The case for the Blazers staying put

With NBA free agent signings now official, it's becoming clear which teams have gotten better, worse, or are standing still. But as this years free agency has shown us, simply signing free agents doesn't equate to a team getting better.

For example, the Lakers got better be replacing Trevor Ariza with Ron Artest in a simple upgrade. Meanwhile, the Clippers got better by trading away Zach Randolph, an example of addition by subtraction (and on the flip side of that deal, Memphis is now worse off with Randolph taking shots away from Rudy Gay and OJ Mayo). Toronto paid more than $50 million for Hedo Turkoglu, but had to renounce 14 players to do it (bad move). And the Pistons signed Ben Gordon, Charlie Villanueva, and possibly Big Baby Davis, and transformed from a bad team to an average team.

And in the middle of all of this is the Portland Trail Blazers, who are still yet to make a move in free agency this offseason.

The only actions the Blazers have taken part in was a courtship of Turkoglu (who they seemingly had, until he bolted for more money in Toronto). Other than that, things have been very quiet on the Blazers' front.

So what now? Well, you have to look at the facts; you have to weigh the Blazers' performance and future against the current free agent moves being made by other teams.

And in reality, the thing the Blazers should do now...

...is nothing.

The Blazers have one of the youngest, most talented teams in the league; a team that will only get better so long as the core is intact. Just look at the past 3 seasons - the Blazers were the worst team in the league in 2005-06, with only 21 wins. Yet since then, the Blazers have improved their win total to 32, then 41, and finally 54 wins last season with a playoff berth. All of that was done by creating a core of young players and letting them develop their talents together.

Why ruin a good thing?

The uneasiness about the Blazers taking this route comes from the uncertainty it brings. It's very rare that an NBA team slowly builds itself into a contender, developing young talent while biding their time before the success arrives. Aside from the San Antonio Spurs, it's an uncommon practice, as most other teams choose to make a big trade or throw money at a marquee free agent in order to quickly change their fortunes. Every year, several different NBA teams acquire a big-name player in the hopes that he will put them into the finals. But really, it only works for two teams every year, with most of those big free agent moves not working out.

The Blazers are in largely uncharted territory, but based on the path they've been traveling on so far, it seems to be the correct course heading.

What the Blazers shouldn't do is look at their lack of free agent moves and panic. Just because other teams are loading up on free agents doesn't mean that they have made themselves better that what the Blazers currently have. Teams are grabbing up anything they can just so they can say they didn't pass up on a sale. But the Blazers already own enough good pieces, and don't need to spend any more on stuff they don't need.

Yes, I was a proponent of signing Turkoglu, but that was because I was more of a proponent of the Blazers signing a piece that could help them, as Turkoglu could. With Hedo off the market, the Blazers shouldn't suddenly lose track of their goal to sign a missing piece in order to sign someone they don't necessarily need.

If there is a free agent out there that make the Blazers better, then they should obviously sign them. But don't sign somebody simply because everyone else is doing it. If everyone else paid $50 million for Chris "Birdman" Anderson, would you do it?

The Blazers should take what they have, realize the potential this team has, and stand pat. Rather than throw millions of dollars at Andre Miller or Brandon Bass, let's focus that money on contract extensions for Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge. Let's see just how much better Rudy Fernandez, Nicolas Batum and Jerryd Bayless can be in their sophomore season. Let's see if Martell Webster can come back from his foot injury and start bombing 3's again. And let's see if Greg Oden becomes the center Blazers fans hope he can be.

The Blazers have done nothing but improve for the past three years, so let's see if the trend continues in year 4. If things go stagnant, they can always go after the big names in the 2010 free agent crop. But for right now, let's see how much better this team can be. Don't mess up the chemistry and talent you have right now in a meaningless attempt to "keep up" with teams that aren't necessarily ahead in the race.

It hasn't been done much before, and it's an uncertain future, but sometimes the biggest rewards are won by taking the road less traveled. That mindset is what defines Portland's basketball team:

Trail Blazers.

