McKenzie speculates that Stamkos will end up in Buffalo

[DeleteThisAccount]

thanks for stopping by, john.

 

hoss, i'd missed your original comments directed toward JW. some of what you said was intemperate and needlessly ad hominem.

 

that said: there was a lot of chatter here (and elsewhere), john, about how mckenzie had laid out a case for stamkos to the sabres. for a while, we were lacking context on the how, why, where those statements were made. eventually, someone here pointed out that bob was essentially asked to take the position and support it. that pumped the brakes quite a bit, obviously.

 

it looks like your tweet came at a time when people were susceptible to being further inflamed on the "stamkos to sabres a strong possibility!"

 

add in the fact that mckenzie had said something about it, and the internet was off to the races. for a while.

 

were i you, i would've issued a mild mea culpa for inadvertently adding to any momentum that the misinformation had gained.

 

not sure why i needed a mea culpa. the point is, the Sabres haven't ruled out taking a run at Stamkos when/if he becomes available in free agency according to the person i spoke to. and, the way Bob laid out the landscape, it's one the Sabres hope they can use as a selling point.

 

jw

[That Aud Smell]

not sure why i needed a mea culpa. 

 

because the way the 140-character world works, there were people out there (me included) who were mistakenly reading your Tweet about what mckenzie had said as referring to something in the nature of a sourced insight (EXCITING!), rather than a hypothetical he was called on to defend (less exciting). i understand that you did not intend it in that way; it's just that a lot of people understood it in that way. you'd certainly come off as a gracious, bigger person if you were to have gone that route ("sorry, folks, if it was at all unclear what i was saying!"). but maybe i'm being naive -- maybe putting that sort of thing out there just makes life more difficult for a journalist on the Twitter.

 

glad to see that you survived the Grammys, btw. at least the kendrick and hamilton interlude was worthwhile.

the Sabres haven't ruled out taking a run at Stamkos when/if he becomes available in free agency according to the person i spoke to. 

 

this is good stuff, btw(2). also: this terrifies and thrills me.

[WildCard]

Honestly, do teams ever rule out anything? 

[Hoss]

Arguably. I only intend that to be a recognition that he's an AP journo with actual sources who's appearing here under his real-life identity. It's a value-add to the community.

JW PLEASE READ THIS POST AS IT IS MEANT AS CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM AS YOUR ROLE HERE AS A POSTER

 

I do not feel JW has added any value to this community. He isn't going to sneak in any good sourced insights that he hasn't already shared publicly or at least hasn't as far as I have seen. He spent most of his recent visit to this board attacking and battling GoDD. I'm sure there's areas of the game he understands more than many of us so if he engaged in those discussions in a non-confrontational manner it would be an addition. To this point he hasn't.

If I just thanked him for being an AP journalist entering this board without considering the content he has added to this point it'd be a disservice to those who have been run out of here despite more meaningful contributions.

[DeleteThisAccount]

This just made everything ten times worse. Me responding to you is making a mistake because, due to your mildly well-known name as a reporter, everybody will back you up...

But your report makes absolutely no sense. You say McKenzie has a good lay of the land regarding the Sabres/Stamkos discussion. Bob comes back DIRECTLY TO YOU and tells you he isn't saying anything about a Sabres/Stamkos discussion. It was essentially a game show. Based on your brief breakdown of the discussion a more appropriate tweet would've excluded any connection from the Sabres to Stamkos as nothing related to the Sabres was being reported by McKenzie. Your tweet indicates that what he said on TSN was an example of his grasp on the situation surrounding Stamkos AS IT RELATES TO THE SABRES.

 

I'm sure Bob McKenzie has as good a grasp on Stamkos as anybody outside of Stamkos' life and Tampa Bay.

 

Also nobody here said you said it was a done deal. Don't get your Twitter battles mixed up with what's going on here. The person that persistently claimed you did was a fool for doing so and your badgering/quote tweet bullying of him only made him look more foolish.

 

The initial tweet is irrelevant to the discussion because the discussion is specifically about the Bob McKenzie tweet. And you say you only credited Bob because he started the conversation but then the conversation you represented in your post is exclusively about Bob McKenzie.

