More Thoughts
A couple of nuances from yesterday’s topic...
One of the things that got a little lost in the cap explanation was the literal sense of the post’s title ("Why You Will See Blazers Traded This Year") and its intent. The post was not really meant to be prescriptive, that the Blazers should trade one or more of the Webster/Frye/Jack trio, nor that they must. Indeed if they don’t want to, from their perspective at least it’s a fairly simple process: get those players signed to contracts before next summer comes around. Rather the post was descriptive, literally an explanation of WHY you will see them traded this year, provided they are. This is informative, I think, because heretofore most of the conversation surrounding possible trades of these players has focused on issues like talent, loyalty, youth, and potential. (e.g. “These guys are too young to give up on” or “Martell is going to be a great player someday” or “Our players are Blazers, not just bargaining chips.”) All of those issues are valid and many of those assertions are true. The cap issue simply helps explain why a team might find it necessary or prudent to trade away a guy that is talented, young, and full of potential whom they really liked.
Again, if a trade goes down it might not be because anything is wrong with the player (lack of talent, lack of potential) or disloyalty on the team’s part. It may be situational. It’s not a matter of whether Martell, Channing, and Jarrett are good or fit the team. It’s whether they are good enough and fit well enough to overcome the potential uncertainty and cap problems their contract status causes. They don’t have to fit, they have to really fit. Youthful potential might not be enough to outweigh the momentum towards a trade, but that doesn’t mean the potential is unreal or unimportant. It just might weigh less in the Blazers big picture than other things…especially certainty. If the Blazers can get another player of whose talent they are certain who fits well with the team and who carries a contract that meshes with next summer’s plans they might well pull the trigger on that deal even if the player they trade away has a lot of things going for him. This is the reality of the NBA. Every player is good or they wouldn’t be there. But you don’t get to keep them all.
A second thing I found interesting about yesterday’s discussion was the seemingly-common conviction that Martell, Channing, and Jarrett would all be on board for signing reasonably-priced, longer-term deals with the Blazers if offered. I will say here that I have only talked to Channing and Martell once and I’ve never had the pleasure of talking to Jarrett Jack so I have no insight into their minds. It’s perfectly possible that all three are terribly excited about being Blazers for the rest of their careers and will do anything to make that happen. It’s more likely, though, that we fans see loyalty as a deeper value than the players do, and that we are looking at this situation more from a fan’s perspective than from a professional’s.
I am not slighting the players’ loyalty here, nor their love for, passion for, or commitment to their team. But the reality is their perspective is different--and has to be different--than ours. To us the Blazers equal basketball. Our loyalty, love, and tunnel vision will last as long as we and the team occupy the same planet. The time scale is different for the players. Their experience of basketball at this level lasts ten, maybe fifteen years at most. They don’t have the luxury of thinking in terms of a lifetime commitment. They were not in the same relationship with the Blazers before they came here. They will not be after they leave either. For them, basketball goes beyond just Portland. They can play for the Blazers, love the Blazers, and give their all for the Blazers, but the Blazers are still part of their professional career arc. It’s their job to be prepared to play for, love, and give their all to another team if that ends up being their path. In the context of their brief careers they have to do what’s best for their success when they have the chance--even if that’s playing for another team--just as the organization will do what’s best for it’s success…including trading them if advantageous.
I am not an NBA player by any means, but I think I understand a little bit of this from my own non-blogging profession. As a pastor I end up being a prominent, visible, integral part of a community-based organization which has a long history, with which people identify strongly, and about which people are very passionate. At the same time I come from outside that organization. I have not grown up in the area. I have not spent multiple decades in the organization itself. My church experience is not localized in the same way theirs is. In many ways I am more deeply immersed than even the most seasoned community member, just as a player is more involved in the team than even the longest-term fan. In other ways I belong the least of anybody, as I will never have the same roots or all-encompassing relationship with the organization that the community does.
What this ends up looking like is me throwing my entire heart and soul into the community for as long as I am there. In this way I am very much like the community members. On the other hand when it’s time for me to go then I can rightfully, and with a clear conscience, move along to do the same in another community. This doesn’t mean I love the first less or that I am disloyal. Rather it means I am being called elsewhere in order to do other good things. The measure of my success and integrity isn’t really staying in one place my whole life, it’s how much and how fully I give in each place to which I am called.