Struggling for words on Steve McNair

This past 4th of July weekend, I went out of town to my family's vacation house near Stevenson, WA. As a result, I had no phone reception, no TV, no Internet, and practically no contact with the outside world. Usually, it's always fun to come back into town and see what messages/news I missed, which tend to be only unimportant voicemails or a obscure free agent signing.

What I didn't expect to get upon returning to cell phone reception on Monday was a text message from my friend Anthony sent a day earlier: "Dude! Steve McNair got shot to death!"

There are certain sports figures so notorious that any strange or shocking news about them wouldn't surprise anyone. Steve McNair wasn't on that list. He was a successful MVP quarterback whose career was riddled with injuries, but he never was the subject of much controversy. He quietly went about his business and had a long and productive career.

So to find out that, at 36, he had been murdered, came as a complete shock.

Like any other major sports star's death, the media coverage followed a certain path. There were the initial reports, followed by updates from police as the investigation continued. There were reactions from former coaches and teammates, and sentimental looks back on his career as analysts talked highly of his playing ability.

But after only a few days, the story seemed to have run its course. Sportscenter now led with baseball highlights instead of the McNair story. Sports sections in newspapers pushed the story inside to page D5. Outside the Lines was doing puff pieces on Manny Ramirez's hometown. After the initial wave of news to this story, there wasn't much beyond that.

Last night I was listening to a sports talk radio show, and the host mentioned that, as a radio host, he viewed the McNair death partly as "here's our news story for the next few weeks." He said that while TV simply reports, radio is a medium solely dedicated to discussion, and that the discussion could continue indefinitely on radio. He then proceeded to rehash the same topics that had been beaten into the ground since McNair's death: His toughness, his legacy, and the updates on the investigation.

But this is what happens in the media when a man who had been free on controversy dies.

McNair wasn't a polarizing figure, he wasn't vehemently hated or involved in off-field antics. He was just a good football player who died tragically, and in the media's eyes, sometimes that just isn't as sexy to report on. Media outlets are doing the honorable thing by replaying his highlights and commenting on the great football player that he was, but there's only so much time you can devote solely to that before producers think the story's been told. So after just a few days of this, the media is finding that now, they have to let it go.

With a controversial superstar, the coverage would be endless. Maybe the athlete was once arrested for drugs, maybe he was a clubhouse cancer, or maybe he was vilified by fans for one reason or another. In those cases, coverage of their untimely death would go on for weeks, because after the initial report and reaction, the airwaves and pages would be filled with life lessons learned from his death, and the effect his poor decisions had on him and others.

But in the case of Steve McNair, there are no morals to be learned, or lessons his death can teach us, because his public life was not filled with warning signs or bad choices.

For once, a superstar athlete's death isn't being over-saturated with coverage and messaged. The media is finding out how hard it is to create controversy or unnecessary hype out of more than what the story really is: a tragic death of a good athlete. So, faced with this realization, the media is doing something new: letting a highly publicized story naturally play itself out. There's no speculation of a "secret life of Steve McNair" or the hounding of family members. There is simply a celebration of his life, before eventually letting go.

When a controversial athlete dies, there's no limit to the rampant analysis that permeates the airwaves regarding his life and death.

But when someone like Steve McNair dies, suddenly no one has anything more to say. Which is the way it should be.

"Sources" ruin it for everyone

Earlier today, I read on ESPN that Hedo Turkoglu had agreed to a free agent contract with the Portland Trail Blazers. The ESPN article reportedly got the information from "sources."

After reading this news, which had supposedly been confirmed, I wrote a column about what Turkoglu brings to the Blazers, and what the gamble will mean for the Blazers future.

The time spent on that column, apparently, was all for nothing.

ESPN is now reporting that Turkoglu has ended negotiations with the Blazers. Again, the article cites "sources." The sources aren't named, nor are they identified as being close to the team, the league, or the planet earth. They are simply "sources."

