Thursday Guest Blogger

by Dave on Sep 12, 2007 10:34 PM PDT in News

Today's guest blogger is the frighteningly-named, yet always astute, Harry Manback. His entry:

Is it really all about championships?

Everyone in sports says that it's all about championships. Anything to win a championship. Sportscasters say it, fans say it, coaches say it, players say it. But is it really true? Would you trade long-term success for a single championship?

Let me throw out this scenario: it's the year 2000. It's the fourth quarter of game 7 versus the Los Angeles Lakers. The Blazers, having built up a lead of as much as 17 points, are in a full-fledged panic as they watch their lead dwindle into the single digits. In a moment of desperation, Mike Dunleavy sends his starters to the bench and brings in two young men named Jermaine O'Neal and Bonzi Wells, in hopes of sparking some kind of resurgence. Over the next two possessions, the Blazers pound the ball into the post to Wells, who overpowers Kobe Bryant for two point-blank shots--one a score and the other put back by an energetic young O'Neal.

Though the two young players would be taken out of the game a few possessions later, their contributions on those two possessions allow the Blazers to regain their footing and put away the Lakers. After a short series with an overmatched Pacers team, the Blazers become champions for the first time since 1977.

The fallout of this triumph changes what we now know as history. There is a parade. Players and coaches are happier with their situation on the team. Keith Olberman, in recapping the game, states that after falling to 1-3, the Blazers "showed more mettle than aluminum foil". Through the smoky haze in his living room, Damon Stoudamire wonders aloud, "Did that guy just say that aluminum foil is made out of metal?" He
does not realize how much grief this lesson will save him later in life.

More importantly, the championship proves to Paul Allen the validity of "the plan". Rather than make major changes, he decides in a meeting with Bob Whitsitt to bring everybody back. Jermaine O'Neal remains a Blazer and is promised an increasing role behind an aging Sabonis. The team fails to ever get over the hump and win another championship, but stays in the NBA elite for another year and then settles into the middle of the playoff pack.

Fast forward to today. Without ever undergoing any serious changes and without ever truly challenging for a title again, the Blazers now sit with an aging roster. They have just been eliminated in the first round of the playoffs by a Houston squad featuring Tracy McGrady, Yao Ming, and a promising young rookie named Brandon Roy. Their only tradeable assets are a constantly injured Jermaine O'Neal and a damaged-goods Rasheed Wallace (who has WAY overstayed his welcome). Brushes with the law have been fairly frequent. Playoff series victories have not.

Was it worth it? No future with Roy or Aldridge or Oden. Massive rebuilding project around the corner with limited assets with which to start it. The winning of the championship dragging out the era of the JailBlazers.

Would you take a championship in 2000 at the cost of the core that we have today? If you could give up all of the potential of this team if it meant a single championship and a decade of mediocrity, would you do it?

Provocative questions from Harry! Weigh in below.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

Tweet Comment 36 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Easy call

Jeez, that alternate universe sounds like a nightmare to me. Easy call: I'd opt for the way things turned out. Championship celebrations are fleeting things. I did like the aluminum foil part, though. Reminds me of the Chuck Berry bit in the first "Back to the Future" movie.

I know this is really off the subject, but I always questioned the universal assumption that had the Blazers held together in that fateful 4th quarter they'd certainly have won the championship. On the contrary, I've always felt that the character of that Blazer team was so flawed that a meltdown was inevitable. Even the lowly Pacers might well have been too much for them in the pressure cooker of the Finals.

By contrast, this new Blazers squad--composed of guys from winning programs who respect themselves and each other--is being built to handle that kind of heat. The next decade is going to be great--infinitely more enjoyable than that one title would have been.

by hurryup09 on Sep 12, 2007 11:21 PM PDT reply actions

There is more to this

Yes, the current team is exciting and full of long-term potential. Yes, they have a chance to be great.