Understanding this I try to put myself in Martell’s or Channing’s or Jarrett’s shoes. Laying aside modesty for a second, I’d say I’m pretty good at my job. I’d certainly say I have potential for growth. I’m also eager to contribute. I see myself doing meaningful things with my life. Now let’s pretend that right out of seminary I got called to a great big church. This church is wonderful, exciting, and really seems to be headed in the right direction. I enjoy my time there and I’m doing a decent job. But here’s the thing…they called me as a visitation pastor to spend time with the elderly and people in hospitals. I am also in a preaching rotation along with all the other pastors and it ends up I get to preach about once every six weeks. I am really good at all of this and I love it as far as it goes, but I find myself wishing I could preach more often. Also I know I’m gifted at leading Bible Study and working with youth and I’d flourish in those ministries, but they’ve got pastors doing that already. The church people love those pastors, they're doing an excellent job, and they’re not going anywhere. As long as I stay here I’m not going to be able to do those other ministries except on an emergency substitute basis.
When I was called I agreed to serve this church for four years before I would consider anything else. We’re now in year three and headed down the home stretch. Next summer I will have the opportunity to look elsewhere should I desire...for the first time in my career. It’s not like I’m chomping at the bit to leave. There are a lot of good reasons to stay here. On the other hand there might be broader opportunities for career advancement elsewhere. One day the president of the church council comes to me and says, “Dave, we really like the job you’ve done here. We’d like you to continue with us as our Visitation Pastor and not look anywhere else this summer. We’d like you to stay for at least three more years. We’re going to give you pretty much the standard raises commensurate with your years of experience as you go along. It might end up being a little less than you could otherwise get on the open market but we hope you’ll agree to it because we have building and expansion plans, we need to hire new staff to work alongside you, and our money is limited.”
Tell me, what would you advise I do?
I would say basic, human nature would require a few questions be asked. Is there ever going to be a chance for me to teach Bible Study here? Do you see me getting a more frequent spot in the preaching rotation? Am I going to be able to explore my gifts fully? And if not, is there sufficient compensation to make that sacrifice worth my while? These are questions that anybody would ask. Then you have to add the fact that I’m young, I’ve not yet had the chance to stretch my wings fully, and I’m brimming with confidence, truly believing I could be good at these other things I’m not getting a chance to do right now.
What is the most likely response in this situation? It’s probably not flat rejection or acceptance. I’d probably say that I appreciate the offer, that I do have interest in working here, but I owe it to myself to at least check out the possibilities this summer in case something more fitting (and silently to myself, better paying) comes available. I don’t want to lose this job without having another one, but I don’t want to commit to this position without knowing what other possibilities are out there.
Do you get the feeling that at least a couple of our three young amigos might be thinking along these lines? Consider that the opportunities for players to be in control of their own destiny come seldom in the NBA. A guy might get three, maybe four chances to make such choices in his entire career. If everything else is ideal of course you’ll pass up the chance to window shop in favor of a decent paycheck. But if things aren’t ideal and the money is probably equal either way, you’re not going to pass up the opportunity lightly.
I’m not saying this is the way things are. As I said before, I don’t know how the players are thinking. But I’d say it’s possible that one or more of the players at issue are going through this exact thought process. If they are then free agency, even the restricted variety, may hold attractions and it may not be that easy, or cheap, to talk them into a new deal.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
32 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Preach it, brother!
This makes a lot of sense.
A lot of pastors would say, “Well, I’d like to preach more, I’d like to teach, I’d like more money, but this is just such a great team of people to work with, it’s great for my family in this church, I like this town, the direction of the church is good, and I’d like to stay anyway. By being part of a highly successful team ministry, I may have even better opportunities, here or elsewhere, within a few years, than I would have now. Even if I don’t, it’s worth it, because I’m being paid enough to be happy, and the situation here is so good.”
Channing is saying things that make you think he might have that kind of attitude. Jarrett, not so much, but Jarrett perhaps sees his role diminishing rather than staying the same or expanding, which would be really difficult to take. Martell isn’t saying much at all, but that tells us nothing at all, because Martell, at this point in his life anyway, is not the type who would be saying much publicly.
