat with Casey, was "One of our core players asked that Zach be traded". I believe that's an exact quote. The article I linked was just based on speculation, but I'd be surprised if the core player was anyone other than Roy.

Then again, KP could have simply lied to us once again, but in this instance I doubt it.


----------



## AudieNorris (Jun 29, 2006)

barfo said:


> Actually, I really don't know. KP might have told him that, or he might have got it from a secondary source, or he might have put 2 and 2 together, or he might have been speculating.
> 
> My original point was that posters here were treating the story as if KP had said what Quick wrote, and I wanted to point out that we don't know whether KP said anything about this to Quick at all.
> 
> barfo


Which is exactly why the OP is trolling (baiting), nothing more. He knew it would elicit a divisive response and got it. It isn't even a matter of opinion. The only thing the OP wrote was "Brandon Backstabber?" with an attached link that amounts to nothing. How isn't that trolling?


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

MARIS61 said:


> I don't know for a fact that Zach is guilty of anything he has been "associated" with.
> 
> When it comes to rooting for a sports team all I really care about, within limits, is that they play hard, play together, and play fair.


You don't know Zach is guilty of doing anything? What????

You say you want your sports team/players to play hard and together. I went to one Blazer game this year and Zack certainly didn't play hard or together with the team. He argued at least 3-4 phantom calls while the rest of the Blazers were playing 4 on 5 defense at the other end of the court. He never did even attempt to get back and help his team. I can forgive a guy on maybe one real bad call and losing it and arguing a call but not 3-4 times in the same game. Even when he was playing with the team I don't think he passed the ball once out of a double team. We only lost by a few points and Zach wasn't even trying to play hard or even care about anything but himself.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

The only trolling I do is at Diamond Lake. Usually at the south end, with an F4 Flatfish.

The article I linked expands on a statement KP made (see my post above). The question mark in the thread obviously asks if posters agree with THE ARTICLE' PREMISE. This is why I myself posted no opinion in the original post.

As for "eliciting a divisive response", if you're expecting me to only post threads which I know in advance everyone will agree on, you'll be disappointed.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Tortimer said:


> You don't know Zach is guilty of doing anything? What????


I've never personally witnessed him doing anything wrong.

Maybe you have?



Tortimer said:


> You say you want your sports team/players to play hard and together. I went to one Blazer game this year and Zack certainly didn't play hard or together with the team. He argued at least 3-4 phantom calls while the rest of the Blazers were playing 4 on 5 defense at the other end of the court. He never did even attempt to get back and help his team. I can forgive a guy on maybe one real bad call and losing it and arguing a call but not 3-4 times in the same game. Even when he was playing with the team I don't think he passed the ball once out of a double team. We only lost by a few points and Zach wasn't even trying to play hard or even care about anything but himself.


I remember the game well.

Donaghy made the calls. :biggrin: 

As for playing hard, Zach's the only 20/10 guy 4 years straight that the Blazers have ever had. I don't know how that happens without playing hard.

Maybe he uses magic? :wiz:


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

AudieNorris said:


> Which is exactly why the OP is trolling (baiting), nothing more. He knew it would elicit a divisive response and got it. It isn't even a matter of opinion. The only thing the OP wrote was "Brandon Backstabber?" with an attached link that amounts to nothing. How isn't that trolling?


I guess I'd say it isn't trolling because (a) it could very well be true that Brandon asked for Zach to be traded, (b) if Brandon did do that, backstabbing is not an unreasonable label to put on it (of course, we don't know all the facts, and whether it was or was not backstabbing, even if it did occur, is surely debatable), and (c) although the link the OP provided was a blog, the blog links to Jason Quick's article in the Oregonian, and anything published in a major newspaper is certainly fair game for discussion here.

barfo


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

Maris, agreed . Good posts


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> What KP said, in an interview I heard on the internet, I think it was a chat with Casey, was "One of our core players asked that Zach be traded". I believe that's an exact quote.


Interesting. That would render my debate here with bwatcher about Quick's article moot. If Pritchard did say that (more than once?) then I'd have to agree with the posters who suggested that that was a rather indiscreet comment.

barfo


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

MARIS61 said:


> I've never personally witnessed him doing anything wrong.
> 
> Maybe you have?
> 
> ...


There are many people I know are guilty of things without seeing it for myself. Maybe if you can't believe anything you read or see/hear TV/radio then nobody has done anything and everybody is not guilty.