But the sports fan in all of us wants the realistic chance to challenge every year. Nearly every team must rebuild and if they get the #1 pick in the right year they will win some championships ala Tim Duncan and Shaq (shouldn't he still be in Orlando?). There is no one and done here. We buy in for the long haul. Yes, I want a championship. No I don't want it from scuzzy players. Yes, I value character. No, I don't want character that cannot play the game.

Nice post.

by lee3022 on Sep 13, 2007 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions

Alternate History?

Like reading one of those alternate history books, that speculate what would of happened if The South had won the civil war, or The Germans won WW2. For my taste, too much speculation for a real serious answer. But I'll try.
In 2000 we were so close, (I believe we were the better team) to a championship, that sure my instinct is to say, Win it! Let the future be what it will be, but win it and hang a banner for Sabonis, Pippen and The City of Portland.

Your core question seems to be "Would you trade long term success for a single championship?" I say yes, you have to. Championships are what all franchises want. They become an undying eternal part of their respective cities and fan base. So if you have a chance, at even one, you must take it. Teams take that chance all the time. Miami did with Shaq, they knew he had no long term viability, you only bring Shaq in at this point in his career, for that chance at a single championship or two, but you certainly don't bring him in with an eye to future viability or sustainable growth. Same thing Boston is doing. Throwing the dice, trying to win a championship now or never. Miami got their "one" so was it worth it? I think so.

2 things I question, in your work of speculative fiction. #1 you say: "The team fails to ever get over the hump and win another championship, but stays in the NBA elite for another year and then settles into the middle of the playoff pack." Hmm...would that happen? Would Whittsit and Allen just let The Blazers stagnate in the middle of the pack for 6 years? Like him or Hate Him Whittsit was a dealer, seems to me even within your speculative alternate history, it is likely moves we could not foresee or predict would be made. Whittsit was a dealer, trader, and a passionate Allen is an owner that makes things happen, together I can't see a half a decade of mediocrity being allowed to happen. Either Whittsit would of made a blockbuster trade, or his lack of character evaluation would scuttle the team to the bottom, but middle of the pack under Whittsit and Allen? I don't see that. More likely Whittsit gets us Kevin Garnett.

#2. Long term success at the price of a single championship? Today, as we have painfully seen this week, long term success is easier said, than done. This team as it is today, only has the potential for long term success. But potential is not a guarantee. I like what we have in Aldridge, Oden and Roy. Plus prospects like Rudy, and players like Sergio and Jack,...Webster, Outlaw...I could go on. But is long term success guaranteed? No. Another reason you take the guaranteed championship if you can get it.

I think peoples reaction will be to defend what we have today, and shudder at your allusions to names like Bonzi, and Rasheed. Make no mistake, I was no fan of the Jail Blazer Era, and I really, really do like where this team seems to be heading. To me, getting a basketball team to championship level is like climbing Everest. If you have the chance to reach the summit, you better do it because you never know what is going to happen and tomorrow you could be heading back to base camp.

"I'll see you in hell, but I won't wave."

by Krang on Sep 12, 2007 11:23 PM PDT reply actions

Championships are overrated

I dunno, I think championships per se are overrated. What can make them wonderful is when the whole community unites behind an underdog, a team that somehow comes to represent the identity and aspirations of the city. I wasn't here back in the '70s, but that's my sense of what that first Blazers' championship was like.

I WAS in SF when the 49ers won their first title, and we were esctatic because the 49ers came from nowhere and seemed like a group of great guys playing a fresh, innovative style of ball that fit the character of the city. No one gave them a chance, but they won it all. That was special.

But if the Jailblazers had won, it wouldn't have been like that. Sure, it would have been great. But would that title have become "an eternal and undying part" of Portland? I don't think so.

by hurryup09 on Sep 12, 2007 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Jail Blazers weren't all Jail Blazers.