That sort of lazy reporting, spreading false information by not confirming the reports, is an insult to readers and the profession of journalism.

Now, I understand that, in the grand scheme of things, the mis-reporting of a basketball free agent signing is not the end of the world (and I admit to being mad about writing a whole column that is now worthless), but this does bring to light some of the problems with reporting using unnamed sources. I fully understand that journalism is a deadline-driven business where timing is everything and the pressure to break a story is high. But that doesn't excuse reporting something false.

They teach you in journalism classes that all stories need to be confirmed by two sources close to the story. The "closeness" factor is extremely important. If an NBA team signs a free agent, the people who can confirm a story are people high up in the organization who had or saw direct contact with the decision. The receptionist, or an intern cannot confirm the story, because they might not know all the facts. IN the case of the Turkoglu/Blazers story, the "sources" cited didn't know what they were talking about.

I know that journalists will always need unnamed sources if they want to report certain stories. People and organizations are always so desperate to control the flow of information that they will reject comment on a story and instruct other employees to do the same. Sometimes, it is necessary to have someone confirm a story off the record, simply to get the truth out.

But a level of professionalism must be kept, and that means that the use of unnamed sources must not run so rampant that the wrong facts are reported. I understand employees don't want to lose their jobs, so if they must go off the record, the journalist must give the readers something in order to save face: the areas or departments the sources work in, or how high up in the organization they serve. That way, if something wrong does come out, we know where the misinformation is coming from.

It's either that, or wait until you can confirm the story with 100 percent certainty. That might help.

When I was working for the Gonzaga Bulletin newspaper, a breaking story arose right before a deadline. Apparently, a student had been hiding explosive materials in his dorm room, and may have been responsible for a Molotov cocktail found in a parking lot. The Bulletin reporters called anyone close to the investigation, went to a press conference, and even went to the dorm hall in question. The reporters wrote their story based on the information given to them by authorities, specifically citing where they had received their information.

But much of that information turned out to be false. Rather than dismiss this, the Bulletin acknowledged its mistakes, and continued to report the story as it unfolded, citing the sources of new information and explicitly explaining where the incorrect information came from.

That experience proved to be a lesson for all of us on staff - that if we were clear with the readers in our reporting, we remain truthful and credible in the eyes of our readers and the subject of our stories.

But when reporters get lazy, the publishing of mis-information spirals out of control to the point that everyone else follows your lead.

Just because you cite new "sources" after learning of your blunder or re-write your lede after following the blunders of others doesn't make up for bad reporting. If you break the story, you're responsible for what happens if you get it wrong.

Readers deserve better. Fans deserve better. Journalism deserves better.

(And you made me waste a whole afternoon writing that column. Damn it.)

Blazers hope Turkoglu brings a payoff

ESPN is reporting that the Blazers and Hedo Turkoglu have agreed on a deal that will bring the 30-year-old forward to Portland. Turkoglu was looking for a five year deal worth roughly $50 million, and all accounts are saying that the deal with the Blazers will probably be for that amount.

The Blazers had been looking for a veteran. They got one. They were looking for experience. They got it. They were looking for someone to take the scoring load off Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge. Check.

The Blazers got their big-name free agent. Now they need to hope for a payout.

Throughout the entire courtship process the Blazers have had with Turkoglu, I've been surprised at how polarizing of a figure he has been. Not necessarily because of his play on the court, but because of the proposed contract, and whether Turkoglu is worth it.

It's reportedly a five year deal. That's betting a lot on him staying effective for five years. Is a 32-34-year old Turkoglu worth more to the Blazers than developing players like Martell Webster, Travis Outlaw, or Nicolas Batum? If that's the case, the Blazers need to win soon, or else it will all be for nothing.

Patience had been thrown out the window. The Blazers no longer want to sit and wait for the team to get better on it's own anymore. This move was designed to help the Blazers now.

It's a gamble. The Blazers had grown accustomed to beating the odds in recent years with the continued progress of a young team. But this is the first time in recent memory that they're taking such a risk. Kevin Pritchard, Nate McMillan, and company have won with small wagers the past few years, now they're pushing their chips to the center of the table and betting big.

