boyst Posted February 21, 2012 Author Posted February 21, 2012 Thanks for the cleanup mods! So a follow up question is why % of the time is the reporter making the first move or vice versa? Surely it would lack credibility upon many to find out that every day Jim Jimson calls the XYZ Team Name here for a story. And after this guy does how many crumbs are left on the table? I guess my point is that so often during this time of year there are rampant reports of player Q going to team F that never unfold. Where does that crumb turn in to a snowball and when does it go away? First off, where do the crumbs come from?
Delete This Account Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 more often than not it's the reporter making the calls to pry out information. on occasion, there are times when a person will call you to give you a heads up. it doesn't happen that often. in some cases, there's word out there about something going on from a source who's considered somewhat reliable or someone with no direct knowledge of this information, as in the person got it second hand. that's where the reporter checks in with the people who are more directly involved in order to confirm or discredit what he's heard. and the latter -- the discrediting of rumors -- happens more often than not. also, reporters try to check in with people in the know on a weekly, monthly or (when things are breaking) daily basis. these conversations also lead to potential stories, either breaking or something down the road. jw oh, and though i missed it, thanks for the cleanup. But why deliver the thruth in such ambiguous way? As a consumer, this half thruths don't mean much to me because they're so open for different interpretations. i don't understand what you mean by half-truths. the two sides are "far apart" though somewhat ambiguous is an update to the fact that the two sides exchanged offers a week earlier. that both sides are far apart, is an indication that a deal isn't imminent. i could have speculated in the story as to why, but that would lead to further speculation. a person familiar with discussions told me they're "far apart," and that's what i wrote. the whole process is open to interpretation because talks are ongoing. and who knows. but the fact that they're far apart isn't a good sign at this juncture, because they were far apart in December. jw
boyst Posted February 21, 2012 Author Posted February 21, 2012 more often than not it's the reporter making the calls to pry out information. on occasion, there are times when a person will call you to give you a heads up. it doesn't happen that often. in some cases, there's word out there about something going on from a source who's considered somewhat reliable or someone with no direct knowledge of this information, as in the person got it second hand. that's where the reporter checks in with the people who are more directly involved in order to confirm or discredit what he's heard. and the latter -- the discrediting of rumors -- happens more often than not. also, reporters try to check in with people in the know on a weekly, monthly or (when things are breaking) daily basis. these conversations also lead to potential stories, either breaking or something down the road. jw oh, and though i missed it, thanks for the cleanup. i don't understand what you mean by half-truths. the two sides are "far apart" though somewhat ambiguous is an update to the fact that the two sides exchanged offers a week earlier. that both sides are far apart, is an indication that a deal isn't imminent. i could have speculated in the story as to why, but that would lead to further speculation. a person familiar with discussions told me they're "far apart," and that's what i wrote. the whole process is open to interpretation because talks are ongoing. and who knows. but the fact that they're far apart isn't a good sign at this juncture, because they were far apart in December. jw Maybe some time when you feel comfortable you could run us through a process of how you broke - first to report a story. That's a whole different topic, though. The thread is going full circle where I wantedit to lead. Your bait led us to the story then our speculation fed the trap which brings about the discussion that since December there has been no news. Which speculation says is not good news and why a Bills rep was willing to do some spin coverage putting a shadow on this story that could taint the viewpoint later on and remain a better favor in to the organization. But, that is all speculation... It is interesting that prior I wondered if the media played the sources or sources played the media. Now I see it is not that at all. The media stokes the sources/organization which create the bait and follow up cloud of speculation, banter and heated discussions that show up on ESPN.
Beerball Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 more often than not it's the reporter making the calls to pry out information. on occasion, there are times when a person will call you to give you a heads up. it doesn't happen that often. in some cases, there's word out there about something going on from a source who's considered somewhat reliable or someone with no direct knowledge of this information, as in the person got it second hand. that's where the reporter checks in with the people who are more directly involved in order to confirm or discredit what he's heard. and the latter -- the discrediting of rumors -- happens more often than not. also, reporters try to check in with people in the know on a weekly, monthly or (when things are breaking) daily basis. these conversations also lead to potential stories, either breaking or something down the road. jw oh, and though i missed it, thanks for the cleanup. i don't understand what you mean by half-truths. the two sides are "far apart" though somewhat ambiguous is an update to the fact that the two sides exchanged offers a week earlier. that both sides are far apart, is an indication that a deal isn't imminent. i could have speculated in the story as to why, but that would lead to further speculation. a person familiar with discussions told me they're "far apart," and that's what i wrote. the whole process is open to interpretation because talks are ongoing. and who knows. but the fact that they're far apart isn't a good sign at this juncture, because they were far apart in December. jw You are welcome. IF the Bills and Johnson remain far apart what does it tell us about Buffalo's willingness to compete in the NFL? IF they aren't willing to invest $9.4M to keep Johnson for another year, by Franchising him, why are we to believe that they are serious about turning this team around?