Championships have a way of surrounding themselves in a very forgiving light. I do think a Championship would become an undying and eternal part of the franchise and the city, even if it was the team we had in 2000 that won it. Why? Because, Rasheed, Bonzi, Damon aside, most of that team was well liked, and for good reason. Sabonis alone would of become an Icon that would of made the championship glow. Pippen and Steve Smith also had great reputations. The story would not of been Jail Blazers win Championship, but Trail Blazers win Championship.
Infact, in 2000 Rasheed, Bonzi and Damon had yet to write the controversial chapters of their own stories. The community would of embraced the team, and at that point who knows? The only player of those mentioned that I would place bets on crashing and burning would be Bonzi. Winning the championship would of changed the immediate outlook and maybe even the future of some of the players.

"I'll see you in hell, but I won't wave."

by Krang on Sep 13, 2007 12:24 AM PDT up reply actions

Allens Choice, Allens Perspective

Ok can we agree that the one traveling in the time machine would be Paul Allen. So then he gets the choice. When would he return to make the most influencial/powerful decision in his knowledge of existence? With his 2 apparent choices.

A. Return to a injury Stricken, Pot Smokin, Poor Spirited team. With little hope of success to follow.

B. Start with the Right goods in the 2007 draft era and Tweak out the bugs in a new running Franchise.

My guess is that with all the pervious knowledge of what is to happen; he decides to choose Oden/Aldridge/Roy and the Team. He Decides "I really didn't like how everything turned out. I want to effect the Future just a little bit more to step closer to perfection. Closer than any man has"......... Purely spectulation

LOSER-
THE ONE AND DONE

WINNER-
PROLONGED GREATNESS IN HISTORY

by littleharry on Sep 13, 2007 1:54 AM PDT up reply actions

Excellent article

Championships are not necessarily overrated, but winning the division and the conference are way underrated. I've said this before but it still applies. If every team in the league took their turn at winning the championship, it would take 30 years to get through them all. Each team in the league would be screaming at their head office to get it together!

I feel like winning the division is a worthy goal, secondarily winning the conference, and if you happen to have that once-in-thirty-years experience, yes, win the championship. Call my expectations low but winning the division is no slouch of an expectation.

by jamon51 on Sep 12, 2007 11:53 PM PDT reply actions

Agreed

Yes, winning a division is a worthy goal. A lot of things have to go right in order for you to win a championship. There's a considerable amount of luck involved, in particular regarding injuries. But if you build a franchise the right way, so that it can sustain a competitive team over a number of years--as the Blazers seem to be doing--then a division title should be achievable. And that's a great accomplishment in itself. Unless you're in the current Eastern Conference, that is...

But back to the difficulties and uncertainties of getting over that final hump and winning it all. Here would be a tougher question for me than the one posed by Manback: what if this Blazer team won the title on schedule in '09 or '10, but afterwards suffered a series of catastrophic injuries to key players and never contended again. Contrast that with having the team become perennial contenders win division and even conference titles but are snakebit and never quite get over the hump. (Kind of like last year's Suns.)

Which scenario would you choose? A decade of thrilling but ultimately disappointing fandom, or the one great payoff--a championship for a team that the community truly has embraced and rooted on to the top of that "Mt Everett?" In that case, I guess I'd opt for the latter. But it'd be a tough one.

by hurryup09 on Sep 13, 2007 12:10 AM PDT up reply actions

Oops

Mt Everett??

by hurryup09 on Sep 13, 2007 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions

But see

There is only one championship. Every team has just as rabid fans as the Blazers. How are there still fans if the only fulfilling thing is a championship? I think that just having a competitive team (even if you never get a ring) is a fulfilling thing as a fan. Otherwise no-one would watch sports.

by jamon51 on Sep 19, 2007 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions

Great Piece Harry

Really appreciate the effort you put into this piece. I don't think teams should throw everything on a single championship simply because TRUE CHAMPIONS WIN BACK TO BACK TITLES.

by Lou9700 on Sep 13, 2007 12:02 AM PDT reply actions

The 76-77 Blazers...