 

I think you missed on this one.

 

 

And your long attack on GoDD probably would've gotten a suspension at least for many. But I don't actually think you'd be banned. My comment was about somebody saying my post about you could be ban worthy. Neither of us should be banned for our comments, but if one of us would be the other certainly crossed whatever imaginary line is drawn.

 

 

I value you as a reporter in Buffalo sports. One of the very select few I think has legitimate sources and is willing to go to the dirty places for a small scoop (I know this to be true). But I think you're just as grumpy as the rest and far too condescending/defensive with those who know far less than you. It's a big world with a lot of people. There are few shared experiences between certain people so shaming them on twitter by making their ignorance public instead of just ignoring it is wrong.

 

ah, let's go over this point by point and i'll try not to use capital letters:

 

"This just made everything ten times worse. Me responding to you is making a mistake because, due to your mildly well-known name as a reporter, everybody will back you up...

But your report makes absolutely no sense. You say McKenzie has a good lay of the land regarding the Sabres/Stamkos discussion. Bob comes back DIRECTLY TO YOU and tells you he isn't saying anything about a Sabres/Stamkos discussion. It was essentially a game show. Based on your brief breakdown of the discussion a more appropriate tweet would've excluded any connection from the Sabres to Stamkos as nothing related to the Sabres was being reported by McKenzie. Your tweet indicates that what he said on TSN was an example of his grasp on the situation surrounding Stamkos AS IT RELATES TO THE SABRES."

 

yes, Bob tweeted that this came from a quiz show. and then, after i explained to him the genesis of my 2 tweets, Bob responded: "all good, John. I just saw people saying I "reported" something and the Quiz is a long way from a report."

note, i never said that Bob "reported" anything.

 

"I'm sure Bob McKenzie has as good a grasp on Stamkos as anybody outside of Stamkos' life and Tampa Bay."

 

yes.

 

"Also nobody here said you said it was a done deal. Don't get your Twitter battles mixed up with what's going on here. The person that persistently claimed you did was a fool for doing so and your badgering/quote tweet bullying of him only made him look more foolish."

 

right, the fact that some people have difficulty comprehending what i tweeted, and persistently backing up their lack of comprehension, is my fault. not sure if i agree that i made the one person look any more foolish than he actually was.

"The initial tweet is irrelevant to the discussion because the discussion is specifically about the Bob McKenzie tweet. And you say you only credited Bob because he started the conversation but then the conversation you represented in your post is exclusively about Bob McKenzie."

 

don't change the goal posts here, as it seems that you are the one attempting to revise the discussion. you came at me by citing only my second tweet without including the first one. that this thread is about what McKenzie said is immaterial. you brought up my discussion, took full and complete issue with it, and failed to provide the necessary perspective. i simply pointed out what had been missed.

that you should take issue with this is once again not my fault but yours.

 

"I think you missed on this one."

 

if you say so.

 

 

And your long attack on GoDD probably would've gotten a suspension at least for many. But I don't actually think you'd be banned. My comment was about somebody saying my post about you could be ban worthy. Neither of us should be banned for our comments, but if one of us would be the other certainly crossed whatever imaginary line is drawn.

 

i took no offense, but it's quite clear you're more than quick to jump on the anti-jw bandwagon at the drop of a hat as this is not the first instance that has happened. i don't have an agenda toward you, though it's quite apparent the opposite isn't so.

 

 

"I value you as a reporter in Buffalo sports. One of the very select few I think has legitimate sources and is willing to go to the dirty places for a small scoop (I know this to be true). But I think you're just as grumpy as the rest and far too condescending/defensive with those who know far less than you. It's a big world with a lot of people. There are few shared experiences between certain people so shaming them on twitter by making their ignorance public instead of just ignoring it is wrong."

 

not sure what you mean about "dirty places." if that's a suggestion that i've been unethical, well, i'd be within my rights to defend myself. but since everyone knows who i am, and i don't know who you are, it puts you in a far easier position to make unsubstantiated claims against me.