papazoid Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Maybe some time when you feel comfortable you could run us through a process of how you broke - first to report a story. That's a whole different topic, though. The thread is going full circle where I wantedit to lead. Your bait led us to the story then our speculation fed the trap which brings about the discussion that since December there has been no news. Which speculation says is not good news and why a Bills rep was willing to do some spin coverage putting a shadow on this story that could taint the viewpoint later on and remain a better favor in to the organization. But, that is all speculation... It is interesting that prior I wondered if the media played the sources or sources played the media. Now I see it is not that at all. The media stokes the sources/organization which create the bait and follow up cloud of speculation, banter and heated discussions that show up on ESPN. sneaky....i don't think he ever said which side of the story his source came from.
Coach Tuesday Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 You are welcome. IF the Bills and Johnson remain far apart what does it tell us about Buffalo's willingness to compete in the NFL? IF they aren't willing to invest $9.4M to keep Johnson for another year why are we to believe that they are serious about turning this team around? Methinks you know the answers to those questions...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Obviously, "far apart" is not a good sign but it could mean 5 million to one person and 10 million to another. It could mean they agree on the total amount of money for the contract but they are far apart on how much of it is guaranteed. It could mean Stevie's people, right now, are still asking for the moon because FA has not hit, and time is on their side, and they are just waiting to see how much the Bills are willing to budge from the number they are at now, knowing they will likely sign (which is IMO what is happening). It's still good reporting and information, because it's something from someone in the know, coming from a reliable reporter -- and leads to good discussion.
Dan Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 1329843095[/url]' post='2386441']You are welcome. IF the Bills and Johnson remain far apart what does it tell us about Buffalo's willingness to compete in the NFL? IF they aren't willing to invest $9.4M to keep Johnson for another year, by Franchising him, why are we to believe that they are serious about turning this team around? Well done! I have no idea what was said, but nice to see the post (which judging by the reactions was well over the line) is gone... as well as all quotes of the post. The mods here are easily the best in the business! Regarding your comment. Exactly. Letting Stevie walk says more about the seriousness of the FO in turning this team around than anything else. It makes no sense to let him walk, period. If Stevie walks, we have to pay an equivalent FA WR similar money and we're still where we are today - 1 really good WR and David Nelson. If the FO office is content or restricted to that going into next year (whether that really good WR is Stevie or a new FA), then there's really not much else to say. BillsVet is right; all us optimists are wrong.
DanInUticaTampa Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 but the fact that they're far apart isn't a good sign at this juncture, because they were far apart in December. jw Agreed that the "far apart" is a bad sign. But does them agreeing to meet at the combine make that any better, or is that meeting really mean very litte? I am sure at the combine, not much can really get done as far as contract talks go, but I think agreeing to talk more would show both sides haven't given up hope. Then again, I might just be clinging to any sign of optimism.
John from Riverside Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Always a valuable member here John...
Green Lightning Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Stay classy TBD. John is a great asset to this board. I've been in the media most of my working life and know a hack from a pro. Warwow is a pro. The use of sources comes down to trust. Does the reporter trust the source and does the reader trust in the reporter. You trust John or you don't. I do and his body of work suggests you should as well.
Fixxxer Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 i don't understand what you mean by half-truths. the two sides are "far apart" though somewhat ambiguous is an update to the fact that the two sides exchanged offers a week earlier. that both sides are far apart, is an indication that a deal isn't imminent. i could have speculated in the story as to why, but that would lead to further speculation. a person familiar with discussions told me they're "far apart," and that's what i wrote. the whole process is open to interpretation because talks are ongoing. and who knows. but the fact that they're far apart isn't a good sign at this juncture, because they were far apart in December. jw Maybe half thruths is not the correct term to make my point, I should have said omitted information. Ok, we know they are far apart, why not say where are they far, in salary? What if Stevie wants what's been reporter (7.5 or 8) but wants crazy guaranteed money? Maybe he wants a 3 year contract and the Bills want to secure his services for more years. I guess, it's just me wanting to know more about this particular situation, hopefully they can sit down at the Combine and reach some common ground.
