# Laker Report: Any Day Now . . .



## emplay (Jun 9, 2003)

Here's my latest Laker Report at HOOPSWORLD.com.

*link*

Let me know what you think!


----------



## LakerLunatic (Mar 1, 2005)

As always an excellent article.

Im pretty sure were going to land spree, i actually really hope we do, as far as aaron williams goes, wow he is terrible, Chucky Atkins is a better rebounder, thats how terrible williams is, he can not do anything, he is a lesser JYD, and thats saying something. As far as Curry is concerned, If he plays like Baby Shaq, then i would like him over mihm, but if he plays like that lazy *** Curry, then screw it, im losing patience thou, WHEN THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO SIGN SOMEONE ELSE!?


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

interesting


----------



## bluedawgalex (Aug 1, 2005)

great report like always


----------



## KoBe & BeN GoRdOn! (Aug 4, 2005)

good article

sprewell we are waiting for you!


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

:clap: impressive :cheers:


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

KoBe & BeN GoRdOn! said:


> good article
> 
> sprewell we are waiting for you!


 with picket signs...


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Well done again Emplay. hmm Some interesting scenarios presented. Im getting impatient. :clap:


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Any Day Now . . . a prediction of yours will turn out true and I'll be shocked.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Brian34Cook said:


> Any Day Now . . . a prediction of yours will turn out true and I'll be shocked.


LOL


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

ouch! and owned! at the same time​


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

:laugh: I still have respect for Eric but jeez.. He gets a lot of peoples hopes up and is never right.. And when he predicts something right (a month or so ahead of time, etc.) he goes back to the time he said it.. It's a win win situation for Emp.. With that said, he hangs out with the Lakers, etc. so .. yea.. I dont know..


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

I dont mind Emplay speculation. It gives us something to think about while we wait for the season to start. :cheers:


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Brian34Cook said:


> Any Day Now . . . a prediction of yours will turn out true and I'll be shocked.


 :rofl: :rofl:

BCook bringing the hate!


----------



## Rhodes (Dec 9, 2004)

There were no predictions in that article, Brian34Cook. He was simply discussing possibilities, which personally, I enjoy reading. It's not like there's an over abundance of news these days, so anything remotely related to the Lakers is welcome by me.


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Rhodes said:


> There were no predictions in that article, Brian34Cook. He was simply discussing possibilities, which personally, I enjoy reading. It's not like there's an over abundance of news these days, so anything remotely related to the Lakers is welcome by me.


Oh I didnt read it.. was just commenting on his past..


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

even if its speculation, everything he says makes it believeable

unllike that one idiot who writes BS with sentences you can never understand on the NBA rumors


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Brian34Cook said:


> Any Day Now . . . a prediction of yours will turn out true and I'll be shocked.


Kind of odd you'd say that when he didn't make any "predictions" in that article.



Brian34Cook said:


> Oh I didnt read it.. was just commenting on his past..


Ah.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

My problem with this is the same as always.

Mitch is on vacation.

Paxson says that he has not discussed any deal concerning Curry with anyone. Nor is he likely to take place in any deal unless it highly benefits the bulls.

The sense of said trade makes little to either team as it softens up an already week middle for the lakers and really doesn't add anything to the bulls.

The basic problem is of your logic resides (of course) in your ideas for a contract.

Curry's current problem with the BUlls offer isn't the money... its the number of garunteed years.

Something you say he would have to take in a sign and trade with the Lakers.

So... why... would Curry be willing to NOT take less guarunteed years with his hometown bulls... but do so for the Lakers?

Makes no sense.

The fact that it hasn't been discussed with Paxson (nonwithstanding)... how the hell is this "coming down to the wire?"


----------



## emplay (Jun 9, 2003)

You are incorrect . . . but you think you know


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

By the way.. I like and appreciate the articles emplay posts. There's not much Lakers news lately and I appreciate what he gives us. It may not seem like that though.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Just take his articles as opinions and you'll be fine. I don't go with "insider" rep anymore since last seasons 482 rumored "Banks to the Lakers" threads.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

There is also problems with his logic when forming those opinions which need to be noted as well.

If one is going to pimp something as a "report" then the information within should be under scrutany.

What I know...

1.) Emplays ideas/nuggets/sourced material rarely (generous) if ever (more accurate) come true.
2.) They are typically skewed to benefiting the Lakers.
3.) Claim to all be "sourced" and all being "discussed" regardless of players, coaches and GMs denying that his rumors are legitamite in the least.
4.) His logic of the type of deal that Curry would accept to S&T to LA is the exact type of deal he is turning down in Chicago (his home town).


In the end, its worse than "ideas" because he claims them to be otherwise... he also (apparently) claims that people who actually comment on the word of a GM who is notorious for being forthright and honest as being "inaccurate".

Apparently Emplay knows "all these things" but is just the unluckiest "insider" one could ever possibly meet.