I do admit Zach is a good offensive player and when you are the #1 option and hardly ever pass the ball you are going to score 20 points per game. Let's see how he does for the Knicks. I don't think he will be 20/10 but he will still score decent. I'm not sure you can win with him but maybe if you get the right players to play with him. 

I think you are probably kidding but was Donaghy the ref? That still wouldn't let Zach of the hook even if they were bad calls. I watched the replays on those calls and I didn't think any of them were that bad of a call.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I'm cofused (as usual). Does anyone else disagree with the writer's conclusion that it was Roy.

The reason I'm having a hard time believeing it was Roy, was becuase during Roy's interviews (I caught as many as I could) he would frequently give Zach props. They seemed to have a good repport on and off the court.

Now I know he can have a good repport but for the good of the team, request Zach gets traded, but to me it doesn't seem like something he would do given thier relationship. Especially how they (Roy, ALdridge, Zach and Oden) hung for a little . . . wouldn't that be real uncomfortable for Roy?

I don't think "prominent" can be narrowed down to two players (Roy and Aldridge) . . . I think, with a stretch, it could include Jack, Webster, Sergio, Outlaw and even Joel. 

If this article hits the Oregonian and makes the front cover of the sports page, I wonder what Roy's reaction would be? I think he would deny it.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Kiss_My_Darius said:



> I'm cofused (as usual). Does anyone else disagree with the writer's conclusion that it was Roy.
> 
> The reason I'm having a hard time believeing it was Roy, was becuase during Roy's interviews (I caught as many as I could) he would frequently give Zach props. They seemed to have a good repport on and off the court.
> 
> ...


for all we know, there's enough wiggle room in the phrase that...if true...the prominent Blazer player could be Maurice Lucas


----------



## AudieNorris (Jun 29, 2006)

barfo said:


> I guess I'd say it isn't trolling because (a) it could very well be true that Brandon asked for Zach to be traded, (b) if Brandon did do that, backstabbing is not an unreasonable label to put on it (of course, we don't know all the facts, and whether it was or was not backstabbing, even if it did occur, is surely debatable), and (c) although the link the OP provided was a blog, the blog links to Jason Quick's article in the Oregonian, and anything published in a major newspaper is certainly fair game for discussion here.
> 
> barfo


So, I can make any claim I want (a)without basis. (b)if it is plausible, and (c)if I provide link it to a published source, it isn't trolling? The rules don't say that.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

MARIS61 said:


> As for playing hard, Zach's the only 20/10 guy 4 years straight that the Blazers have ever had. I don't know how that happens without playing hard.
> 
> Maybe he uses magic? :wiz:


he doesn't use magic and he's only achieved 20/10 twice...and it wasn't in consecutive years

If you're going to be provacative, you should at least get your facts straight


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

AudieNorris said:


> So, I can make any claim I want (a)without basis. (b)if it is plausible, and (c)if I provide link it to a published source, it isn't trolling? The rules don't say that.



So what, you want the mods to suspend maris for the post? I think the mods have some discretion to apply a real hard line approach to the rules or take a softer approach depending on the situation.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

AudieNorris said:


> So, I can make any claim I want (a)without basis. (b)if it is plausible, and (c)if I provide link it to a published source, it isn't trolling? The rules don't say that.


I'd say if it has been published in a newspaper (or on espn.com, or similar major media), then it is certainly fair game for discussion here.

We spend a lot of our time here trying to guess things (is Joel being traded? Will the Suns give up Marion? How many wins next year?). It's reasonable to expect people to try to guess who the "prominent player" is, and it is a reasonable guess that it might be Roy. 

I'm probably missing your point, but I don't see this as trolling so much as a discussion of a blazer-related news story.

barfo


----------



## AudieNorris (Jun 29, 2006)

barfo said:


> I'd say if it has been published in a newspaper (or on espn.com, or similar major media), then it is certainly fair game for discussion here.
> 
> We spend a lot of our time here trying to guess things (is Joel being traded? Will the Suns give up Marion? How many wins next year?). It's reasonable to expect people to try to guess who the "prominent player" is, and it is a reasonable guess that it might be Roy.
> 
> ...


What discussion? The original post is "Brandon Backstabber?" and a link, nothing else. The point is that throwing out an insult like backstabber without any real basis in fact (or any attempt to arrive at a basis) is baiting. The only conceivable purpose for the OP to do such a thing is to bait. Trolling/baiting is against the rules here and that doesn't seem to mean much.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> This kind of judgemental attitude makes me wonder what the poster's secret shortcomings/sins really are.