Delete This Account Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Maybe half thruths is not the correct term to make my point, I should have said omitted information. Ok, we know they are far apart, why not say where are they far, in salary? What if Stevie wants what's been reporter (7.5 or 8) but wants crazy guaranteed money? Maybe he wants a 3 year contract and the Bills want to secure his services for more years. I guess, it's just me wanting to know more about this particular situation, hopefully they can sit down at the Combine and reach some common ground. because the person i spoke to didn't provide figures. in fact, even when numbers have come out, there's been a lack of explanation as to how much Johnson wants guaranteed and how much the Bills are offering. if i got those numbers, i would've reported them. jw
BillsVet Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Regarding your comment. Exactly. Letting Stevie walk says more about the seriousness of the FO in turning this team around than anything else. It makes no sense to let him walk, period. If Stevie walks, we have to pay an equivalent FA WR similar money and we're still where we are today - 1 really good WR and David Nelson. If the FO office is content or restricted to that going into next year (whether that really good WR is Stevie or a new FA), then there's really not much else to say. BillsVet is right; all us optimists are wrong. For the record, I don't want to be right about the Bills not signing SJ. They need to build a team, not replace pieces year in and year out, or what they've essentially done since TD was fired. It takes a lot of good decisions and eventually money when you draft well to maintain a solid core of players. If the team isn't willing to pay SJ, and we don't know right now, then long term how can anyone expect anything to change? It's merely a ride on the Bills tilt-a-whirl, because they'll sign core player and let another hit UFA. And the fun's just getting started because other key players will come up for extensions in the next 2 seasons: Levitre, Wood, and of course FJ. You may not keep them all, but you oughta to get to them before their peak value to avoid paying premium and losing others. Easier said than done though. If they use the franchise tag, well, there should be a long term plan by the beginning of the regular season to retain his services for multiple seasons or they should trade him. Just tagging him to keep him this season isn't satisfactory either.
Fixxxer Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 because the person i spoke to didn't provide figures. in fact, even when numbers have come out, there's been a lack of explanation as to how much Johnson wants guaranteed and how much the Bills are offering. if i got those numbers, i would've reported them. jw I get it now, thanks John.
DanInUticaTampa Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 For the record, I don't want to be right about the Bills not signing SJ. They need to build a team, not replace pieces year in and year out, or what they've essentially done since TD was fired. It takes a lot of good decisions and eventually money when you draft well to maintain a solid core of players. If the team isn't willing to pay SJ, and we don't know right now, then long term how can anyone expect anything to change? It's merely a ride on the Bills tilt-a-whirl, because they'll sign core player and let another hit UFA. And the fun's just getting started because other key players will come up for extensions in the next 2 seasons: Levitre, Wood, and of course FJ. You may not keep them all, but you oughta to get to them before their peak value to avoid paying premium and losing others. Easier said than done though. If they use the franchise tag, well, there should be a long term plan by the beginning of the regular season to retain his services for multiple seasons or they should trade him. Just tagging him to keep him this season isn't satisfactory either. Exactly. Nix said when he first came here he wouldn't spend big in free agency and spend it on its own that played well. We have not spent big in fa, Nd if we don't resign our core players then this front office has not lived up to their word. I am fine not going crazy in fa, but keep our own players that play well is a must
Dan Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 1329871977[/url]' post='2386764']For the record, I don't want to be right about the Bills not signing SJ. They need to build a team, not replace pieces year in and year out, or what they've essentially done since TD was fired. It takes a lot of good decisions and eventually money when you draft well to maintain a solid core of players. If the team isn't willing to pay SJ, and we don't know right now, then long term how can anyone expect anything to change? It's merely a ride on the Bills tilt-a-whirl, because they'll sign core player and let another hit UFA. And the fun's just getting started because other key players will come up for extensions in the next 2 seasons: Levitre, Wood, and of course FJ. You may not keep them all, but you oughta to get to them before their peak value to avoid paying premium and losing others. Easier said than done though. If they use the franchise tag, well, there should be a long term plan by the beginning of the regular season to retain his services for multiple seasons or they should trade him. Just tagging him to keep him this season isn't satisfactory either. I very much understand and agree with your post. I also firmly believe that you and most all posters that routinely rail on the FO, don't want to be right and genuinely want to see the right moves made and the team improve. I have always been optimistic about this team; its just my nature. However, you're right. I see the signing of Stevie as a bell weather mark for this team and FO. Perhaps, I'm wrong... time will tell. But, Stevie is the epitome of what Nix and company have said they want to build this team around. If they can't get him signed, then its hard to believe anything they've said and its nearly impossible to believe they truly want to improve this team. Quite frankly, I'm at the point of being sick of excuses and saying they can't sign him because he demanded too much money is exactly that... an excuse. For now, I guess, this is all a premature discussion. I'll remain hopeful and always be a Bills fan, but I'm not holding my breath by any means.