 

jw

[That Aud Smell]

I do not feel JW has added any value to this community. He isn't going to sneak in any good sourced insights that he hasn't already shared publicly or at least hasn't as far as I have seen. 

 

Well, I disagree. The fact that he does what he does for a living, and is here under that identity is, without more, a value-add. In addition to that, he does actually offer scoopy tidbits here and there -- stuff I don't see him talking about elsewhere. Nothing earth-shattering, but fun stuff just the same.

[Hoss]

not sure why i needed a mea culpa. the point is, the Sabres haven't ruled out taking a run at Stamkos when/if he becomes available in free agency according to the person i spoke to. and, the way Bob laid out the landscape, it's one the Sabres hope they can use as a selling point.

 

jw

THIS is what your report should be, then. What you reported reads as if your source was indicating that Bob McKenzie had sources indicating to him that Stamkos is considering those ideas in a possible jump to Buffalo. Your actual report is more that the team will consider chasing him and what McKenzie laid out is what Buffalo will use to engage him.

There's a difference in what a team thinks for a player and what a player thinks for himself, and I think your report indicates more information about the player than the team despite your source indicating information about the team and not so much the player.

[nfreeman]

Well, I disagree. The fact that he does what he does for a living, and is here under that identity is, without more, a value-add. In addition to that, he does actually offer scoopy tidbits here and there -- stuff I don't see him talking about elsewhere. Nothing earth-shattering, but fun stuff just the same.

 

Well said. 

 

Let's all chill out a bit in here, please.

[WildCard]

Well, I disagree. The fact that he does what he does for a living, and is here under that identity is, without more, a value-add. In addition to that, he does actually offer scoopy tidbits here and there -- stuff I don't see him talking about elsewhere. Nothing earth-shattering, but fun stuff just the same.

Guy has 28 posts, all of about 4 of which aren't related to fighting with Hoss/GoDD. 

[That Aud Smell]

not sure what you mean about "dirty places." if that's a suggestion that i've been unethical, well, i'd be within my rights to defend myself. 

 

c'mon. that was pretty clearly an olive branch about your scrappitude. you're the wes welkah of beat journos.

[Hoss]

Guy has 28 posts, all of about 4 of which aren't related to fighting with Hoss/GoDD.

Exactly. The argument seems to be that he adds value simply because of who he is and the content he brings is completely irrelevant.

[Patty16]

THIS is what your report should be, then. What you reported reads as if your source was indicating that Bob McKenzie had sources indicating to him that Stamkos is considering those ideas in a possible jump to Buffalo. Your actual report is more that the team will consider chasing him and what McKenzie laid out is what Buffalo will use to engage him.

There's a difference in what a team thinks for a player and what a player thinks for himself, and I think your report indicates more information about the player than the team despite your source indicating information about the team and not so much the player.

 

No it didnt.  If you read it that way is on you. 

[That Aud Smell]

Guy has 28 posts, all of about 4 of which aren't related to fighting with Hoss/GoDD. 

 

SCOOPY TIDBITS, sir. Scoopy. Tidbits.

[WildCard]

SCOOPY TIDBITS, sir. Scoopy. Tidbits.

I honestly have no idea what you're saying  :lol:

Edited February 16, 2016 by WildCard

[Hoss]

JW --- The "dirty places" comment had nothing to do with ethics. It was more about your willingness to go out and get a story as opposed to fingering a phone all day. I know of multiple times you've been where others weren't and, because of it, you got a story others didn't.

[DeleteThisAccount]

JW PLEASE READ THIS POST AS IT IS MEANT AS CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM AS YOUR ROLE HERE AS A POSTER

 

I do not feel JW has added any value to this community. He isn't going to sneak in any good sourced insights that he hasn't already shared publicly or at least hasn't as far as I have seen. He spent most of his recent visit to this board attacking and battling GoDD. I'm sure there's areas of the game he understands more than many of us so if he engaged in those discussions in a non-confrontational manner it would be an addition. To this point he hasn't.

If I just thanked him for being an AP journalist entering this board without considering the content he has added to this point it'd be a disservice to those who have been run out of here despite more meaningful contributions.