At least his "articles" keep the local team's crowds happy with Laker skewed ideas that Mitch is close to bringing in highly beneficial deals.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

LoyalBull said:


> There is also problems with his logic when forming those opinions which need to be noted as well.
> 
> If one is going to pimp something as a "report" then the information within should be under scrutany.
> 
> ...


Reread the previous emplay thread here in case you forgot to reply to your beating.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

EHL, you are tragically misguided if you figured that to be a "beating".

I feel no need to respond to someone who ignores facts and realities in spoiling for a misguided fight based on false rumors and pathedic displays of rumor-mongering.

You want to defend those actions, so be it. Ill continue to voice my distain of it.

There is hardly a "beating" being given by you when the reality is the person you are defending has little to no proof or results to back their misguided claims of what is transpiring or what is being discussed "behind the scenes".

Paxson says that the Bulls aren't discussing such a deal. Emplay does. 

Guess which side I believe.

Paxson is offering a deal similar to the one that Emplay is suggesting in a S&T (which is the hang up of the negotiations) yet I am supposed to follow that line of logic? I think not.

Please (as a mod its beneath you) stop acting as if you handed a "beating" to anyone based on your faulty and lackluster reasoning.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Sean (Jun 7, 2002)

Can anyone in Chi-town confirm this today:


Curry Update from Chicago radio a.k.a. "The Score"...

"David Schuster said that Bulls and Curry are trying to work out a deal, but the Bulls don't won't to guarantee more than a year and want protection in case of health problems, but Curry's camp wants more years guaranteed. *They say if a deal can't be worked out, a S&T is very possible, with the Lakers being a possibility. Mihm and George are the names mentioned. Lots of speculation, but it's always interesting to hear this on the radio instead of here." *


----------



## Rhodes (Dec 9, 2004)

LoyalBull said:


> Paxson says that the Bulls aren't discussing such a deal. Emplay does .


I'd like to see the exact quote and the context. From what I recall, Paxson said something to the effect of "*I* haven't talked to the Lakers", which may be true. Not all GMs negotiate every potential trade deal personally. They have a staff that does most of the preliminary work. Remember, there are lots of deals being bandied about all the time, so many (if not most) GMs let their assistants do the talking until a deal is immanent. The Bulls very well might be talking to the Lakers, even if it's not Paxson doing the talking.

Having said that... name one GM that makes it a habit of informing the public regarding trade talks? Even if Paxson were negotiating a deal he'd be a fool to talk about it.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

Rhodes said:


> I'd like to see the exact quote and the context. From what I recall, Paxson said something to the effect of "*I* haven't talked to the Lakers", which may be true. Not all GMs negotiate every potential trade deal personally. They have a staff that does most of the preliminary work. Remember, there are lots of deals being bandied about all the time, so many (if not most) GMs let their assistants do the talking until a deal is immanent. The Bulls very well might be talking to the Lakers, even if it's not Paxson doing the talking.


1
*"I've not been contacted by any team,'' Paxson said Tuesday. "A while ago, somebody had written that New York was interested, but I never talked to them. And on the Internet, there's been stuff that the Lakers were interested, but again, I've never talked to anyone.''*
2&3
*"That's what the process has been, trying to negotiate a longer-term deal,'' Paxson said. "But that's where all these issues come in. Even if there is [another team willing to sign Curry to an offer sheet or do a sign-and-trade], we have to agree to it.

"Sign-and-trades are difficult because there is this issue called base year. In order to make the deal work, you have to build the deal up to a dollar amount that's very high.''*

1.) He says that he has not been contacted by "ANY" team. And even refers to the "internet" rumor (wonder who started THAT one).

2.) Curry's deal is predicated on length of garunteed contracts... not dollar amounts. So again... if the problem is number of garunteed years... and the Lakers aren't willing to do so... it kind of circumvents the logic of such a deal happening from Curry's camp.

3.) Base Year Compensation requires for the Bulls to add a whole lot of salary just to make a Curry deal happen for the lakers. Why do so? For what benefit? Ending contracts have little/no value to the Bulls since Curry is an ending contract. No reason to increase the payroll (to meet BYC restrictions) only to open up the same cap they would have without doing a deal in the first place.

Mystifying.

So... we have concluded...

A.) Doesn't make sense from the Curry camp since Emplay admits the Lakers aren't "offering" (to whom is a totally different matter) any more gaurunteed years than 2. The hang up is number of years on the deal. Paxson is offering 3. Lakers would then offer 2? So Curry would leave his family and hometown for one fewer years? OUTSTANDING logic! 

B.) Doesn't make sense from the Bull's perspective to take a bunch of ending deals and increase this years pay roll to meet BYC restrictions to acheive the same end (cap space) while shipping out the best player in the package to boot.

