Insider information discussion - Contain no insider info

[Kelly the Dog]

Just opening this up for discussion. It's an interesting topic.

Let's just say hypothetically a poster here gets some insider info from a good source.

1) He says, for example, EJ is going to be traded. Or I heard EJ is going to be traded.
2) That information at the time is solid. The Bills agreed in principle to the trade although it's not public
3) Something happens before the actual occurrence to screw it up
4) The trade is not made.

Do you consider that insider info to be "wrong?" Because the trade didn't happen and the information didn't turn out to be true.

Or do you consider that insider to still be right, because at the time it was true and something unforeseen came out of nowhere to derail it.

I see both sides. Personally I don't think that info is wrong. It was right at the time it was made, the Bills themselves believed it would happen and prepared for it to happen and then something put a wrench in plans.

Discuss.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Kelly the Dog

[ToGoGo]

Insider info is insider info. No matter what you do, things change. I believe Leroi on Fred Jackson. Then Pegula stepped in.

 

If I told you that I might break up with my girlfriend (and I honestly planned on it), and you told people, and then I decided that me and my girlfriend should give it another go, are you not an insider?

[JÂy RÛßeÒ]

Depends how it's presented I guess. But the pack mentality of some posters here and their mad desire to discredit such possessers of inside info will soon dissuade them from providing it, which is a detriment to the community.

[NoSaint]

"the team is looking to trade EJ and has a deal on the table they think is going to work out"

 

is a whole lot more accurate even in event that it doesnt. and a spot where either A) track record, B) separate reports confirming, or C) an explanation that makes sense would go a long way in helping

[Captain Hindsight]

Depends how it's presented I guess. But the pack mentality of some posters here and their mad desire to discredit such possessers of inside info will soon dissuade them from providing it, which is a detriment to the community.

 

Yeah. I usually try not to jump on anybody if they offer inside info. I may say "I'm not sure that will happen" but I really try not to call them out. Unless of course its something ridiculous like an injured LB for a top 5 back

[Kelly the Dog]

"the team is looking to trade EJ and has a deal on the table they think is going to work out"

is a whole lot more accurate even in event that it doesnt. and a spot where either A) track record, B) separate reports confirming, or C) an explanation that makes sense would go a long way in helping

While that may allow yourself an out, I can see where that statement is less accurate at the time it was made than "The Bills are going to trade EJ." If you asked Doug Whaley at the same time the post was made, and he was able to be honest, he wouldn't say "we are looking to trade and hope it works out," he would say, "Yep. We are trading EJ."

 

Now, granted, if it wasn't as much a done deal as they expected, and other things had to happen in order for that deal to take place, then I agree with you. You couch it in a way like you described.

[Coach Tuesday]

Link?

[NoSaint]

While that may allow yourself an out, I can see where that statement is less accurate at the time it was made than "The Bills are going to trade EJ." If you asked Doug Whaley at the same time the post was made, and he was able to be honest, he wouldn't say "we are looking to trade and hope it works out," he would say, "Yep. We are trading EJ."

 

Now, granted, if it wasn't as much a done deal as they expected, and other things had to happen in order for that deal to take place, then I agree with you. You couch it in a way like you described.

i guess it depends on where things fall. if its far enough along that the teams are talking 100%, odds are the poster gets some sort of backup from the press along the way. similar to the "freddy to be cut" thread here - i think it was an accurate assessment and we heard from several "in the know, with reputations" it sounded pretty likely. i wouldnt hit the OP with any questioning on that one. as opposed to leroi with the "ej to be traded day 3 of FA" being a totally different situation and both may fall under your umbrella here

[K D]

One of Leroi's predictions was that we will go after Jake Locker. I'd be curious to see if that comes to fruition today

[Nanker]

So they're not going to trade Kiko after all?

[ToGoGo]

Depends how it's presented I guess. But the pack mentality of some posters here and their mad desire to discredit such possessers of inside info will soon dissuade them from providing it, which is a detriment to the community.

 

They don't like that somebody else is getting props and attention.

[NoSaint]

One of Leroi's predictions was that we will go after Jake Locker. I'd be curious to see if that comes to fruition today

havent heard any linking of the team to the player the last couple days. we will see.

