Comments on: My mea culpa for Friday’s Joe Dumars post

By: Laser

Laser — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:14:31 +0000

1) it’s an opinion blog. i’ll admit some people assume you’ve got more inside information than you really do, but i don’t think PistonPowered misrepresents itself in the slightest. i’m more interested in your opinions than in wishy-washy retractions of same, and when you and i have strong opinions on a matter that’s in precise alignment, i bet 99 times out out of 100 we’re right.

2) interpreting this one comes down to reading between the lines. it’s something we have to do with incomplete information, AND it’s something dery, langlois and dumars did on record, because they’re all basically on the same page. we’re just plain right on this one.

these three guys know that there are no serious trade discussions going on. joe deliberately misrepresented this on air. end of story.

By: Dan Feldman

Dan Feldman — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:26:46 +0000

Laser, I interpreted the audio the exact same way you did. And I still believe that's the correct interpretation. But I think there's room for error.

Langlois asked, "So there's nothing?" Nothing what? "Nothing in the pipeline" would mean we're correct. But what if it's "nothing imminent"? That would give Dumars leeway for answering different questions. Remember, Dery's question was about being "close." I think there's a substantial difference between "close" and "imminent."

Like I said, I still think I'm write. But without knowing what Langlois meant and how Dumars took the question, my accusations went too far.

By: Dan Feldman

Dan Feldman — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:21:38 +0000

JK, Laser, there is no way that was intentional. None at all.

By: Dan Feldman

Dan Feldman — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:20:36 +0000

Dave, to be fair, it took a couple years to learn the Billups trade wouldn’t jumpstart the new era like Dumars hoped.

By: Dan Feldman

Dan Feldman — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:18:45 +0000

Matt, after the trades, I e-mailed Patrick about why the Pistons didn’t make a similar trade to your suggestion. For one, the Magic’s system is predicated on 3-point shooting, an area where Arenas and Richardson outshine Hamilton Prince. Plus, as Patrick pointed out, the Magic want stars. Arenas and Richardson are stars. Hamilton and Prince aren’t.

By: Dan Feldman

Dan Feldman — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:12:45 +0000

Aaron, we don’t hold ourselves to different standards because of our medium. I said things too strongly for not knowing for certain whether my opinion was valid.

By: Patrick Hayes

Patrick Hayes — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:36:03 +0000

And as for Dery, I have no idea why Dumars was upset at the question. But, since it was on the Pistons’ show, and Dery is not really a “journalist” in his role in that interview, maybe it’s possible that asking about trades is a no-no and Dumars was put on the spot?
I have no idea. That’s pure speculation on my part. But I do know that NBA players and execs rarely go on the radio or TV to do interviews without okaying what questions are and are not off limits.
That would explain why Dumars may have been miffed at being asked the question, but it doesn’t explain why he gave such a strong answer to it on the radio. Him just saying, “I’m talking to teams every day,” is honest and it doesn’t doesn’t lead fans to believe anything is necessarily brewing, the way saying, “Two guys just told me they have to go talk to their owners and see if that will work.” That makes it seem like something is on the verge of happening or at least has the potential to happen.

By: Patrick Hayes

Patrick Hayes — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:31:59 +0000

@Laser:
Judging by Pistons.com having the absolute least search engine friendly headlines of any site I’ve ever read (Some examples: “Big weekend looming” or “Signature win” or “Stunned silence”), I think it’s just as likely that whoever is in charge of getting content online isn’t that attentive. I’ve worked with a lot of veteran print journalists and, god bless them, it wouldn’t shock me if any of them poorly edited an audio file and posted it online, so although the conspiracy theory is fun, I’m inclined to believe it was more sloppiness than a concerted effort to carry out what you suggest.
And as you say, at least Dan posted something, regardless of whether he went too strong or not. To me, it’s a legit story that no other outlet wrote about.

By: Laser

Laser — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:43:36 +0000

one more thing: when dumars answered langlois, he said: “i talked to matt afterwards, and i said, ‘matt, you’ve got everyone asking me if a trade is imminent…’” which is complete bullshit and unfair to dery. i don’t know the exact wording of dery’s question, but i’m certain it didn’t force joe to be intentionally deceptive. this is on joe, not dery. no matter how you slice it.

and the fact that he even took dery aside and complained implies dery did something “wrong” and is probably very telling about how our trade prospects really look. and it’s not good. so “not good” that it wouldn’t take a great leap to assume that the chances are absolutely non-existent and everybody close to the organization knows it. why else would a question about trade possibilities, which are on absolutely everyone’s mind, be “off-limits?”

i have a second theory that the audio was intentionally leaked so people would leave joe alone about trades. get the word out that no trades are on the way and then make the clip go away quietly. it’s just too weird that after an interview ends, keith langlois keeps the tape going while asking a single “background” question in a similar Q & A style… then it’s edited improperly and posted. i think we can rule out “oversight,” so that leaves just “sabotage” and “intentional leak.”

By: Laser

Laser — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:27:39 +0000

glad we’re on the same page with the dery issue, since it’s something i had to put together without having heard the actual audio. i consider myself a pretty intuitive guy, and that’s the only interpretation i could imagine. that said, joe could have said: “i’m in constant contact with the league, but we have nothing imminent.” so i’m 100% behind feldman’s initial post, and i wish he never second-guessed anything. dumars was deliberately misleading, and feldman’s initial thought were perfectly justified. this is an opinion blog, after all.