...Were TRUE champions. They didn't win back to back. Give you 5 bucks if you go up to Maurice Lucas and tell him he isn't a "true" Champion.

"I'll see you in hell, but I won't wave."

by Krang on Sep 13, 2007 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions

Luck

Yeah, that goes back to the luck factor. That team was even better than the championship team, but they got bit by the injury bug. (If any of you never read it, there's a great book about that season, "The Breaks of the Game." Written by a Pulitzer Prizewinner, no less: David Halberstam.)

by hurryup09 on Sep 13, 2007 12:44 AM PDT up reply actions

This is one of the best questions ever

I've wondered before how things would have gone if we did win that championship; I admit I used to lament that meltdown more than I should but nowadays I got a much more positive view on all the bad stupid stuff that happened... after all, it got us to where we're at now.

And I can't remember the last time I was so excited, eager, hopeful about a Blazers team. Definately not this way about the 2000 team, no matter how much I loved them. Although I hate Phil Jackson, he was pretty much correct when he said the Blazers were "the best team money could buy". It had a solid mix of youth (Sheed) and vets (Saboner, Pip), but the enormous weight of STUPID contracts (which were the norm of the late 90's early 00's, but still) and bad attituding prolly woulda caught up to us-- quickly. Even if we had won the whole bowl of chili and spirits remained high for another year, I can't imagine that team challenging for a second title...

At the time, that woulda' been fine. Win an actual championship, beating the evil Lakers along the way, and a few years down the road we gotta eat horrible contracts, police reports, and end up in the lottery for the rest of the decade? Sure, sign me up! I'd be flipping parked cars with the rest of the mob. Without knowing how good things could be now, it would sound like wisdom.

So, hindsight is 20/20. For example, I'm a big fan of Webster still, but I know others ain't... but if we got Paul or Deron then who knows if we woulda got Roy and Aldridge, let alone Oden. Everything had to fall into place "just so" to get where we are at now.

And I like where we are at right now, even before this team has played a single game, than I would have liked to win that 2000 championship. It might be irrational, but that's fandom for ya.

This team can redeem the Blazer name and be one of the best (and most EXCITING) teams for the next decade-- no one and done for these kids. No one pump chumps (as in victory fist pump, of course). It'll take yet more time, but that will be unbelievably fun. This will be a team that is remembered for all time, and not a curiosity. "Oh, they won that year? Wierd, I completely forgot about that..."

Hated Ruben, couldn't stand Damon, never expected to see My Blazers have the worst record in the league... but I honestly can say I wouldn't change a thing.

I know I should wait till we are actually good to have this view, but I am ever hopeful. I am a fan.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Sep 13, 2007 2:14 AM PDT reply actions

Not championship, championships

I think that the main goal is dominance. I'd rather be the perennialy contending Pistons with one (recent) championship than the "flash in the pan" Miami Heat with the same amount.
If my team can't win the title that year, I at least would like them to be the gatekeepers. "You want a title, you have to beat us."
That's my idea of a successful team. Even Dallas, who hasn't won one yet, is a good team and a fun one to watch, ditto for the Suns.~Nathan

Blazer's fan since '84, Currently exiled in Tennessee and North Carolina

by HurraKane212 on Sep 13, 2007 5:12 AM PDT reply actions

That's my sentiment too HurraKane!

