Jazz Won't Be Bullied

When did David Aldridge start working for the Jazz?

4 months ago JasonT 27 comments 0 recs |

Comments

I love the Utah stance

“We will not be bullied. We were hoping he would just opt out and we would get nothing for him. But he opted in, so now we won’t trade him unless we are getting something really good in return.”

Makes perfect sense.

by oregontrail on Jul 23, 2009 8:43 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

lol.... I think they just don't want to do any deal that involves the Blazers getting a good deal.

Because we are division rivals and because we set the price for Millsap. My only fear in all this is that they give away something to OKC.

by Escrote on Jul 23, 2009 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"The Jazz is..."

Great grammatical work there, Aldridge.

by Arby on Jul 23, 2009 8:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

at first I thought that was a mistake

but he did it again later in the article, so I guess that is how he wanted it.

Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by usmcr3049 on Jul 23, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It also has the added benefit

of being the correct usage.

Kermit on the inbounds play, inbounds....
BATES at the horn, HE SCORES!! HE SCORES!!!!

And they are all over Billy Ray Bates! My, oh my!!!

by blazer91 on Jul 23, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jazz = singular

“are” follows a plurar.

by homersolo on Jul 23, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem with that is that the Jazz are a collective group of people.

When you refer to the Utah Jazz, you aren’t saying a single person. In common English, at least in the Basketball World, the Utah Jazz are almost exclusively referenced in plural, with the rare occasion of someone saying something like “Deron Williams is a Utah Jazz” (much like we would say “Brandon Roy is a Portland Trailblazer”).
,

by Arby on Jul 23, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the data are inconclusive on this issue.

by Escrote on Jul 23, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In this case, because of what it is in reference to, Jazz is plural (or plurar if you prefer).

The following is an example to explain why this is correct:

Deron WIlliams, Paul Millsap, Andrei Kirilenko and Ronnie Brewer (the Jazz) are going to lose to the Blazers this year.

Deron WIlliams, Paul Millsap, Andrei Kirilenko and Ronnie Brewer can be replaced by “the Jazz” in that sentence because “the Jazz” is plural.

The Jazz ARE Deron WIlliams, Paul Millsap, Andrei Kirilenko and Ronnie Brewer.

The Jazz are going to lose to the Blazers this year… because their owners named them something stupid enough to have this exchange. Bring on the Heat and the Magic!

*Sorry, my wife was an English major and I’ve been corrected too many times!

by rpresto2 on Jul 23, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

bring 'em out

how ’bout this Jazz?!!!!

(that’s how their version of Mark Mason introduces ’em…or at least he used to)

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Jul 23, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

that is correct

the jazz is one team-thus singular

bayless leaves over my dead body

by thomasikehara on Jul 23, 2009 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Blazers are one team

and are referred to in Plural, just like every other team in the NBA except the Jazz, Heat, Thunder, and Magic.

"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."

by Arby on Jul 23, 2009 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love the threat that they won't trade him for less than Beasley.

The Jazz were pretty much on record as hoping he would leave for free. Now that he’s dragging them down for effectively 22 million dollars, they want to play hardball?

“We want the #2 pick for a guy who will guaranteed give you 20 and 10. Now, he’ll only do that 35 games a year. And he’ll want 15 million next year. And he lets his man score 25. And his chest hair takes up another roster spot.”

dinasour type of guys choir boys

by mittsabishy on Jul 23, 2009 8:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Totally unfair

And his chest hair takes up another roster spot.

The man was thoughtful enough to shave the top of his head to make room for the chest hair.

by ninjasocks on Jul 23, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's true they are trying to fill up their roster

But how much does one pay a large wad of chest hair?

by 3pointer on Jul 23, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

great move Utah

spend big money for nothing

by prof.mike on Jul 23, 2009 9:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Boozer isn't exactly nothing.

If I were a Utah fan, they would be doing exactly what I would want them to do. Bite the bullet this year. Someone will get desperate enough to want him. He’s an expiring contract who can still play well. If Raef LaFrentz garnered attention last season, Boozer will do it this season at the same price.

Then next year, you have what you were hoping for this year. It takes patience, but I think it’s worth it in the long run for the Jazz.

μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.

Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by T Darkstar on Jul 23, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Jazz won't be bullied right now...

at the trading deadline they’ll move him for a pair of sweaty socks.

by 52therim on Jul 23, 2009 9:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The only way Boozer has real value is if he commits to a long term deal with the team he's being traded to.

by Arby on Jul 23, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

that and his expiring contract if a team wants to clear cap space next season

by JasonT on Jul 23, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or that, but Boozer does add a lot of REAL value on the court, unlike most expiring contracts.

by Arby on Jul 23, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's all posturing...

They can say whatever they want…and Aldridge can vouch for them all he wants…but “make no mistake about it” when it comes time to write the checks Boozer will be gone for whatever they can get in return.

by mlsinpdx on Jul 23, 2009 10:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

exactly

they have to talk like this and act tough, or else they guarantee getting nothing or next to nothing for him. Right now, they can afford to be patient and hold out for the best possible offer. The further along they get however, the less leverage they are going to have. Do they want to go into training camp with him still on the team? How will Boozer and Millsap co-exist if the season starts with both of them still there? Boozer is in a contract year and knows he’s playing for a deal from someone else – is he going to be happy in a dimished role? The further along they get, the more desperate they are going to be to move him, or else they risk suffering a squabbling locker room.

They will talk tough for now, but most teams should know all they have to do is wait them out

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jul 23, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is the problem I have with the article...

it’s a mouthpiece for the Jazz, but offers no analysis such as it was widely believed that the Jazz were hoping or at the very least expecting that Boozer would opt out of his contract – and in fact were taken off guard when he decided to not to – which from the Jazz perspective complicated things with Milsap, who is “their guy.” The only reason they are acting tough now, is b/c the perception was that Portland was bullying them…and Aldridge buys it hook, line and sinker.

by JasonT on Jul 23, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs