<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 22 2008, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 21 2008, 08:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On that note, I've gotten the distinct sense that some teams seem to use Jonathan Givony to spread misinformation. Maybe it is because he is not a "real" journalist, or maybe it is because they see him as an impressionistic kid who will believe and print anything, and that other teams are guarrateed to read it. But whenever I see a "scoop" on DX along the lines of "a source within team A tells us that they are leaning towards taking player X," and no other news outlet has gotten the same info, I am very, very skeptical and I immediately wonder if they are being used.</div> You heap smart. I agree with you. He was SURE the Nets were going to take Jordan. POSITIVE. I believe the Jordan-to-Nets idea was pushed by his agent...and that the Nets never bought into it. (And there are only three days left for you to revise you dumpy does the mocks, which you can find at http://www.netsdaily.com/blog/?p=455) </div> ha, I'll look it over. There's still that key question that we don't know the answer to: Who, exactly, is calling the shots? For instance, Eric Gordon is the antithesis of a Nets pick--a freshman, short, terrible shot selection, turnover prone, doesn't share the ball, has a reputation for below-average defense. If they take him, it'll be a sign that Kiki is now wearing the pants in the front office.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 22 2008, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 22 2008, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 21 2008, 08:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On that note, I've gotten the distinct sense that some teams seem to use Jonathan Givony to spread misinformation. Maybe it is because he is not a "real" journalist, or maybe it is because they see him as an impressionistic kid who will believe and print anything, and that other teams are guarrateed to read it. But whenever I see a "scoop" on DX along the lines of "a source within team A tells us that they are leaning towards taking player X," and no other news outlet has gotten the same info, I am very, very skeptical and I immediately wonder if they are being used.</div> You heap smart. I agree with you. He was SURE the Nets were going to take Jordan. POSITIVE. I believe the Jordan-to-Nets idea was pushed by his agent...and that the Nets never bought into it. (And there are only three days left for you to revise you dumpy does the mocks, which you can find at http://www.netsdaily.com/blog/?p=455) </div> ha, I'll look it over. There's still that key question that we don't know the answer to: Who, exactly, is calling the shots? For instance, Eric Gordon is the antithesis of a Nets pick--a freshman, short, terrible shot selection, turnover prone, doesn't share the ball, has a reputation for below-average defense. If they take him, it'll be a sign that Kiki is now wearing the pants in the front office. </div> This is the Nets we're talking about. Nobody should be wearing pants.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 22 2008, 03:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 22 2008, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 21 2008, 08:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On that note, I've gotten the distinct sense that some teams seem to use Jonathan Givony to spread misinformation. Maybe it is because he is not a "real" journalist, or maybe it is because they see him as an impressionistic kid who will believe and print anything, and that other teams are guarrateed to read it. But whenever I see a "scoop" on DX along the lines of "a source within team A tells us that they are leaning towards taking player X," and no other news outlet has gotten the same info, I am very, very skeptical and I immediately wonder if they are being used.</div> You heap smart. I agree with you. He was SURE the Nets were going to take Jordan. POSITIVE. I believe the Jordan-to-Nets idea was pushed by his agent...and that the Nets never bought into it. (And there are only three days left for you to revise you dumpy does the mocks, which you can find at http://www.netsdaily.com/blog/?p=455) </div> ha, I'll look it over. There's still that key question that we don't know the answer to: Who, exactly, is calling the shots? For instance, Eric Gordon is the antithesis of a Nets pick--a freshman, short, terrible shot selection, turnover prone, doesn't share the ball, has a reputation for below-average defense. If they take him, it'll be a sign that Kiki is now wearing the pants in the front office. </div> Rod is still calling the shots. He has been at every workout, from what I can tell, flew to Orlando for PreDraft, went to Philly for the Ryan Anderson workout, and will be meeting with the press on the draft (alone) this week. That's not to say there won't be a higher priority put on certain things because of Kiki, but Kiki defers to Rod. And dont forget Frank's input. He has been there as well. Saw a picture on the Maccabi Tel Aviv site of Casspi watching the workout. Frank was standing next to him in a suit...it was Sunday. I think your analysis still mostly holds (and I note you predicted Gallinari if the Nets got a high lottery pick).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 22 2008, 06:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 22 2008, 03:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 22 2008, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 21 2008, 08:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On that note, I've gotten the distinct sense that some teams seem to use Jonathan Givony to spread misinformation. Maybe it is because he is not a "real" journalist, or maybe it is because they see him as an impressionistic kid who will believe and print anything, and that other teams are guarrateed to read it. But whenever I see a "scoop" on DX along the lines of "a source within team A tells us that they are leaning towards taking player X," and no other news outlet has gotten the same info, I am very, very skeptical and I immediately wonder if they are being used.</div> You heap smart. I agree with you. He was SURE the Nets were going to take Jordan. POSITIVE. I believe the Jordan-to-Nets idea was pushed by his agent...and that the Nets never bought into it. (And there are only three days left for you to revise you dumpy does the mocks, which you can find at http://www.netsdaily.com/blog/?p=455) </div> ha, I'll look it over. There's still that key question that we don't know the answer to: Who, exactly, is calling the shots? For instance, Eric Gordon is the antithesis of a Nets pick--a freshman, short, terrible shot selection, turnover prone, doesn't share the ball, has a reputation for below-average defense. If they take him, it'll be a sign that Kiki is now wearing the pants in the front office. </div> Rod is still calling the shots. He has been at every workout, from what I can tell, flew to Orlando for PreDraft, went to Philly for the Ryan Anderson workout, and will be meeting with the press on the draft (alone) this week. That's not to say there won't be a higher priority put on certain things because of Kiki, but Kiki defers to Rod. And dont forget Frank's input. He has been there as well. Saw a picture on the Maccabi Tel Aviv site of Casspi watching the workout. Frank was standing next to him in a suit...it was Sunday. I think your analysis still mostly holds (and I note you predicted Gallinari if the Nets got a high lottery pick). </div> . . . you added Gallinari with your edits. I had never heard of him at that point! Nor did I think that the Nets would miss the playoffs . . .
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 22 2008, 07:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>. . . you added Gallinari with your edits. I had never heard of him at that point! Nor did I think that the Nets would miss the playoffs . . .</div> don't take that the wrong way; I welcomed your input. You clearly were prescient. At the time I didn't have a good handle on the relative skills of the players expected to participate in the draft. However, even then it was clear that many of them would be college freshman, which, as noted, would be a first for the Nets. One reason Westbrook stood out was the fact that he was a rare sophmore, came from a large, strong program, and was noted for his defense--attributes that have been important in the past.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 22 2008, 07:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 22 2008, 07:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>. . . you added Gallinari with your edits. I had never heard of him at that point! Nor did I think that the Nets would miss the playoffs . . .</div> don't take that the wrong way; I welcomed your input. You clearly were prescient. At the time I didn't have a good handle on the relative skills of the players expected to participate in the draft. However, even then it was clear that many of them would be college freshman, which, as noted, would be a first for the Nets. One reason Westbrook stood out was the fact that he was a rare sophmore, came from a large, strong program, and was noted for his defense--attributes that have been important in the past. </div> A good editor can foresee his writer's clear thinking genius, understands his next move ...and then takes it for him.
