A question of identity

Although I just mentioned the so-called core players in my post, most of the other guys contribute to that organic, covalently-bonded chemistry that makes this Blazer team so much fun to watch. They are family. And if Jarrett does the yard work but is forever putting dents in the family Oldsmobile and collecting parking tickets that we have to pay, and if Sergio is a whiz in chess club but doesn’t seem to pay attention in his math and English classes, well what of it? They’re still our kids, and we wouldn’t send them away to boarding school. Of course, some of our kids may not want to work in the family business when they grow up, or they may go away to college or get married. If so, we’ll wish them well.

And tried to get Barack Obama to sign it but that is a totally separate diary.

Of course, if we had drafted Jordan, he would have been my favorite Blazer! But we did not, and if at some point we could have traded Drexler for Jordan straight up (nevermind that Chicago wouldn’t have done it), I wouldn’t have wanted to do so. Or, at least, I would have been very conflicted about it.

I shouldn’t give the impression that I’m never in favor of trades. Getting rid of players that don’t play hard, don’t seem to care, or have serious off-court problems (and I personally don’t care about pot-smoking) is fine with me. Trading so as to “upgrade” a position can be acceptable, too, but even in the best of circumstances, it is jarring, and it can lead to that feeling I mentioned where you don’t really recognize your team anymore. That collection of talent which included Sabonis, Wallace, Pippin, et al, was formidable, no doubt about it. I’m not sure they were much of team. And, although I rooted for them and was depressed for quite a while after their infamous 4th quarter collapse, I wasn’t so attached to them that I greatly regretted blowing up the whole shebang. As a whole, they just never developed that … well, chemistry that would’ve enabled them to function better collectively or bond to (at least one of) their fans.

I want to see what these guys can do. We live in a modular world, we change out cars, friends, wives, families, jobs. Not all change is good, not every victory is equally meaningful. If Boston goes crazy if/when the Celtics win it only proves that they are a bunch of no heart frontrunners.

I died every year with the Philadelphia Phillies when I was a kid. I’d do it all over again.

With the added stipulation that should a team I root for attempt to trade away a key asset to win a championship and fail to perform I would demand the responsible party’s head on a stick. I’m not claiming to be consistent.

Seriously, though, having a bunch of likable, homegrown guys to root for is great. So long as they win.

But what is that “us?” If the team is constantly trading players, how is that identity of a whole created? If the roster (beyond the bottom five, I suppose) changes every year how does the team create a singular identity that lasts? How do we fans relate to that? If the players are always changing, then our relationship is to the Trail Blazers organization as a whole, a business. I would much rather follow individuals, their growth, their pains and struggles. It humanizes sport.

I would much rather have an enjoyable decade of fandom cheering for players that I felt like I had a personal relationship with (despite never actually meeting them in person) than several or even one championship by a group of men with whom my only connection was an appreciation of the colors red and black. (And they may not even really care for those colors or this city at all. They may be a much bigger fan of only green.)

The identity of the team matters to me a lot. The players, as people, matter to me a lot. I would give up championships for a group of men that I liked and liked cheering for.

If I count as a regular poster, and I upset you, I apologize. I only post about 100 comments a day though, so I shouldn’t count as a regular.

I think me and you see eye to eye and belt buckle to belt buckle. Mine has a picture of Roy on it made of pure brass with rubies for the eyes.

Mortimer

I apologize if I offended you. I often have different opinions that the majority of BEers so I feel compelled to represent the other side of the debate. I think I’m tend to see our players as not as good relative to the rest of the league as most people. I remember getting a lot of flack around the allstar break for saying the CP3 was “vastly better than Roy,” and I feel his playoff performance validated that. That doesn’t mean I’m right about Rose and LMA- and believe me, I would love nothing more than for LMA to come out next year and make me look like a moron- but I think it points out that sometimes our guys aren’t as good as we think they are.

I understand the attachment to players, and I have it myself to a certain extent. However, the thing about pro sports is that, by and large, these aren’t hometown “Portland” guys. They are the guys that wear Blazers jerseys, so we root for them. I just want guys wearing Blazer jerseys to win a title. I know there is a non-rational component to that, but what is fandom if not irrationality.

I respect your guys desires to never break up the big 3, and I also respect people who disagree with LMA for Rose on a purely basketball sense. I’m here to give the opposite view, namely that I would break up the big 3 in a second if I thought it brought in a better big 3. I think Roy/Rose/Oden would be a better big 3 (but the Bulls would never do that trade so its irrelevant).