# Quick on signing Outlaw



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

From the big O:



> Pritchard and coach Nate McMillan have indicated they plan to re-sign Outlaw, a decision that probably will exhaust most, if not all, of the team's mid-level exception, which is estimated to be in the $6 million range.


Is Quick a total loss when it comes to the CBA, or am I?

Since when do you need to use a mid-level exception to sign/match your own restricted free agent? Let me know if I'm wrong here. If I'm right, then it sure would be nice if Quick took a CBA 101 course because someone at his level should understand these things. This is what he gets paid to do after all.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Reep said:


> From the big O:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is correct, I believe it still comes down to order of operations. The Blazers would have to use the exception to sign somebody first, then they would sign him using the normal resigning rules for guys you have Bird rights on. Anybody know for sure?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Reep said:


> From the big O:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quick is wrong. Portland owns Outlaw's Bird rights, so whatever they sign him for they will still have their entire mid level and veterans excpetions. Hopefully to sign someone other than Ime.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Quick is way off. Maybe he's thinking about Ime, who we don't have bird rights for, and Travis at the same time and some how he's mixing up Travis' contract requirements with Ime's situation and that's why he mentions the MLE.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

What do you feel Travis will be most like as a player, best case scenerio?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

YardApe said:


> What do you feel Travis will be most like as a player, best case scenerio?


Mini Manute Bol!:lol:


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I am guessing that around MLE is what he will get, but not because Portland needs to use the exception on him - but because he is restricted and this is what he will probably get from someone else.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I remember reading a year or so ago that the Trail Blazers in fact did have a CBA 101 type meeting with members of the local media. Quick either slept thru it, or thought he was to cool to show up. Either way, he is wrong... again!


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Here is the one thing puzzling me. I read a lot of web sites related to hoops rumors and such. I have not heard of one team offering Travis cash to stay. I am not sure if this is because of his talent level, lack of cash available, etc. But it concerns me that Portland has committed to resigning him when he isn't even getting a look-see by other teams. At the same time, maybe it is because Portland has said they are committed to signing him that has scared teams off. They know they can't match.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

hasoos said:


> Here is the one thing puzzling me. I read a lot of web sites related to hoops rumors and such. I have not heard of one team offering Travis cash to stay. I am not sure if this is because of his talent level, lack of cash available, etc. But it concerns me that Portland has committed to resigning him when he isn't even getting a look-see by other teams. At the same time, maybe it is because Portland has said they are committed to signing him that has scared teams off. They know they can't match.


I think that may be the case.

Similiar situation with Amir Johnson in Detroit.



> Deal Almost Done
> 
> Jul 9 - Amir Johnson could sign as early as Wednesday and would most likely join the team and play in three games, plus a couple of controlled scrimmages.
> The Pistons are getting close to finalizing a three-year deal with Johnson that would pay him close to $10 million.
> ...


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Seems like a pretty good strategy on KP's part. 

1. Announce to the league that the Blazers intend to match whatever Travis gets in the way of offers. 

2. Teams get calls from Travis's agent, who is then told that they have better things to do than waste time filling out offer sheets when they know Portland is going to match anyway. 

3. Blazers sign Travis for below MLE.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Quick is such a farce of a sports reporter....Imagine how bad fans would kill him if he worked in Philly for instance. :lol:


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

YardApe said:


> What do you feel Travis will be most like as a player, best case scenerio?



michael jordan minus 40 IQ points.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Quicker admitted that he bungled it....:clap: 

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2007/07/paying_ime.html


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

I like that he describes his own mistake as a snafu. Considering what that actually stands for, that's rather a self-deprecating description.

barfo


----------



## JAFO (Jul 2, 2006)

barfo said:


> I like that he describes his own mistake as a snafu. Considering what that actually stands for, that's rather a self-deprecating description.
> 
> barfo


But it is true. So you have to give the man some credit on being accurate.

JAFO


----------



## JAFO (Jul 2, 2006)

:lol: :lol: :lol:


barfo said:


> I like that he describes his own mistake as a snafu. Considering what that actually stands for, that's rather a self-deprecating description.
> 
> barfo


But it is true. So you have to give the man some credit on being accurate.

JAFO

:lol:


----------



## sanfranduck (Jan 31, 2005)

I disagree with you guys who think Quick is a terrible reporter. He is actually quite good and quite responsible. 

Quick doesn't float rumors that he makes up or that he doesn't verify. He doesn't have vendettas. If he has a "hunch" about something, he positions it as such, and not as an legitimate rumor (see Vesey, Peter for crap like that). He doesn't publish negativity about players on purpose to drive down someone's reputation. Rasheed Wallace and Bonzi Wells treated him about as poorly as any player can treat a reporter, and he still withheld negative rumors about those guys because he couldn't verify them, and he still views them somewhat objectively. His game stories help us understand what you can't get from watching on TV, what you can only get from being there - he doesn't simply report the facts. You can get that anywhere (just read the AP if that's what you want). 

I have lived three major sports cities now and in my opinion Quick is the best basketball beat writer that I have read on a regular basis. I really enjoy his work and I think you guys are being too hard on him. I also suspect we have a lot of young users of this forum (i.e. high school or younger) and this is likely a byproduct of that.


----------



## BeaverMaz (Jan 6, 2003)

Totally agree with Sanfranduck.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sanfranduck said:


> Quick doesn't float rumors that he makes up or that he doesn't verify.


Really? So Iavaroni is the Blazers' coach?

Oh, wait. He reported that as NEWS, rather than as a rumor.



