Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part LXXVII - Holding a Lead for Dummies (Info in OP)

[bobbop]

Arizona may emerge as a unlikely destination for DeAngelo. Coyotes offense is non-existent, they have several expiring contracts on the back end (some of which they would be willing to move) and the management of the team has changed completely since Tony left the desert. Bill Armstrong, the new GM has picked up several players on buy low contracts. This would be a little different but in keeping with his propensity/need to buy low. Checking with sources.

 

[Avery16]

See but aren't you doing the same thing, just on the opposite side of the argument here? Couldn't it be possible that Herman was given bad info AND the info was false? Why does it have to be either:
A) Herman is a liar and an idiot AND ADA didn't do this
Or
B) Herman is a saint AND ADA did this

Why not
C) Herman is a saint AND ADA didn't do this

I assume its D) reporter skipped the vetting because he personally wanted to believe the info.

 

[Edge]

If there's one thing to be learned from all of this, it's why there is such a hesitation to put information out there in a public setting. It's why you have posters who really, really try to verify things with multiple sources before posting. As we can see, when you get it wrong, it all comes tumbling down.

You have to be damn sure of two things:

1. The information is accurate.

2. The information is worth repeating.

 

[RGY]

So what are we looking at for potential trades?

Reeves + Holden + a pick for ADA with some retention?

Yandle with $1.5MM retained for ADA?

Bennett + something (cap dump/Kylington?) for ADA with retention?

Backes and a mid round pick for ADA?

I dont see Vegas moving Reaves. I think they love him. The same way we would love him.

im ok with any of those options. We can find use for all of them.

 

[Kovalev27]

If there's one thing to be learned from all of this, it's why there is such a hesitation to put information out there in a public setting. It's why you have posters who really, really try to verify things with multiple sources before posting. As we can see, when you get it wrong, it all comes tumbling down.

You have to be damn sure of two things:

1. The information is accurate.

2. The information has to be worth repeating.

And 3. If it’s racially charged and going to hurt your kid use a little more discretion than you would about a trade rumor

 

[Zats Muccarello]

Multiple internal sources confirmed the puck story. If Herman was fed false info by the Rangers thats all the more reason to not drag him through the mud.

This is BS. Show a source if you're going to make bold claims like this

 

[bobbop]

Taking a guy's first goal puck in the NHL would be on the same level as taking someone's wife. With apologies to Al Iafrate, that simply doesn't happen in hockey. I had the honor of holding several first goal pucks in the minors and I can tell you that is sacred ground. I saw players tear up when I gave them their first puck.

It was a preposterous story to begin with and sources or no sources, it made absolutely no sense.

 

[Avery16]

Ask yourself how many times Herman or Shapiro broke a news story? The answer is never. And there’s a reason. They don’t know anything. They barely know more than the average hard core fan. So to decide they’re going to be the ones to break this garbage story? They deserve all the anger directed at them

The "evidence" he cited was video of Deangelo collecting the puck. With nothing else beyond anonymous sources. Very irresponsible to put those dots out there and ask for readers to connect them. There's more ethical reporting on Facebook.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

The problem with Herman's reporting is that he went out on a limb on a story that supported his bias against Deangelo. Given that he's been critical of Deangelo, he should have gone the extra mile in confirming any information he received. He didn't, and he got burned.

Journalism, even sports journalism, demands more credibility than what happened this week.

He should have gone that extra mile even if he didn't have anything against DeAngelo.

When you're making a serious allegation against someone, you better be 10000000% sure that your info is iron clad.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Herman hasnt tweeted because you people dragged him so hard for reporting something he knew to be true. People absolutely gobbled up the BS that Rangers management fed them to preserve ADA’s trade value and absolutely destroyed Herman. This fanbase is a pathetic collection of smoothbrained mutts. Sorry had to get that out. If you’re in any way defending Deangelo in this situation, and choosing to believe news that absolves him in any way, theres not much helping you.

People read and believe what they want to believe. It's more baffling to me that people are willing to just believe what a fan blog writes without anyone (not 1 single person) confirming it. It all rests on "Anonymous sources"

So I guess EVERYONE is lying now, except a fan blog?

 

[Fitzy]

So roster building question- does anyone know Brendan Smith's status?

Have to imagine he's be out, and wonder if Johnson will be ready on Thursday or if they will go with someone else

 

[Kovalev27]

So roster building question- does anyone know Brendan Smith's status?

Have to imagine he's be out, and wonder if Johnson will be ready on Thursday or if they will go with someone else

La la land

 

[Dr Quincy]

That’s what Herman/Shapiro said on Twitter.

I understand that's what they said. I'd just say, I've learned not to take everything I've read on Twitter to be 100% objective truth.

I think it’s likely they just got bad info. I highly doubt they made it up completely. Did they really get it from multiple places? Were those places highly correlated i.e. rooted to the same original source and thus all contaminated? Who knows.

However they were the first outlet to put this misinformation out there and deservedly are facing the consequence of that. They are the only reason that is out in the world. Simple odds would indicate there’s a reason for that.