by TwoDeep on Sep 13, 2007 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions

a pat on the manback

okay mr. manback, i have to say that's probably the best damon-aluminum foil reference i've ever read. kudos to that (not to mention taking us on a trip back to the days when sportscenter was worth watching). however, i couldn't agree less with most of the responses. i can't imagine depriving the generations of blazer fans who weren't around in '77 of seeing their team not only come back and beat the lakers, but also go on to win a trophy (or as stephon marbury calls it "the shiny stuff"), merely based on the potential of our current team.
instead of the worst moment in blazer history, 2000 would have represented the best moment for many a blazer fan. sure, PA and Whitsitt essentially bought that team, but that was our advantage at the time. LA had bright lights, sunny skies, celebrities, and a storied history, and we happened to have one of the wealthiest men in the world as an owner.
but of course, we didn't win and i couldn't be happier with our outlook etc. etc. yet even if we didn't repeat or even continue to contend, that victory (and a great shot at winning it all) would have been pretty freakin' righteous.

by tree branch on Sep 13, 2007 6:18 AM PDT reply actions

YOu seem to be asking whether...

I'd rather have the bird in the hand as opposed to two that may or may not be in the bush.

I'd take the championship. The future might or might not work out in either case.

by ken @ Blazer's Edge on Sep 13, 2007 6:23 AM PDT reply actions

agree

take the championship. that's the goal. what happens after that is pretty sketchy.

by rburg on Sep 13, 2007 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions

The thought

of losing to the Lakers on national TV turns my stomach so I would take the victory.

However, I'm not sure that your scenario is realistic. Let's say the Blazers win the title that year. Why would they only stay elite for another year? Rasheed Wallace is still getting it done seven years later, injuries are unpredictable so there's nothing to say Jermaine O'Neal wouldn't be healthy, the Blazers would've had at least one draft pick every year to keep the roster fresh and every one loves a winner. Free agents will take a slight discount to play for a title contender (cf Grant Hill). If nothing else, Trader Bob would've done something to keep the roster from stagnating. I'm not saying that the Blazers would've won another title because that's tough to do, but it's equally possible that they could've returned to the conference finals a few more times. Confidence is a big part of sports and there's nothing like blowing a big fourth quarter lead to your hated rivals on national TV to put that seed of doubt in your mind.

As a fan, I want my team to be competitive. Even if they "only" get to the conference finals, but never win, that's better than a string of 20 win seasons with one championship in the middle (cf Florida Marlins).

by torsoheap on Sep 13, 2007 7:09 AM PDT reply actions

I'm not much of a gambler....

...but I'd take the potential dynasty over a "was it all a fluke" 2000 title. I'd say the one victory (most people agree the winner of that series was the winner of the title anyway, so let's just say the one victory) is not worth losing all of our potential. Character and talent? Here's a question-if that team had it's talent and the current team's character in addition to it's own experience, would they have dropped of the face of the fourth quarter? Rasheed said yes. After the Pistons won their first title with him, he stated that they could have won the title easily with the players they had, their were just too many egos on the team.

by MGNNoah on Sep 13, 2007 7:13 AM PDT reply actions

Couple of takes here.

On the general question of how important are championships - I don't know.

I tend toward the idea that as long as my team is competative and at least has a chance of making it to the championship game, I'm happy. Afterall the Blazers of the 90's were exactly that type of team and I loved them.

On the other hand, I also have to agree with Krang about the aura, if you will, that winning a championship brings. As an Oriole and Redskins fan, I have Super Bowl and World Series victories to look back on. As a Maryland grad, winning a National Championship is an unforgetable moment. I guess the person to ask would be a Buffalo Bills fan.

by timg56 on Sep 13, 2007 7:15 AM PDT reply actions

On the alternate history scenerio

I love alt hist. Eric Flint, Harry Turtledove, Rob Conroy, etc.

But I don't see your scenerio as the most likely one. Like torsoheap, I see a better outcome for a Portland team that wins in 2000 and stays together. With Grant, Wallace, O'Neal and Randolph, Whitsett works a trade sending Wallace to Miami for a package that includes their #5 pick (who turns out to be some guy named Wade). Sabonis and Pippen, O'Neal, Wells and Stoudimire, with Daniels, Wade and Randolph coming off the bench, Portland makes it to the Western Conf finals at least twice more. Ruben Patterson is signed and eventually replaces Pippen as the starting SF.