> He doesn't have vendettas.


He doesn't huh? Are we talking about the same Jason Quick?

I'm not a huge Quick-basher, but he doesn't seem to be that great, either.

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

SanFranduck, mostly I agree with you that Quick does a better job than he's given credit for. That said, it seems odd to me that _so_ many of us here at this site (certainly not all of us but still a goodly number) seem to have a better grasp of things like Bird Rights than the guy who's getting paid to be on top of all this stuff. Likewise, just a few days ago I winced when he wrote something like "but the Blazers can only do so much right now because they don't officially _own_ Greg Oden until... (X date)." That seems an incredibly tacky, not to mention inaccurate, way of making the point he was trying to make -- teams don't own players they own contracts.

He _is_ probably my favorite beat writer, though having not really followed sports until I got to Oregon in the late 80s, I don't have near the sample size for comparison that you do. Regardless, if I were to grade his work thus far (and/or my appreciation of it) I'd probably go with a B.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> SanFranduck, mostly I agree with you that Quick does a better job than he's given credit for. That said, it seems odd to me that _so_ many of us here at this site (certainly not all of us but still a goodly number) seem to have a better grasp of things like Bird Rights than the guy who's getting paid to be on top of all this stuff. Likewise, just a few days ago I winced when he wrote something like "but the Blazers can only do so much right now because they don't officially _own_ Greg Oden until... (X date)." That seems an incredibly tacky, not to mention inaccurate, way of making the point he was trying to make -- teams don't own players they own contracts.
> 
> He _is_ probably my favorite beat writer, though having not really followed sports until I got to Oregon in the late 80s, I don't have near the sample size for comparison that you do. Regardless, if I were to grade his work thus far (and/or my appreciation of it) I'd probably go with a B.




I'm not surprised. I don't really think Quick is a basketball fan. I think he does his job and goes home.


----------



## sanfranduck (Jan 31, 2005)

I don't want to become the "Quick defender" around here, as I'm all for criticizing media members. And you're right about how he screwed up the bird rights thing. 

But he's much better than many of the beat writers around the league. Ed O, you missed my point completely. If Quick hears something as news, he presents it as such; if he has a hunch about something, he presents it as such. He was told that Iavaroni was going to be offered the job; turns out his source was a bit off (Iavaroni had been told he was the frontrunner but Portland needed to investigate one more option, which was McMillan). But it isn't that Quick had a "hunch" about it and presented THAT as news. He had a source inside the organization. I don't fault that.

I am sure you could go back years and years and find examples of items that even the best reporter stated that ended up being wrong; frankly that's very easy to do with anyone and doesn't prove much. 

I think the guy does a very good job. 

I will say this as a counter-argument, I read an interview with him where he stated that when he first found out he was going to be the lead beat writer for the Blazers, he was covering college athletics for the paper and said something like "at the time, I couldn't even have named all five starters." That's kind of alarming for a person who worked in the Oregonian Sports Department. As much as we have all become frustrated with the Blazers over the years, I don't think we'd ever stop following them to that point. Whether that is testimony to his integrity as a writer that he's been able to come so far or a damnation of his knowledge going in, I'm not sure.

I would much rather have an unbiased observer like Quick giving my my information than a ridiculous, blovating homer like Mike Rice.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

sanfranduck said:


> I would much rather have an unbiased observer like Quick giving my my information than a ridiculous, blovating homer like Mike Rice.


That's not much of an endorsement.

"Quick is good because he isn't Mike Rice."

Is that really the only choice?

Could Mike Rice be a strawman?

Could Quick actually be good at some things and poor at others, and because he is (inexplicably) poor at certain issues and sometimes wrong as a source of information, thus becomes considered unreliable?

When you are in the information business, and the information you provide is wrong too many times, how does that make you good objectively?

When you are in the information business your accuracy and truthfulness goes to the heart of your reputation.

I think Quick probably has the reputation he deserves.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Masbee said:


> That's not much of an endorsement.
> 
> "Quick is good because he isn't Mike Rice."
> 
> ...


Well said. :clap:


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I think he does his job and goes home.


If only it were that easy..
I don't think people realize how much time is put in to being a beat writer for a pro sports team for a major paper. You don't just show up 15 minutes prior to tip-off, sit down in your courtside seat, enjoy a free hot dog, gaze around at the people in the stands, and write a story in 15 minutes.
It's being on the road constantly when the Blazers are on the road, having to know the ins and outs of the team, developing sources/relationships, etc.

While it is embarassing to make mistakes such he has, it's not the first time it's happened in the history of journalism.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

sanfranduck said:


> He doesn't have vendettas.


Just wait 'til you see what he has planned for ABM. :biggrin:


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

alext42083 said:


> I don't think people realize how much time is put in to being a beat writer for a pro sports team for a major paper. You don't just show up 15 minutes prior to tip-off, sit down in your courtside seat, enjoy a free hot dog, gaze around at the people in the stands, and write a story in 15 minutes.
> It's being on the road constantly when the Blazers are on the road, having to know the ins and outs of the team, developing sources/relationships, etc.


Does he, or does he not get a full-time salary for his job at the Oregonian? I submit that he indeed does. So why shouldn't it consume more than 15 minutes to do his job? 

Honestly, no matter how many hours he puts in, it still seems like a pretty easy gig to me. 

barfo


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

There is a profound difference between an honest mistake, sheer carelessness, and following a personal agenda. 

Quick has been guilty of all 3.....but I only fault him for the 2nd and 3rd.


----------

