Loyalty

several of our guys in light of this post and these guidelines. At this point in time, I would say that every player on our current roster wants to be here (with perhaps exception to Sergio). According to an earlier rumor, some prominent Blazers’ players requested that KP not trade Travis. Trout is a fan favorite for many, has been a Blazer longer than anyone, is arguably our most athletic player, still has tremendous upside and potential, and is well-liked by just about everyone who knows him.

I think KP does lay low for the rest of the summer. We still have what appears to be a log-jam of too many good players, which is always a risk because the players know they are good and want minutes accordingly. Can Webster, Trout, Rudy, and Frye all be content with limited minutes and earn rings together? If Rudy has been promised minutes, and Outlaw is said to become a SF only, I see Webster getting half his playing time pilfered. This really bothers me because I personally see Webster as a better long-term prospect than both Rudy and Travis. However I feel that the fan support is greater for those two than for Marty. I hate to see it but I think KP has a package of Marty and Raef (and probably one more) awaiting the highest bidder at the trade deadline (when teams scramble to clear space for next summer amidst rumors that Boozer and DWill are discontent after being swept in the first round by yours truly).
I think keeping Outlaw over Webster goes against more of the guidelines above, namely 1b, 1c, 2 and 3. But since Rudy will want to start now since Bayless will be on the come-up shortly, that may push Marty out of the starting line-up. I like Martell off the bench, but his confidence would likely take a hit since he started almost all of last season. Trout is probably the better 6th man because of his athleticism and apparent flair for the dramatic. Because of all this, I wouldn’t be surprised if we started Martell at the 3 and traded him mid-season with Raef for that veteran player Coach Nate asked for at the end of last season. If we do end up parting with Marty to my extreme disappointment, here’s to hoping it’ll be to an eastern conference team we only have to play twice a season.

Also, what affect do injuries have on an “amateur GM”? Say for instance, Oden plays 82 games next season, averages 15pts, 10rebs, 3blks while shooting 55% from the field and 75% from the free throw line. God forbid, but if his knee or another part of his body were to break down and he were to miss another whole year, Pritch would be stuck in a tough position. On the one hand, Oden showed considerable potential in his one year, and because of that would likely still fetch a max extension, but what is a professional GM to do in these types of situations. Can’t risk losing him and watching him beat you for the next ten years.
If the Wizards re-sign Arenas for ANYWHERE NEAR 100 MIL and/or the Clippers re-sign Brand for 60 MIL, it would seem they are mortgaging their teams futures while ignoring several of your guidelines, namely 1a, 1b, 1c, and 3. I guess those teams see those injury-prone guys as more than we saw Clyde, which is hard for me to believe (although at this stage both Arenas and Brand are younger than Clyde was when he left the Blazers).

Furthermore, even if both those guys were perfectly healthy, I don’t see them in the same light as LeBron. They are stars fosho, but not superstars…right? I’m begging the question: Are Washington and LA crazy to offer huge long-term contracts (that violate several of Dave’s guidelines and because of my injury concerns) to Arenas and Brand, or would they be crazier to let those guys walk or be traded?
Personally, I think re-signing Arenas to a max deal is crazy, especially since they already just spent 50 MIL on re-signing his buddy Jamison per Gilbert’s request at the end of the season. They will spend roughly 150 MIL this summer on making zero improvements or additions to their Eastern Conference perennial playoff bubble team. I think a lot of GM’s don’t have the love Pritchard has for his job (or the owner with the wallets [you know he’s got more than one]) and to make things easier on their bosses and fans they just keep the same guys around with no legit championship aspirations. I guess this is a good thing for every other team in the league, especially one like the Blazers whose Gm is always lurking, ready to pounce on any unsuspecting befuddler ready to mortgage his best player for a package of LaFrentz and Joel Freeland. I still feel bad for Washington fans though, because even though they have players they love they won’t be able to put those players in a position to be loved by the world as champions.
As far as our guys go, Pritchard knows he can’t move either Martell or Travis without it being of immediate and obvious realization to all players and fans alike that doing so has further enabled us to fulfill one of Nostraoden’s last prophecies: “I hope to win a bunch of championships – like 15.”

I can’t wait to see Mort’s entry.

I think you could have condensed this all down to “The first, and in some ways only, loyalty of a General Manager has to be to winning”. Stripped to it’s most basic form, that is what your post is about. And that’s all it has to be about, because it is truly that simple.

What a player should be owed by his GM is this – to be dealt with honestly, in a straight forward and up front manner. And that’s it. Because, like it or not, pro athletes are primarily a commodity. How much loyalty do you owe the box of corn flakes on your shelf or brand of gas in your tank? The difference is you don’t have to explain to your bowl of cereal why you are switching to yogurt & fresh fruit. Even though they may be commodities, athletes are also human beings and deserve to be treated the same way you would want to be treated yourself.