In 2003 - 04 Portland sends Wells and Randolph to Atlanta for Theo and Sharif and draft Josh Howard out of Wake. They also sign undrafted Matt Carroll out of ND to fill out their roster. With a front line of Ratlif, O'Neal and Abdul-Rahim, teamed with Wade & Damon in the back court, Portland once again makes it to the Conference Finals.

They sign free agent center Joel Pryzbilla the next year and take Victor Khryapa with the 26th pick. The team falls off in 04 - 05, making the playoffs but losing in rnd 2. Sharif is moved to the Kings in return for Brian Skinner, Greg Ostertag and some throw-in named Kevin Martin. Ruben gets dealt to the Bucks for Joe Smith.

The following year, Director of Player personnel Kevin Pritchard works a deal with Boston, taking on the albatross contract of LaFrenz in return for their draft pick, which becomes Brandon Roy.

With a roster of Pryzbilla, O'Neal, Howard, Wade and Roy, backed up by Steve Blake, Kevin Martin, Matt Carroll, Victor Khryapa, and Joe Smith, Portland is once again pegged as one of the teams to beat in the west.

by timg56 on Sep 13, 2007 7:53 AM PDT reply actions

You know...

I totally agree that Whitsitt wouldn't have sat around and done nothing with the team after it won the championship. However...I think him doing nothing is more likely than Portland making five or six absolutely brilliant moves, drafting or trading for all of the late round steals of the past five years, etc.

I mean...seriously...are they such great talent evaluators that they would manage to know, when nobody else did, that Kevin Martin and Josh Howard were going to be really good players, and that D-Wade was going to be a superstar? If that's the case, where were these geniuses when it was the real Blazers' turn to pick and they passed on these guys? I think the real fake past future would have been somewhere in between, but I doubt very much that the championship would have transformed the Blazers into a decade-long powerhouse.

by HarryManback on Sep 13, 2007 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions

Well,

alt history is classified as fiction.

And in writing fiction their is the general agreement that the reader has to allow for a certain amount of "suspension of disbelief", plus the write is allowed a certain degree of "literary license".

I took full advantage of both.

by timg56 on Sep 13, 2007 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions

The revised history

You know...I debated whether or not to even put the alternate history into the post, but it seemed more fun that way. I don't think the exact scenario would have played out the way I described it. Some moves would have been made here or there. But I think it's far more likely that the Blazers became a mediocre team than stayed elite for ten years. Bear in mind that in actual history, they DID become a mediocre team. Not sure how much a championship would have changed that (except to maybe keep Jermaine O'Neal in town).

But regardless of whether or not the above scenario could play out as described, I think the question is still valid. Look at it this way...would you rather be Miami, who won a championship and now has D-Wade and a bunch of old men, or Phoenix, which will have been playing at an elite level for probably five or six years when all is said and done, but may never win a championship. Let's say Phoenix never wins it. Would you rather have been a Heat fan during those six years or a Suns fan?

by HarryManback on Sep 13, 2007 8:25 AM PDT reply actions

Heat!

I am all about the rings! On Blazers Fingers!

Those 12 minutes still give me the shivers when I think about it. I would have given quite a bit to have won that game. That evening could have been one of my lasting "best memories" that I would have carried with me to the grave. I still remember nearly every insignificant detail of that afternoon/ evening. To think I could have those memories in a positive light - amazing.

And I do believe that Blazer squad would have been "relevant" for several more seasons. Let's not undervalue the possibility of "maybe keep(ing) J.O. in town."

Fantastic post, by the way. Really, really good.

Ball Don't Lie

by bothteamsplayedhard on Sep 13, 2007 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions

Thanks

I even ran it through the spell checker for y'all.

by HarryManback on Sep 13, 2007 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions

To Go Back And Beat the Lakers?

Would you take a championship in 2000 at the cost of the core that we have today?