Martell is a starter, and has the opportunity to really nail that position down. Your scenario of limited opportunities is probably more applicable to Jarrett and Channing than to Martell. Martell’s ceiling with the Blazers is only limited by what Martell becomes. If he develops himself into an all-star caliber player, he will get enough playing time and offensive looks to show it, and he’ll be showing it in the NBA Finals.
Martell is the pastor who only gets to preach once every six weeks but also gets to teach a Bible study for a month every summer, and to help out with the youth occasionally as well. He may not be doing all he would like to do all the time, but it is often enough that he will have the opportunities, if he really does well, to earn more opportunities. He’ll have enough chances for 24 point quarters that, if he actually comes through with any kind of consistency, he will have to become a key offensive option. It’s all down to Martell.
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
I like the posts that make me think.
And this one certainly does that. I think you may have single-handedly changed my attitude going into draft night. I think I would have been overly disappointed to see any of our guys go. But now, if they do go, I see that it isn’t necessarily bad for either them or the team. Your pastor analogy is particularly helpful to me for understanding the situation our guys are in.
One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season
Chaplain of the Jarrett Jack Fan Club
"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus
I liked the analogy ...
... although it didn’t have the humor of the one with the 3 Captains and the red-shirted security dude.
I almost felt as if you were talking directly to me. Because I was thinking pretty close along the line you refer to.
Using your analogy, what if you turn down an extension to stay at your church and go out to find a parish or community that is looking for a full time pastor. Only you find that you are one of several candidates available for the open positions. At one you find that the old pastor will be sticking around, in a semi-retired fashion and intending to remain active. Another church wants you badly as their full time pastor, but is run by a board of deacons that is very controlling and has their own ideas on how things should be done. At another, they have a choice of you, an older, more experienced pastor who has also applied or promoting the young pastor already there. It’s pretty competative out there and sometimes, when you find a place you really like, you start thinking that maybe things are not greener on the other side of the hill. And if I bid my time a bit longer, I might just end up were I want to be.
Like jscot, I think Channing just might be willing to consider being a key rotation player at a mid level salary, on a team that may challenge for at least a Conference title, playing with teammates he likes and living in a city he likes. I know I turned down a job for more money in order to stay in Portland and the PNW. The key here, for me anyway, is the term of the deal. A 3-4 year deal, particularly with a player option year, provides both a degree of flexibility and security.
I don’t know about Jarrett. I think he likes playing for McMillan and believes Nate has faith in him. That’s not always something you find. But I also think he wants to be a starter and if the opportunity arises, he will want to explore it. Martell? don’t know about him either. He is the starter, so he shouldn’t have that to worry about. He’d probably be looking at a deal at the higher end of mid range, say $6 – 7 million. At the end of a 3-4 year deal he’d be about 25 and entering his prime playing years. He’d be in the perfect situation, 4-5 years of starting (and possibly playoff) experience, with his game supposedly fully developed, at his prime age and physical ability and in control of his career. And he will have gotten there relatively risk free, with more than $25 – 30 million in career earnings to that point.
I can’t help thinking that Pritchard has some pretty decent arguments to present in keeping some of these guys around.
A good sermon always sounds like it was said directly to you.
But more often than not, at least in sermons, the intended person is the speaker himself. That way, if someone asks if thy were being singled out (which one generally should not do), the honest response is, “I was preaching to myself, because if I needed to hear it, then maybe others needed to as well.”
It sounded like Dave was talking directly to me as well. Maybe if I get over to Idaho, I can listen to one of his sermons. Should be interesting.
One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season
Chaplain of the Jarrett Jack Fan Club
"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus
Great Post
Thinking beyond the lines of the court again…
sometimes analogies
make everything clear(er) and this is one that should help even more (the post yesterday cleared it all up for me) ... but sometimes they are off the mark.
I have a couple of small quibbles … one is that you, Dave, aren’t subject to trade. You can be fired, but you can’t be moved. You won’t get a phone call early one morning saying you are now headed to huge-inner-city/rural redneckville. Your wife will not have to say “I’m staying here to raise Baby Point Guard ; we’ll see you in the off season.” You might choose to go to one of those places knowing they need you and knowing you can raise children well anywhere, but it won’t be forced on you.