Some call it gutsy. Some gasp. Some call it stupid. And some are thinking "let it ride."

Like all good bets, it's being made after carefully considering the odds and the opponents. The West is still getting tougher, with the Spurs landing Richard Jefferson and the Lakers adding Ron Artest. The Blazers knew they needed to get better, and finally took at look at their roster and their needs in order to decide what necessary steps needed to be taken. Ultimately, Turkoglu was the pick.

General consensus among fans and media is that the Blazers are paying too much, and I happen to agree. Five years and $50 million seems too high for a 30-year-old player with career averages of 12 points, 3 assists, and 4 rebounds per game. It's a huge risk, but the Blazers knew they needed to do something to stay in the game, and weighed the pros and cons.

He averaged nearly 17 points per game, but what about that 41 percent shooting? At 6-10 and 220, he's hard to match up against, but can he tell the difference now between a good opportunity and a forced shot? Can Roy and Aldridge coexist with him?

In the end, Portland knew what they were getting: another piece to the championship puzzle. Let's look at Turkoglu for what he is: a shooter/scorer who can also post up and put the ball on the floor. His 6-10 frame means he can play 3 positions, and he just helped the Magic get to the NBA finals. He's not a superstar, or a dynamic point forward who will facilitate the offense (Point forward? He's not Scottie Pippen. Pip looked graceful and smooth when he handled the ball. Turkoglu's main strategy when handling the ball is to use his size and back it down the court before handing off to someone else in the halfcourt).

Yes they're overpaying for just a piece, but a team on the rise like the Blazers is only a piece away from serious contention. This isn't like the Blazers are going to the roulette table and betting it all on 15, instead, it's like a single hand of blackjack. The Lakers have been winning big all all night, and have a 7 showing. The Blazers have been slowly accumulating chips and now hold a 16. If the Blazers want to play it safe, they should stay, because the odds are against them that the card they'll get is a card they need. But there's a chance the Lakers could be holding a 17, and be in prime position to win. The Blazers need to hit, and take the big risk.

Turkoglu is the Blazers hitting on 16.

The bet may pay off, it may not. That's the chance you take on a gamble like this. The only thing left is to see how it all plays out.

And even if it doesn't work, the Blazers can always go back to the ATM with Paul Allen's PIN number.

A new view from the cheap seats

Excuse me for getting a little nostalgic today, but it's with big excitement that I learned that the guy who gave me my start as a sportswriter just got back in the game.

Let me take you back a few years, to Portland's Franklin High School in 2004. I was but a junior, and a lowly young writer for the Franklin Post, making my living off articles about bell schedule changes.

The man in charge was Geoff Ziemer, editor-in-chief. He also wrote a monthly sports column called the "2-2 Splitter." He was writing about the things I wanted to write about: The Blazers, baseball, the Oregon Ducks. And what made his column so good was that it was so anti-column - he didn't try to riddle it with messages or stir up unneeded controversy, his were columns about supporting the Blazers, or calling on the student body to be pumped up for a football game against our rivals. He just wrote from the mindset of a hardcore, knowledgeable sports fan.

Then in February 2004, the Blazers traded Rasheed Wallace, and, on a whim, I wrote my own column saying goodbye to the volatile yet talented star. I submitted it to Geoff, and being the Rasheed fan he is, he decided to publish it. After that, he gave me the reins as the sports columnist for the remainder of the year, and the rest, for me, is history.

Well, after a long hiatus in which he spent his years at the University of Oregon still passionate about his hometown teams, Geoff is back. He just started up his own Web site, The 300-Level, dedicated to following and analyzing the Blazers. His main page, The Z Post, is written as if it went straight from his thoughts to the page. So please, go check it out.

And for you Eugene-natives, you might already be familiar with his music. I recommend "Hip-Hop Journalism," a song dedicated to Oregonian sports columnist John Canzano.