MARIS61 said:


> Judge not, lest ye be judged.





MARIS61 said:


> In about 3 minutes of face-to-face conversation I decided he was a worthless POS.


Yawn.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

AudieNorris said:


> What discussion? The original post is "Brandon Backstabber?" and a link, nothing else. The point is that throwing out an insult like backstabber without any real basis in fact (or any attempt to arrive at a basis) is baiting. The only conceivable purpose for the OP to do such a thing is to bait. Trolling/baiting is against the rules here and that doesn't seem to mean much.


Since you appear to be the only one here who feels they were somehow "baited" why don't you just spit the hook out and put me on your ignore list?

If I was somehow (unintentionally) out of line with this thread I guarantee a Mod will let me know _in no uncertain terms_ (my Mom used to say that).


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

AudieNorris said:


> What discussion? The original post is "Brandon Backstabber?" and a link, nothing else.


The discussion is the posts that followed (well, some of them, anyway). Many discussions here start with just a link...



> The point is that throwing out an insult like backstabber without any real basis in fact (or any attempt to arrive at a basis) is baiting.


It isn't the case that there was no basis for discussion. The OP didn't make up the story, it was reported in the Oregonian. Now, certainly assigning the blame to Brandon is speculation, but it isn't unreasonable speculation. Only a few players possibly fit the description. 

I guess, though, that your objection is not so much the selection of Roy as the "prominent player" as the labeling of the "prominent player" as a backstabber? 

I don't know, but it seems to me that that term could be applied to someone who goes to management and asks that his teammate be traded. 

barfo


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

It's not backstabbing if the player was asked to answer a question.

Also, once upon a time we had two of the best offensive players in the league on our team named Petrie and Wicks. Neither was much of a team player and neither had ever met a shot they didn't think they could make. The results were we remained a bad team. Wicks was also arguably the team's best all-time rebounder. 

Once both were gone - team play replaced selfish play. A championship was won.

Time will tell whether or not trading Zach at this time was a good move.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Can we close this ****ing thread already? Or at least change the title? Every time I get on to the board and this is the most recent thread it makes me want to vomit all over my computer.

Brandon is the best thing to happen to this franchise in a LONG, LONG time, and it makes me sick to see any credence paid to some uninformed boob who wants to question his character.

-Pop


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Maris, stop the injured innocent act, OK? 

You could have titled the thread "Blogger thinks Roy dissed Zach" or something. You chose a deliberately provocative title. Knowing the high regard in which most posters view Brandon Roy, you had to know it would excite emotion. Or was that the point?

An anonymous blogger says that Quick says that Pritchard says that a player did not like Zach on the team. About as reliable as PETA! The blogger thinks it was Roy. Fine. But it is only backstabbing if he said one thing to Zach's face and another behind his back. I think you know that.

I know you don't like the Zach trade. Fine. Your opinion and you're entitled to express it. I was pretty upset too when it was announced. I turned off the TV. I had heard that rumor and hoped it was BS. But after sleeping on it I decided to withhold judgment until I see how it plays out. After all, Pritchard has access to information I don't have and in the past his moves have been good. Even the ones I didn't like at the time; I didn't like trading Telfair or Khryapa either, but neither has done much for his new team and the Blazers clearly improved. 

But can we move on already? The trade is done. It's not going to be undone. We've all expressed our opinions many times. We can each choose to either accept it as a fact and support the team or root for the Knicks or stop watching the NBA or whatever. Harping on it indefinitely does not do much. If you really feel you *must* start another thread about how you don't like the trade, unsubstantiated personal attacks on a respected and popular player are not very persuasive.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

crandc said:


> Maris, stop the injured innocent act, OK?
> 
> You could have titled the thread "Blogger thinks Roy dissed Zach" or something. You chose a deliberately provocative title. Knowing the high regard in which most posters view Brandon Roy, you had to know it would excite emotion. Or was that the point?
> 
> ...



:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :biggrin:


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

crandc said:


> Maris, stop the injured innocent act, OK?
> 
> You could have titled the thread "Blogger thinks Roy dissed Zach" or something. You chose a deliberately provocative title. Knowing the high regard in which most posters view Brandon Roy, you had to know it would excite emotion. Or was that the point?
> 
> ...