Where the issue of loyalty comes into play is in how you treat your players as human beings. You don’t trash them in the media or throw them under the bus. You don’t air disagreements or dirty laundry. You don’t let your players hear they’ve been traded or released through the media. That’s the loyalty you show them. (Note that both Pritchard and McMillan have a reputation for keeping their mouth shut when it comes to discussing their guys, unless they have something positive to say.)

About the only time I can envision exercising the loyalty Dave refers to, i.e. with contract negotiations, is when you have a player that has turned down better offers or agreed to sacrifice part of his own salary in order to help the team. Tim Duncan is an example which comes to mind. In such cases, you try to reward that sort of behavior. But you can’t always do so and the players know this (or should). Do we refuse to part with Blake or Pryzbilla because they signed here as much because they like both Portland and the culture of the organization Pritchard is building. No. But I think we owe these guys at least a thourogh analysis in evaluating any trade deals involving them – that is, we don’t make a trade on the chance it might make us better. Afterall, these are exactly the sort of players you need to make the culture work. But if at the end of the day you are sure that a prospective deal is going to make you a better team, then you do it.

Aah, looking back, it appears I’m drinking from the same hose as Dave and shwa.

Just because you sign for "x" number of years with a team does not mean the team is obligated to retain you for that number of years. Players sign the contract to receive compensation for their services. As long as the compensation is forthcoming the contract is completed, no matter where that compensation comes from.

The exception, of course, is players with no-trade clauses (which, as per NBA rules, only certain vets can get).
For THOSE guys, it does contractually matter where the compensation comes from.

So if a player DOES want that level of “loyalty”, he can earn it:
By staying with the same team for at least four years, and having at least an 8-year career total.

Then can someone explain the Patrick Ewing trade to Seattle to me?

What a great guy. My buddy and I met him in the tunnel after a
game in his rookie year. We were really into Nintendo at the time and
noticed that he had the original Game Boy. We talked with him for a few
minutes and he autographed my sheet sign “I love Nintendo”.
I was sorry he didn’t spend more time with the Blazers, but as they say
“It’s a business.
On the subject of loyalty, I also was devastated when we traded Cylde.
Later when I pondered the move, the fact that he was going home to play
with Hakeem with a chance to win a championship, I was really happy
for him. Especially when he helped win that championship. Coming from
a tight family and being a coach, it’s a great thing to be in the perfect
situation, but the NBA is a business and the players have to support
themselves and their families. I hope we can retain this current TEAM
for the long run and collect a lot of rings. After all, it’s about CULTURE !

PLEASE GET A DEAL DONE FOR BLAZERVISION, I’M DYING HERE !!!
Blazermaniac in NEED !!!

In 2000, the Blazers were a winning team composed of a bunch of guys the city was embarrassed by. Trader Bob and his revolving door of talent had put together a team almost good enough to make it to the finals, but fans (like me) were so turned off by the team’s composition we weren’t even watching games anymore, much less going to them.

It got worse before they finally blew the team up and started over. Telfair was the last bad pick, in terms of being a fit for the new culture the team said it was committed to building. Say what you want about Webster and Jack, but they are hard workers, and kept their noses clean. During the last game of the 2005 season, Martell took it upon himself to come out and address the fans – telling them that they were going to work harder and do better, that he personally wanted improve enough to be worthy of the quality fans in this city. Joel was re-signed, which at the time was a big vote of confidence in a franchise which was just starting to turn around.

Obviously, the 2006 draft made the team much better, avoiding the Stache and drafting two guys that have greatly elevated the franchise – back to .500 now, with no help at all from last year’s draft (other than giving everyone something (and someone) big to look forward to). In the summer of 2007 KP signed Steve Blake after he had been traded away, and picked up James Jones for a year, but most significantly, got Frye and cap relief for Randolph’s bad contract. Then, finally, this past year, Darius Miles retired.

Now we’ve got a roster with no players with a history of dubious behavior. A team that plays hard every night, where teammates support each other, where guys aren’t about “getting theirs”, they’re about winning. Players with talent and high character.

Pritchard has characterized the team’s core as Roy, Aldridge, and Oden. Everyone else is an asset, a “piece,” they could all be traded. Outlaw, the team’s quiet, longest term member, who arrived in 2003 a gangly, raw kid out of high school from Mississipi – who couldn’t shoot, dribble, or play defense. The Blazers have spent the last five years developing this guy into the late game scoring threat that can get his own shot that he is today. Outlaw doesn’t mind coming off the bench. In fact, he prefers it. Pryzbilla, who’s anchored the defense since he arrived here (particularly after Ratliff’s injury issues), who takes whatever role and however many minutes the team gives him, unquestioningly. Blake, who made Portland his home, and returned here the first chance he got – he wanted to be a part of what KP was building here, and his type of steady, if unspectacular play has a place on every championship caliber team.