BillnutinHouston Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) I agree wholeheartedly with the previous poster who characterized these negotiations as being a bellweather for this front office. You either are investing in your own picks who perform (as you say you're going to do), or you are not. Relative to the sum of the entire payroll, not signing Stevie would be pennywise, pound foolish. If Stevie and the Bills can't get a deal done, then if the Bills want to have any credibility going forward they will need to specify exactly what they offered, and make the case that it was very fair and reasonable. For me, this will be the only way to keep me as a customer, and likely the only way to tell the rest of the league (and future free agents) that the Bills are not just the NFL's farm team. Of course, the type of disclosure I'm demanding is also against "club policy", so it's unlikely to happen except through backdoor conversations and selective leaking to the media. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Overdorf has the full weight of the Bills franchise (credibility speaking) on his shoulders right now. Get it done or just admit you can't be competitive. Edited February 22, 2012 by BillnutinHouston
Kelly the Dog Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) I agree wholeheartedly with the previous poster who characterized these negotiations as being a bellweather for this front office. You either are investing in your own picks who perform (as you say you're going to do), or you are not. Relative to the sum of the entire payroll, not signing Stevie would be pennywise, pound foolish. If Stevie and the Bills can't get a deal done, then if the Bills want to have any credibility going forward they will need to specify exactly what they offered, and make the case that it was very fair and reasonable. For me, this will be the only way to keep me as a customer, and likely the only way to tell the rest of the league (and future free agents) that the Bills are not just the NFL's farm team. Of course, the type of disclosure I'm demanding is also against "club policy", so it's unlikely to happen except through backdoor conversations and selective leaking to the media. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Overdorf has the full weight of the Bills franchise (credibility speaking) on his shoulders right now. Get it done or just admit you can't be competitive. I don't think one can make that assessment and be fair to the Bills without knowing what Johnson is actually asking for, and what the Bills are offering. I have no idea what Johnson is asking for, and at this time of the year it is impossible to believe any statement out there from any player or agent or team representative or anonymous source close to either side. It is almost all posturing. It's my opinion that Johnson will be asking for a VERY hefty contract, and it's my opinion that the Bills will eventually sign him. But if his demands are outrageous, even if someone else is willing to pay that amount for him -- take the Stanford Routt example -- it's hard to say that would be a bellwether for the Bills franchise. Edited February 22, 2012 by Kelly the Dog
BillnutinHouston Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 I don't think one can make that assessment and be fair to the Bills without knowing what Johnson is actually asking for, and what the Bills are offering. I have no idea what Johnson is asking for, and at this time of the year it is impossible to believe any statement out there from any player or agent or team representative or anonymous source close to either side. It is almost all posturing. It's my opinion that Johnson will be asking for a VERY hefty contract, and it's my opinion that the Bills will eventually sign him. But if his demands are outrageous, even if someone else is willing to pay that amount for him -- take the Stanford Routt example -- it's hard to say that would be a bellwether for the Bills franchise. Respectfully disagree, obviously. Assuming no deal is struck, all I need to know is what the Bills offered. Doesn't matter much to me what Stevie was asking for. If the Bills' offer was significant, I'll be satisfied that they're trying. The Bills cannot be held responsible for overly greedy demands by an agent.
Recommended Posts