In a stone-cold heartbeat.

Yes, winning championships is the point. The only reason these Blazers make me happy is because I feel confident that, at some point fairly soon, they will win a championship. I don't watch sports for the enjoyment of the rebuilding process. I watch them because some day I want my team to be able to claim they are The Best.

by Toast on Sep 13, 2007 8:33 AM PDT reply actions

Lakers factor

I'm really surprised that so many blazersedge readers would opt for the one Jailblazers championship over the promise of perennial contention offered by the current squad. But I have to admit that the Lakers factor tilts the equation a bit. That fateful 4th quarter does still sting.

Alternate histories aside, we should feel reassured that it's now the LA fans' turn to feel our pain. Their precious Lakers are crumbling, and it's only going to get uglier. They can look forward to crushing defeats at the hands of the Portland Trailblazers for years to come. They know that, and it's killing them.

by hurryup09 on Sep 13, 2007 9:58 AM PDT reply actions

Championships are like

the wheels on an airplane. You don't have to see them every minute but if you know they're not going to be there a bunch of people are bailing.

If we had a crystal ball and could tell that the Blazers were never, ever going to win another one the fan base would die...even with nice guys, even with some wins. The reason that people are willing to endure 2000 and after to get what we have now is not trading championships for nice guys, but rather as Hurryup said right above, trading one championship for the chance at one or more ("perennial contention") with a much more likeable team. If people had a straight choice between that one championship in 2000 and a guaranteed none with this team I bet most would take the ring.

I would take the victory for a couple reasons. First that chance doesn't come along very often. We've made the finals only three times in my lifetime. When you're there you do anything to get it. Second it would have legitimized the careers and legacies of a lot of those guys that Harry mentioned: Smith, Grant, J. O'Neal, Sabonis, Damon. You'll notice that even Rasheed got way more positive coverage (for a while anyway) when Detroit won it all. It would have washed away a lot of grief. Third it wouldn't mean the rebuilding process would never come. It just would have been delayed a little and have taken different form.

--Dave

by Dave on Sep 13, 2007 10:09 AM PDT reply actions

To say that only the title matters...

...is like saying that when making love, only the orgasm matters.

by MiledAnimal on Sep 13, 2007 10:29 AM PDT reply actions

Ah yes

You are correct about the experience being much more than that...as blogs like this attest. (On the BASKETBALL side of that analogy, I mean. [cough].) However one can also use the same analogy to say that without said goal in mind the process is not as meaninful. Were it not for those ultimate goals nobody would have a reason to play.

--Dave

by Dave on Sep 13, 2007 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions

Good but not quite

I think the orgasm is still the final goal. Imagine spending twenty years with a partner who had an orgasm every time and you did not.

The journey is as important as the destination but why start a journey without a destination?

If I had an extra hug, I would give it to you.

by tominhawaii on Sep 13, 2007 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions

I could live with that.

When discussing orgasims, I'm of the firm believe that it better to give than receive.

Might be the reason my wife puts up with me.

by timg56 on Sep 13, 2007 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions

Great post

You may have just revealed to me why I don't sit around and fret about that lost championship opportunity. That was quite a ride and I did enjoy aspects of that team: Pippen, Anthony, Sabonis, Smith, Detlef,and Grant were all good stories. Rasheed and Damon hadn't fallen completely from grace yet (at least with me), and Bonzi appeared to possess the talent of Rider without the off-court issues.

But as time revealed the true nature of some of those guys, it made it difficult to be nostalgic for that season and those "good ol' days." Winning a championship that year would have validated the throw a bunch of money and talent together and hope it all meshes approach. I am guessing more teams would be doing that now instead of not signing guys like they did this off-season. The luxury tax probably has more to do with it than the lack of success by the Blazers but I am sure some GMs took notice of the results in Portland.

by tssbro on Sep 15, 2007 8:21 AM PDT reply actions