 

odd, i've just further explained myself in regards to what happened on Saturday, something i've not done anywhere else.

 

from my perspective, it seems you're upset because the long run of taking pot-shots against me -- much like the Ghost of Dwight Drane -- did don't stand up to scrutiny when the person you're attacking actually responds.

once again, i don't know who you are. i do feel that i should have the right to defend myself when called out.

 

as for the "constructive criticism" you suggest, there certainly doesn't seem to be a hint of that in what you wrote.

so, ummm, thanks?

 

jw

[Hoss]

No it didnt. If you read it that way is on you.

It did. I would agree with you if there weren't many thinking the same. And when I say many I mean legitimately every person I know who read the tweet.

[DeleteThisAccount]

Never read JW, but I do like Tye Dunn. Still, I think Hoss has made his point pretty well. Good on him for not backing down when JW came to defend himself.

 

Curious, JW, how often do you visit us?

 

not often enough, i guess.

 

jw

 

ADD: or too often, perhaps.

Edited February 16, 2016 by john wawrow

[Hoss]

from my perspective, it seems you're upset because the long run of taking pot-shots against me -- much like the Ghost of Dwight Drane -- did don't stand up to scrutiny when the person you're attacking actually responds.

once again, i don't know who you are. i do feel that i should have the right to defend myself when called out.

Well, that's strange. I've clearly been responding to you and presenting my thoughts with many details. You do have the right to defend yourself which is why I'm here talking to you and not doing whatever else it is I would be.

[Patty16]

It did. I would agree with you if there weren't many thinking the same. And when I say many I mean legitimately every person I know who read the tweet.

 

Just like everyone thought McKenzie was actually reporting something on Sabres Stamkos?  Doesn't mean anything or support your interpretation in any way, just because other people thought same. 

 

Its pretty clear that he was saying his sources say its not crazy re what McKenzie was clearly speculating on,  part of the problem is too many people not understand McKenzie's context. 

Edited February 16, 2016 by Patty16

[WildCard]

not often enough, i guess.

 

jw

 

ADD: or too often, perhaps.

I mean, how did you know about Hoss' posts about your tweets? It seems you have a pretty good grasp on when someone on here posts something about you, as the only two times I've seen you post, it was in direct responses to criticisms about you, and shortly after they were made. I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm just curious to know if this place is a daily/weekly/monthly thing for you

[DeleteThisAccount]

Just like everyone thought McKenzie was actually reporting something on Sabres Stamkos?  Doesn't mean anything or support your interpretation in any way, just because other people thought same. 

 

Its pretty clear that he was saying his sources say its not crazy re what McKenzie was clearly speculating on,  part of the problem is too many people not understand McKenzie's context. 

 

Thanks for that.

 

jw

[spndnchz]

Jfc people

[Hoss]

Jfc people

Why is it such a crime against humanity for people to take extensive time and effort to explain why they disagree with other poster? What do you want this place to be that it isn't when that happens? Good grief.

[DeleteThisAccount]

I mean, how did you know about Hoss' posts about your tweets? It seems you have a pretty good grasp on when someone on here posts something about you, as the only two times I've seen you post, it was in direct responses to criticisms about you, and shortly after they were made. I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm just curious to know if this place is a daily/weekly/monthly thing for you

 

admittedly it's been a while since i've been here, but with a bit of a free day, i popped in to see what was being discussed, when this McKenzie thread was at the top of the list. i obviously perused through it and saw what Hoss had written. and then i did a search for my name, and saw that 2nd thread that came up after this one also had Hoss questioning something i did or didn't do.

 

i'm barely on TBD these days either because these exercises just get tiresome.

i've been wrong more than a few times, but i'm completely befuddled as to how this whole Stamkos thing went sideways. it was hardly a scoop, and nothing that was enough for me to write an actual story about. but i thought i was simply adding a tidbit into the conversation regarding the Sabres position toward Stamkos.

 

and now i've got someone else misinterpreting what i tweeted, and once again attempting to inform me what i wrote. ...

 

shrug.

 

jw

Edited February 16, 2016 by john wawrow