[Kirby Jackson]

I think that it depends on how it is phrased and who it is coming from. Leroi (for example) has proven to have a source. There are a few others here who have provided info as well. That doesn't mean that things always play out as planned. If phrased correctly "the Bills would like to..." they deserve the benefit of the doubt. When someone says "____ will happen" and then it doesn't, their credibility takes a hit. We should give people the benefit of the doubt or they will stop sharing the info.

 

In addition people with info can rarely give their source. It doesn't mean that it isn't true it just means that they will stop getting info if they reveal it. We don't need to attack them for it. It will either play out as they said or it won't.

[HalftimeAdjustment]

Insider info is insider info. No matter what you do, things change. I believe Leroi on Fred Jackson. Then Pegula stepped in.

 

Except Leroi has (kind of) denied that happened and still insists Fred will be a cap casualty. So the jury is still out.

[The Big Cat]

If someone jumps the gun on information that isn't yet finalized, I question both their motivation and their juice. Any "insider" wouldn't bolt to the internet with half-baked murmurs, IMO.

[BuffaloHokie13]

One of Leroi's predictions was that we will go after Jake Locker. I'd be curious to see if that comes to fruition today

The Locker portion seemed to be his opinion, but I guess we shall see

[ToGoGo]

While that may allow yourself an out, I can see where that statement is less accurate at the time it was made than "The Bills are going to trade EJ." If you asked Doug Whaley at the same time the post was made, and he was able to be honest, he wouldn't say "we are looking to trade and hope it works out," he would say, "Yep. We are trading EJ."

 

Now, granted, if it wasn't as much a done deal as they expected, and other things had to happen in order for that deal to take place, then I agree with you. You couch it in a way like you described.

 

Exactly. "Insiders" are not men in black type characters with suits and briefcases. They are regular dudes who are friend of a friend, or are related to one of the 20 or so people that have access to info in the organization. They get pieces of info like "we don't really like EJ, we're probably going to cut him". They don't get really accurate info.

 

Honestly, I think we should be happy with scraps and crumbs of insider info, because we get an idea of what's really going on, and it gives us a step up on the media.

[billsfan1959]

The best laid plans (schemes) of mice and men...

 

NFL player movement around the time of free agency and the draft is always dynamic and can change instantly, dependent upon any one or more of a number of factors. Anyone that has access to insider info and decides to share it on this board should always feel welcome to do so. If it comes to fruition, fine. If not, that is fine as well. If the credibility of any given poster, in regard to inside info, becomes suspect, then ignore it, take it with a grain of salt, etc...

 

IMHO, what shouldn't happen are attacks from other posters. Debate is always good; hostile, condescending, confrontational posts are not. I think most posters here know the line not to cross.

[NoSaint]

 

They don't like that somebody else is getting props and attention.

i cant speak for everyone but i know im one that will question someone and discuss track record, and if the assertion even makes sense.

 

just as getting good information makes the board a better place, getting bad info cloaked as insider makes it worse. if you are sitting at a bar and the guy next to you said "i heard from a source that we are doing......" id venture you would ask "really, what kind of source?!?" or if it didnt make sense or contradicted existing info ask for more explanation.

[FireChan]

Just opening this up for discussion. It's an interesting topic.

 

Let's just say hypothetically a poster here gets some insider info from a good source.

 

1) He says, for example, EJ is going to be traded. Or I heard EJ is going to be traded.

2) That information at the time is solid. The Bills agreed in principle to the trade although it's not public

3) Something happens before the actual occurrence to screw it up

4) The trade is not made.

 

Do you consider that insider info to be "wrong?" Because the trade didn't happen and the information didn't turn out to be true.

 

Or do you consider that insider to still be right, because at the time it was true and something unforeseen came out of nowhere to derail it.

 

I see both sides. Personally I don't think that info is wrong. It was right at the time it was made, the Bills themselves believed it would happen and prepared for it to happen and then something put a wrench in plans.

 

Discuss.

Why not just say, "I heard a trade is on the table for EJ and it is not done yet?"

 

That way, you don't have to be proven wrong. The "inside sources" are posted as facts and assurances.