It's possible they got burned intentionally.
It's possible that there was a miscommunication.
It's possible their source(s) thought they were being truthful but actually didn't witness the event and were reporting 2nd hand info.
It's possible that they had 1 source and used "multiple" as a cover to print a story they thought was a good story.
It's possible they had no sources.... see Stephen Glass, Patricia Smith, Mike Barnacle and Kevin Cullen for examples of far more accepted, accomplished, awarded mainstream journalists who did something like that.

Which gets back to my question, given all those possibilities (and others I probably missed): How can anyone say that multiple sources confirmed the story?

 

[LaffyTaffy]

Its funny that you all assume its racially charged. The stories to come out about Tony were all related to him bullying rookies. Keeping the puck from KAM was just another stupid hazing prank. It doesnt necessarily have to be racist.

 

[LaffyTaffy]

It was never revealed which player leaked the story

 

[duhmetreE]

People read and believe what they want to believe. It's more baffling to me that people are willing to just believe what a fan blog writes without anyone (not 1 single person) confirming it. It all rests on "Anonymous sources"

So I guess EVERYONE is lying now, except a fan blog?

Confirmation bias.

you really can tell who's being objective and who's driven by their 'narrative'.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Option C is what i said when i mentioned the possibility that the Rangers fed him false info on purpose. Which is why im defending him. Theres isnt a scenario where Adam made it up.

.

Of course there is.

You may think it unlikely. You may be right. But we've seen news media outlets make up sources, rig cars to explode and pretend they didn't, use fake documents created by technology that didn't exist until 20+ years after the supposed creation of the document, make up nonexistent people, spread conspiracy theories, publish things they knew were untrue and lots of other ethical violation.

Maybe Herman is not that kind of journalist. Maybe you know him and vouch for him.

But yeah, it does happen and for readers it's better to consider all the options about why the reporter printed something that seems to be flat out wrong then to simply say "Nah he wouldn't make it up."

 

[Trxjw]

The puck thing feels like a situation where a small-time blogger tried thought they had a big time scoop but got sloppy in their rush to be the first to print. Was he fed bad info from multiple sources because the Rangers were checking for leaks? Did he editorialize? Did he fill in the gaps in 3 somewhat similar stories to create the 'real' story? Impossible to tell at this point but they put the nail in their own coffin when they took a public stance defending their story that the Rangers later denounced.

 

[RangersFan1994]

So what are we looking at for potential trades?

Reeves + Holden + a pick for ADA with some retention?

Yandle with $1.5MM retained for ADA?

Bennett + something (cap dump/Kylington?) for ADA with retention?

Backes and a mid round pick for ADA?

id take Bennett deal, as he serves a purpose and is still young but been in the league for a while..

 

[Kovalev27]

Its funny that you all assume its racially charged. The stories to come out about Tony were all related to him bullying rookies. Keeping the puck from KAM was just another stupid hazing prank. It doesnt necessarily have to be racist.

first off

IF reality is he was bullying multiple people and that already appears to be the case since he was bullying georgiev, and I’ve heard that goes back to their Hartford days, that is not what Herman wrote.

He specifically named Miller and we all know why. So if Herman chose to use Miller for his article which is exactly what he did, knowing it wasn’t just Miller, it was a lot of guys, it’s even more classless on him to try and tie that to his agenda which everyone knows he already had

 

[Edge]

Its funny that you all assume its racially charged. The stories to come out about Tony were all related to him bullying rookies. Keeping the puck from KAM was just another stupid hazing prank. It doesnt necessarily have to be racist.

The bullying rookies aspect was also inaccurate.

There were reports of ADA creating discomfort with his actions, maybe even being less the sensitive and aware of his timing and approach. But the whole bullying thing tied to Miller and the puck was always strange to me. Those aspects never made sense and didn't come up from anyone I talked to.

So in that sense, it feels like something that started with a kernel of truth, but then had stuff added to it and snowballed into something different.

 

[duhmetreE]

So what are we looking at for potential trades?

Reeves + Holden + a pick for ADA with some retention?

Yandle with $1.5MM retained for ADA?

Bennett + something (cap dump/Kylington?) for ADA with retention?

Backes and a mid round pick for ADA?

I'd possibly do 1.
I'd definitely do 3. It makes the most sense

 

[NYR Viper]

@Edge do you think news on an ADA trade will be something that happens quickly (within the next few days) or will linger

 

[NYR Viper]

I'd possibly do 1.
I'd definitely do 3. It makes the most sense

Agreed, so far those are the ones I would prefer but whether they are on the table...

I wouldn't hate bringing Yandle back either honestly. As a 3LD, if Florida retained some money

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I understand that's what they said. I'd just say, I've learned not to take everything I've read on Twitter to be 100% objective truth.


It's possible they got burned intentionally.
It's possible that there was a miscommunication.
It's possible their source(s) thought they were being truthful but actually didn't witness the event and were reporting 2nd hand info.
It's possible that they had 1 source and used "multiple" as a cover to print a story they thought was a good story.
It's possible they had no sources.... see Stephen Glass, Patricia Smith, Mike Barnacle and Kevin Cullen for examples of far more accepted, accomplished, awarded mainstream journalists who did something like that.

Which gets back to my question, given all those possibilities (and others I probably missed): How can anyone say that multiple sources confirmed the story?

100% agreed. It’s ridiculous.