The other quibble is with jscot’s/timg’s premise that CF might want to stay where he is happy. Not questioning CF, but thinking a team might not want someone content with the status quo. Yeah, I like the city and I don’t mind coming off the bench…. is this person motivated to improve or even play his best? We look down on players who say they want to play for big market teams (cuz there’s stuff to do there) ... is it really any different to say I want to play in a family-friendly market? Players have different motivations – for many it’s how many $$ can I get – but my attitude is always “how many millions do you need?” For others it is a chance to be the best they can be. Staying with a team for non-playing reasons may well be foregoing the opportunity to become the best. Zach wanted to be an All-Star, but Roy wants a championship. Does CF (or let’s say Player A) just want to be happy? Nothing wrong with that if the player still has the drive to do everything possible to help his team. Channing came through for us in magnificent fashion when Joel went down, but before that he was seldom more than adequate. How much of that had to do with circumstance and how much with motivation, I don’t know. And what this has to do with what I wrote before, I don’t know that either. I haven’t taken my meds yet this morning so my focus is, well, unfocused… I shall desist my tangential wanderings.
If it keep on Tradin', the Team gonna break - BlueBooYay 6/21/08
I suppose it depends
If Channing doesn’t want to be good enough to start and/or be a star, that is one thing. His improvement over the course of last season, particularly in rebounding, and his good work at the end would indicate he’s motivated to improve.
But if a guy is not motivated by ego or money, it’s another matter.
I have had the opportunity to move somewhere I didn’t want to live and make more money. I didn’t do it, because the money wasn’t that important to me. It meant promotion wasn’t going to be as available to me as it would have been. OK, too bad. But it doesn’t mean in the least that I don’t try to do the very best I can in my job. It just means that I’ve passed on that upper management possibility, because of the hassles and the geography that came with it.
I’m still the best I can be at what I do, and I’m happy with it. I don’t have to pursue that other thing. It could possibly come my way anyway, and if it does, I’ll be good at it—I’m equipped for it. But somebody else is doing just fine with it right now, at least as well as I could, perhaps even better.
Not everyone can be the chief. If you have several guys who could be the chief, and are happy to be warriors who can step in and lead if needed but aren’t too egotistical to put leadership aside when it isn’t needed of them, you’ve got a very good thing.
This is one of the things that makes Travis so valuable to us. He doesn’t have to start, and he’s probably going to be good enough to start for half of the teams, or more. Nobody views his willingness to come off the bench as a lack of ambition.
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
Channing shows drive
I think Channing has shown plenty of drive to discount your theory that he may be settling for comfort.
It is a bonus that he enjoys this town but almost every chance he got to step up he delivered. He was great when Joel went down, and remember when L.A. went down for 5 games during the streak? CF carried L.A.’s load and more on some nights.
He was relegated to a bench role but he didn’t let that get him down. He got it to motivate him to be tougher and be ready to produce when he got his chance. The other day he was on the radio saying this year the team wants him stronger and able to face up. He said he is committed to that and whatever the team needs. I think he knows he’s not going to start over L.A. But knowing your role and being prepared to deliver it when called upon is what good veterans do on championship teams.
It puts the lotion on the skin...or else it gets the hose!
by courtsideerrandboy on Jun 24, 2008 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions
A good example of this was Blake and Joel
Both COULD have made more money elsewhere but it was the city that brought them back. Both really liked living here, the team paid them and gave them playing time, so they turned down larger offers (Pryz for SA and Det, Blake for Den and Mil) to be where tehy were happiest. I get the feeling from Channing (who I have met several times) wants to be happy just as much as how much he gets paid. He is the kind of person I believe (conjecture) that appreciates doing something he loves in a place he loves as opposed to going uber-capitalistic and going for the most money in a place he might not enjoy.
I dont know about Jack, I suspect he would accept a backup role. I think Webster goes within 5 minutes if he loses his starters position. Just a hunch, but his ego would doubtfully keep him here.
by RememberRastaMonsta! on Jun 24, 2008 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions
TLTR
TOO long to read my friend. Even I couldn’t get through that, did Mort infect you?
JJ seems to be most prone to thinking along these lines.
Of the three, he seems most uneasy at his place with the team,
and most likely to turn down any attempts at being resigned.