1. Pritchard did say a core player asked that Zach be traded. I heard him and you can too. It was in a recent chat.

2. If it was Brandon, who has been acting like he was friends with Zach, then it's backstabbing.

3. I like Brandon too, and was not planning on commenting at all until a bunch of posters piled on me because I exposed that their God might have feet of clay.

4. I'd love it if a Mod would close this thread because it has failed to elicit any intelligent responses except perhaps Barfo's.

It certainly exposed some irrational homerism though.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I see nothing wrong with the thread title or topic for discussion, what really bothers me is that there are so many people upset over the thread title.

The title is "Brandon Backstabber?". One important part to that title is the "?". It poses a valid question. Now I really like Roy and have no problem with him asking for Zach to be traded, but there could be some repercussions, although most likely no issues will arise. 

Here is why it is a valid question:
1) a blogger suggested that Roy asked for a teammate to be traded. (we don't know who actually did it, but that’s what forums are for, discussions.)
2) If player X asks for player Y to be traded, this can be looked at as stabbing a teammate in the back.
3) The team has been looked at as a successful chemistry experiment, but if one teammate turns on another, does this fracture team unity? Example: Players A, B and C side with Player X, but players D, E and F were friends with Player Y and did not want to see him traded.
4) Players on other teams who might consider become a Blazer in the future might view the request for a player to be traded by another player as an atmosphere they don't want to be around. Some players might think that no matter what, you should always stick up for your teammates.

Roy is great and I love him as a Blazer, but this is a discussion board and it is valid to question if a player asking for another player to be traded is appropriate behavior. By the way, I think it is.

But, how would you feel if you found out that Zach asked for Roy to be traded? My guess is there would be people calling him out for turning on a teammate. Or if Blake asked for Sergio to be traded? Or if Oden asked for Aldridge to be traded? If it is appropriate for one teammate to ask for another to be traded, then is it appropriate for any player to ask for any other player to be traded. I have no problem with this because it's up to KP to listen or laugh, but to jump on Maris for asking the question is shameful. If you want all good stories all the time, just read MB's blog.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

MARIS61 said:


> 4. I'd love it if a Mod would close this thread because it has failed to elicit any intelligent responses except perhaps Barfo's.
> 
> It certainly exposed some irrational homerism though.


I wasn't going to post anymore in this thread and I don't think it should be closed. You think outside of Barfo and yourself there hasn't been any intelligent responses is just a joke. You are the one baiting people about this topic and I haven't seen any thing close to being intelligent from any of your posts and that's a fact.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Considering that none of us know the actual identity of the player in question, understand the context of the discussion, know exactly what was said, or have any idea of what actually goes on in the locker room as far as player interaction and team chemistry goes, this thread is totally worthless.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

Tortimer said:


> I wasn't going to post anymore in this thread and I don't think it should be closed. You think outside of Barfo and yourself there hasn't been any intelligent responses it just a joke. You are the one baiting people about this topic and I haven't seen any thing close to being intelligent from any of your posts and that's a fact.


edit: No personal attacks please...attack the post not the poster. sa1177


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I am really pretty surprised at all thise, because for one, I doubt anybody here really knows who gets along with who in and out of the locker room. Guys always try to put on a better face when talking to the public, but maybe some of the guys on the team openly did not like each other. That being said, I hardly think anybody here really knows any of them, or has been around to see any activity of such. 

Also I believe there have been several threads about how Roy had confrontations with Zbo in the locker room last year, with one episode in particular where Roy got angry with Zbo for him playing the blame game. 

Lastly, if I have a choice on who to build the team around, Roy and his attitude, or Zbo and his only play on the offensive end attitude, I go with Roy every time. It is simple. One guy is team first, play on both ends of the court. One guy is me first, I only play where I get mine.

I could give a rats *** if Zbo was a 20 and 10 guy. Rasheed Wallace who never averaged a double-double let alone 20-10 led the Blazers to much better record then Zbo ever did. That's because he played on both ends of the court and ran the floor.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

I closed this; too many personal attacks.

barfo


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

*Brandon Roy = puppy kicker?*

I don't know if it's true or not, but I suppose it's possible. Today is Brandon's 23rd birthday, and he may or may not have gotten a puppy as a birthday present, and he may or may not have kicked said puppy.

I am currently searching blogosphere for some anonymous typer who can corroborate my story. That way I can have the all-important link.
























???

-Pop


----------