Pritchard may trade all these guys. He could even trade members of the “core” if the right deal comes along. But trading any of them is going to be difficult, because the one thing he must be sure to do is get not only better (or at least equivalent) talent, but equally positive, team-oriented, character guys. If you build a team that emphasizes character, you are obviously limited to getting players for it that meet those standards. Portland has emphasized high character players, team first players, and fans have come to expect those qualities from everyone the team signs from here on out. It’s not just about winning, it’s about winning, as KP says “the right way.”

My first sports team passion was the Seattle Rainiers, the Pacific Coast League team that preceded the Pilots, then Mariners. When you are a fan of a minor league team you see a lot more player movement. You’d never felt badly when a player was called up to the bigs … you were happy for him. Other players just disappeared. During my years as a fan the team was not owned by a major league team. We had a “working agreement” with one team and they could place players with us and move them as they pleased, but most of them belonged to us. I honestly don’t remember too many trades within the league because some of the teams were owned outright by a team and had no ability to trade. I’m guessing that players were not signed to multi-year contracts so you simply resigned only the players you wanted to keep. I don’t know how it works now, if every player’s rights are owned by a major league team or if there are still free agents out there – not holding out for a better deal but just trying to find a place to play.

But anyway, the bottom line is : a fan of a minor league team cannot develop the loyalty to a player because players are seldom around long enough to earn it.

(And on GSOM I’ve seen some “Please Baron, don’t go” threads)

I feel some anxiety about Channing Frye. I think he’s talented, fun to listen to, a great fit and loves the town so much he’ll take less money to stay. But he has value around the league and could be moved.

In this day of free agents, it’s hard to become attached to players and then watch them be moved. When Drazen Petrovic was traded, I was crushed. Same thing when Jerome Kersey left. I liked Jarrett Jack, I almost won a March Madness pool by picking Georgia Tech to go all the way and he was a big part of that. When the Blazers traded Kleiza for Jack I was elated at first, but I tempered my feelings. In doing so, it hurts less that he became a whipping boy and then was traded. I can empathize with him for what he must be feeling, but the team is my first love, so I try not to get too attached. I think of the team first, and the players second. I have to. The alternative is too depressing.

In a distant galaxy a long long time ago…
Players stayed with the teams that drafted them. It was part of the sports culture. Guys were ‘whatever team they played for’ and were rarely traded.
For many of us, this is the culture our parents grew up in (for those of you in your 50’s, well you knew this from being kids) and it has been somewhat passed on. Its this notion that you love players who are YOUR players. While I personally wish we could go back to that these days, today’s players are hired guns. Sure there are exceptions, most recently Reggie Miller, who never donned another jersey, but in reality most players play for at least two teams in their career. Now its not the players fault per se, its just the nature of the free agent era.
This has spawned an attitude that I take and I am quite sure many of you do. I love anyone and everyone that wears Red and Black. I despise anyone and everyone who wears Purple and Fools Gold. I love individual players from all over the league but my primary loyalty is to the team and not to the players on the team.
I know my parents have moved to this belief, although begrudgingly.

The GM is supposed to bring the team and the city a championship. That’s his whole goal. Regardless or not if we deify our athletes, every one on the team is a puzzle piece that when put together can lead to a championship puzzle.

This question was posed on the radio the other day down here in LA. If you were Cleveland, would you rather win a championship now with LeBron and have him leave in 2010, or not win between now and then and then lose LeBron. For my parents and me initially, keeping LeBron would be the most important because he is the cornerstone of the franchise and basically DEFINES the franchise. But after thinking about it… I would take the championship. Its been 30 years since we won the title. The keep LeBron and not win theory is in my opinion how the Cubs fans have kept on this long without jumping off a bridge. While a player can help define your team, winning and the TEAMS that win will define you far longer. So the GM’s job is to get us a title. Star be damned.
At least thats my take.

“Fan opinion should have no impact on the moves a team makes or doesn’t make.”

Fan opinion does impact the moves a team makes. When it comes down to it, do you trade Steve Blake or Jarrett Jack? Neither significantly outplayed the other, and both had about the same value. Fan opinion had to have swung the decision toward Jarrett Jack.

Plus, fans pay for the tickets and ultimately the players…if you piss off the fans by trading away their favorite players, they won’t want to go to the games. There’s a saying in business: the customer is always right, even when they’re wrong. Whether that’s true or not is debatable but it is at least based on reality. Basketball is a business, not a higher calling, and they have to please their customer base just like any other business, or their customers will spend their money elsewhere.

I would add another point to the summary…

A GM cannot consider what has already been spent on a player when placing value upon that same player. A GM should only consider what that player currently brings and the anticipated value of that player based upon the most current and relevant information, and then take appropriate actions.
I have seen this one come up as a San Francisco Giants fan with Barry Zito. His performance is subpar and it seems that management is afraid to take detrimental action because of his salary.
Regardless of the amount you are contractually obligated to, underperforming players should be treated the same regardless of the size of the contract.