And that’s a big reason why he’s always on people’s lips as a trade target:
He seems least likely to avoid the cap hold fate by re-upping or taking the Qualifoffer.
Conversely, Frye seems the most amenable to staying for the sake of staying;
as per your analogy, he seems most like the young pastor who says,
“I like this church, I like my calling – my role is small, but that’s okay. This is my flock, no matter my station.”
One other thought that came to my mind is how this whole scenario is not very hard to grasp;
in extension talks with these three during this off-season, it should be easy for Blazers management
to impress this basic structure on them (AND their agents), and lay it down simply:
“We can extend you now, we can renounce you during the season,
or we can trade you now OR during the season.
What we cannot do is go into next offseason with you unsigned, and counting as cap holds.
So what’s it gonna be: come to terms now, or get tagged to be traded or let go?
Because those really are your only two options: Come to terms THIS SUMMER, or grease your exit from Portland.
(And NOW of all times, just when the Blazers are about to have a whale of a decade!)
You have the power to choose, by seriously pursuing a reasonable extension now or not.”
Basically, Dave, the picture you paint is that very simple one:
Any of these players who does not work out an extension THIS (not NEXT) offseason
really should be traded, if not outright renounced.
The players in question, and their agents, should be quick to realize that during the next few months.
Any who don’t should be traded or let go, if only for their inability to grasp the situation.
You know . . . like Andre Iguodala.
Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.
One last corollary:
If (because of all this) we do end up trading away any players who might still be worth keeping,
they will still be free agents (albeit restricted ones, with another team having their matching rights) in the 2009 off-season,
when we will have a ton of cap space (at least, just so long as we don’t take on any stupid cap holds or trade the REC).
We’d still be in a great position to re-sign them right back next year, just like we did with Blake.
So for players who don’t come to terms this season but we don’t want to let go,
the best route to “keeping” them is not to keep them, let them become OUR RFA’s next year, and look to re-sign them;
rather, even for keepers, we should STILL TRADE THEM, and look to pick them back up as some OTHER team’s RFAs.
Or: If we don’t let them go, we should STILL let them go (as the best way of “keeping” them).
Convoluted logic almost to Kafkaesque levels, but pretty bulletproof and easy to see, especially by KP and Tom Penn standards.
Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.
The problem with that
is that we don’t entirely know whether we want to extend them, or at least how much it is worth to us.
Like Jarrett. If he breaks out, we wanted to extend him. If he regresses, we probably don’t want to, even at a reasonably low salary.
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
Right-o.
Which means he’s probably trade bait.
Anyone from those rookie-contract three that has not yet earned an extension might not get a late chance to do so.
If, at this point, we don’t know if we wanna keep JJ or not, then it’s best to just earmark him for trading
rather than sign him to an extension (or any other option).
Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.
This is a great analogy
and the responses so far have the makings of a good conversation. With the analogy are a couple other perspectives to consider. Just as the managers of a team want to create the best team to bring success to the organization, the board members of a church would look at the performance of the Pastors and other staff with the sense of responsiblity to make sure the congregation is being well served.
But the analogy gets interesting for me when we start talking about the congregation. What kind of a church would it be where conversation and preoccupation of members centered on comparison of our pastors and music directors and youth leaders, etc with their counterparts at other churches? What if church members were completely determined to have the most eloquent and dynamic pastors, the most lovely symphony hall equivalent music program, the most popular youth programs, the tallest steeple in town, etc? Does not the purpose of a church get lost in that?
Now back to the Blazers. Is the central purpose of the team to provide for fans a venue for endless speculation and trade talk as to who we want to get rid of, who we want to get and who we want to keep? If we as fans could magically have the roster of the current Olympic team as Blazers instead of the players we have, how many of us would be satisfied and how many would be insisting that it’s time for KP to ship off Jason Kidd in a trade for that Greg Oden fellow?
You said :
“But the analogy gets interesting for me when we start talking about the congregation. What kind of a church would it be where conversation and preoccupation of members centered on comparison of our pastors and music directors and youth leaders, etc with their counterparts at other churches?”
That’s where the analogy breaks down. What kind of a church would it be? It would be a church vying for the championship of the National Church Association. The championship would bring it prestige, $$, and more congregants. It would also bring massive, if not total, obliteration of its reason for being.
If it keep on Tradin', the Team gonna break - BlueBooYay 6/21/08
Would the championship
of the NCA be awarded based on those critieria?
And if the championship of the NBA were awarded based on the ability of a team to create cap space and faciltate 3-ways and generate trade rumors and revamp the roster more than other teams what would the game look like?
To me there is something special about a team made of players who begin their careers as question marks. A good bit of the elation realized with a championship is developed in uncertainty by the challenges and obstacles that happen along the way. The Olympic team begins as a collection of exclamation points. Will it be a surprise if they win the gold or even a disappointment if they don’t?
This all depends on
finding a free agent to sign next summer or finding a team we can trade with and (with us under the cap) take back an unequally large salary. The talk here has been mostly about getting a seasoned point guard. But who would be available as a true free agent who the Blazers can sign?
Instead, now with the success of Rondo as point for Boston in his second year, maybe KP and Paul Allen think that there is a point guard or two in this draft to fill that role. If Portland moves up trading with Memphis for the #5 pick, either Bayless or Westbrook will be there. (According to Chad Ford at ESPN http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=MockDraft-080623 )Seattle apparently wants Beasley to team with his good friend Durant. That would give him two strong scoring options. The Heat would take one of the two. Rose, Beasley and O.J. Mayo should go 1,2,3 and at 5 we get either Bayless or Westbrook. So even if KP has to take back a terrible contract, he can use his cap space this year instead of next. The Blazers should not get a chance like this to draft this high for many years.
So the question becomes despite all of your hard work Dave, if the Blazers can get that point guard this year, why wait to fight for cap room next year? Do it now.
Oh absolutely
None of this takes into consideration the possibility of getting your target guy right now. If that is possible then yes, by all means, do it. The whole purpose of the cap flexibility is to increase your chances to get your guy(s). Waiting for next summer to do it when you could do it now would be foolish.
This brings up another point: the dynamic can change at any time. If you make a couple trades that all of a sudden change the cap perspective next summer while at the same time making Martell, Jarrett, or Channing a vital part of the future, then you have no problem letting them become restricted free agents.
—Dave
what a great post!
Dave, I applaud you for being honest enough to apply elements of your own situation in your attempt to get a little more perspective on the potential free agencies/trades/extensions of some our young talented Blazers players..
I’m not sure if your ministry analogy was:
1. completely fictitious,
2. completely true—that is, lifted from your current, past, or potential life experience, or
3, somewhere in between.
(my guess is the last of the three).
However, if it’s either 2 or 3, I would hope for your sake that:
A) you fudged some of the details so that what you described is not exactly where you’re at in your own place of ministry, or
B) you have enough grace and have communicated clearly enough with your staff/elders about your positions that you (and they) feel relatively comfortable about putting your “business” out there over the internet.
I know that putting yourself out there is part of the appeal that draws any good blogger… having the temerity to think that people actually want to know/read what you have to say, and believing that your experiences and insights can actually bring someone benefit. I just hope for your sake that there is no potential blowback waiting for you from someone who heard from someone else who got a text message from their friend that said that “Dave wants to leave the church and posted it all over his blog.”
(If the internet is good for nothing else, it’s rumor-mongering… just ask Obama.)
Back to the Blazers…
I agree with most folks that JJ is most likely to leave, and being a JJ fan I will continue to follow his career and cheer for him from a distance… unless he moves to a division rival, in which case I will hope for his continued personal maturity, but that ultimately his team will go down in flames.
Also, I caution others of you not to get too attached to Channing Frye. I personally think that from a PR/fan standpoint he is awesome, he is everything you want in one of your hometown’s beloved athletes. But the fact that he is as thoughtful, contemplative, and insightful as we’ve all seen he is means he most likely has a mature outlook on this whole thing. And I wouldn’t blame him if he took more money and an opportunity to start on another upcoming team with potential and young, developing talent. He owes it to himself to at least consider it.
But for our sake, I hope he stays, and continues to KPW.
by JelaniGNatural on Jun 24, 2008 10:51 AM PDT reply actions
Complete fiction
as far as my personal experience. I’ve seen situations that didn’t seem that far away from this though. Things like this do happen sometimes.
—Dave
Dave, you're a pastor?
That’s rad! Where? No wonder you don’t allow cussing here. Thank goodness for that.
myspace.com/marktwainindians
People generally make that association when they find out
but actually the two don’t relate much in my mind. I cuss at home semi-often, moreso when the refs are screwing up calls against us. I don’t find that particularly unfaithful…at least not any more than some other things I do every day, like killing the planet by burning fossil fuels so I can drive into town to buy orange chicken at the Chinese restaurant. That’s bad on a lot more levels than the occasional f-bomb. The profanity ban has other motives:
—A big part of Blazer fandom has always been younger fans. I’d like this to be a place where parents can feel comfortable having their sons and daughters read and talk about the Blazers without picking up interesting words every second sentence. It doesn’t take that much effort on our part to keep it clean…maybe 1-2% of our post gets changed. But for them that could mean the difference between 100% reading Blazersedge or 0%. Making that small change on our part seems the charitable thing to do. (I generally feel the same about swearing in public. I’ll let loose every now and again but not if there’s a fourth-grader standing there. That’s just common courtesy to them and their family.)
—We’ve lost some of the sense of formal, public discourse versus casual conversation in our society. I’m not a stuffed shirt, but I do rue the fact that “Damn! UR Hot 2!” is becoming more the conversational norm, at least with the written word. I’m not trying to put down anybody’s style of communication per se, but I do think losing the formal/casual distinction does rob a lot of people of the chance to inspire with their words and thoughts. Not swearing here is a small reminder of that distinction.
—One of the foundations of any blog is the belief that words have power. Using them in an inappropriate context cheapens them and robs them of that power. This is even true of swear words. If you read cussing every third word all over the blog it becomes so commonplace as to become meaningless. Then what do you have to say when a guy swerves into your lane almost causing you to run through the guardrail and off an embankment? Nothing we talk about here, save the moment we won the Greg Oden lottery (from Damir’s lips only), reaches the level of intensity to merit those kinds of words.
—Despite the length of my posts sometimes, I hate wasted words. Read almost any post with swear words or personal attacks in it. Then read it again with those taken out. Not only is the point briefer, but it’s usually stronger for lack of distracting, inflammatory wording.
You can see these words in so many places now. Do you really pay attention to them or are they just something you skip by while trying to get to the heart of the matter? In 99% of the cases it’s the latter. They end up being far more about self-indulgence on the writer’s part than an attempt to communicate anything useful (beyond, perhaps, “I’m ANGRY!!!”) to the reader. It’s nicer to be part of a community that skips the theatrical self-indulgence and just talks to each other.
—Dave
well
regardless, i like the rule! And I also really like that you’re a pastor too, that’s awesome. Anyway, carry on with your awesomeness, draft is in two days!!!
myspace.com/marktwainindians
Frye, in a recent interview (link long forgotten)
said, pretty much, that he’s working on new aspects to his game, hoping to becomemore valuable here, but it’s a business for him as much as for management.
He seemed to be saying pertty clearly that he would have no hard feelings if he were traded and he hoped that people would understand that if he felt he had to go elsewhere to achieve his potential.
Not getting anything close to the exact words here, but it was a pretty cool statement overall.
Tough gig
Thanks for sharing. My girlfriend’s dad was a rural Lutheran minister for a couple decades. The expectations and politics of the congregation can be crushing. Sounds like you have a healthy perspective, Dave. When people forget it’s a mortal man’s job, trouble follows…
by Engineering Problem on Jun 24, 2008 3:22 PM PDT reply actions
My fear is now more about Dave leaving this blog
because he gets better offers related with blogs, sport, press, etc. Something actually very possible looking at the work he does and the logical success that it follows. I hope he gets it, anyway.
The Midnight Rambler
I think a sex scandal is more likely
I think the headline would be, “Idaho Pastor Caught in Bizarre Love Triangle.”
"You boys sure found a way to make the time pass up there. Twist, you guys wasn't gettin' paid to leave the dogs babysittin' the sheep while you stem the rose." - Joe Aguirre from Brokeback Mountain
I thought that was more likely by a catholic priest.
Considering the risks of the antinatural nature of celibacy, IMO.
The Midnight Rambler

by 
