C.) Only one it makes sense for (if you think that Curry is a good fit in LA which I don't incidently) is the Lakers. If they were looking for an offensive minded post scoring threat that is.

Imagine that... another Emplay deal that would benefit no one but the Lakers that no one has discussed and has little/no chance of making sense financially of logically for anyone involved except for drawing more attention to his articles.

Thats not 'reporting" its called "fabricating".


----------



## Rhodes (Dec 9, 2004)

Seriously, do you expect him to say "we've been in contact with several teams exploring our options.". LOL!. 

I don't know the truth and neither do you, but I have read from a number of sources that the Bulls are very concerned about Curry's heart, which makes sense, given that, well, he has a problem with his heart. So it's not out of the realm of posibility that they are exploring their options in case they deem him a bad risk. Similarly, the Lakers have some front court problems, so I very much expect them to give due diligence to any potential deals, whether far fetched or not.

Anyway, whatever... I enjoy Eric's articles, you don't. Moving on...


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

who cares if it comes true? its just rumors 

emplay's articles are very interesting and fun to read because what he says wants me to believe its going to happen for the lakers and i have every reason to believe it cause he has logical reason behind it

i mean if he just posted something like...

EDDY CURRY DRIVING TO HOLLYWOOD TO WEAR THE PURPLE AND GOLD

and nothing else, its stupid 

but his rumors has reasons behind it and thats what makes it a good laker report for laker FANS and whoevers interested

go EMPLAY love your articles :clap: keep it up


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

LoyalBull said:


> 1
> *"I've not been contacted by any team,'' Paxson said Tuesday. "A while ago, somebody had written that New York was interested, but I never talked to them. And on the Internet, there's been stuff that the Lakers were interested, but again, I've never talked to anyone.''*
> 2&3
> *"That's what the process has been, trying to negotiate a longer-term deal,'' Paxson said. "But that's where all these issues come in. Even if there is [another team willing to sign Curry to an offer sheet or do a sign-and-trade], we have to agree to it.
> ...


you really think paxsons going to go public and say "yeah about 5 or 6 teams contacted me about eddy curry and i think i'm going to trade him if the right deal comes." of course hes going to deny that he hasnt met with anyone or else if ever curry decides to stay, the relationship wont be a very friendly one.. 

yeah sure why wouldnt curry want to leave the bulls when basically chicagos treating him like **** (when tyson chandler gets that much money, if i were eddy i would wanna leave when eddys the one whos stayed healthier and more productive than chandler)

and the reason why they would ship curry is because they want to get atless something back, and what they probably want is a first round pick and some expiring contracts so maybe they can trade those guys for someone else (just how golden state got baron davis) you never know

and really, its not like lakers are offering 10-day contract players.. theyre giving up chris mihm a decent center who's less risky financially and a more stable rebounder and expiring contracts and a first round pick.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

LoyalBull said:


> EHL, you are tragically misguided if you figured that to be a "beating".
> 
> I feel no need to respond to someone who ignores facts and realities in spoiling for a misguided fight based on false rumors and pathedic displays of rumor-mongering.
> 
> ...


That's nice and all, but you haven't addressed anything that's been said. Based on what you said in the previous thread on basically the same topic, you were literally factually incorrect. But continue.



> Paxson says that the Bulls aren't discussing such a deal. Emplay does.
> 
> Guess which side I believe.


You believe a person who is paid to lie. Additionally, GMs almost never discuss or fully disclose trades unless it's for their benefit. Believing otherwise is naivety at its worst. 

And for the record, I don't know what's true. And neither do you. For the record. 



> Paxson is offering a deal similar to the one that Emplay is suggesting in a S&T (which is the hang up of the negotiations) yet I am supposed to follow that line of logic? I think not.


Maybe the hangup isn't _just_ the years, maybe it's the endorsement money or the area he wants to live in. Maybe he wants to play for Phil Jackson and next to Kobe Bryant. All of those things are possible, and certainly nothing you could disprove. Because like most outsiders, you don't have a clue either way. At least emplay does (he has actually talked with NBA players, coaches, and GMs before, whereas you don't and/or never have). 



> Please (as a mod its beneath you) stop acting as if you handed a "beating" to anyone based on your faulty and lackluster reasoning.


Funny coming from someone who didn't bother to answer a single point thrown smack in front of his face. And it's really not "beneath" a mod to point out boneheaded logic.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

EHL you good, brother :cheers: 

again, that other guy who was bashing on emplay needs to chill because theres are really dumb (check the nba rumors n some scientist guy) reports and rumors (some of them are mine) you can flame on if you need to

but really, emplay probably spend some decent amount of time writing that stuff for us and if you cant appreciate it then shut it


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

First EHL.

We can only speak to what we know... by your own admission.

So when you say "you got a beat down cause you don't know anything for sure" well... neither do you.

And... if history holds any weight... neither does Emplay.

For all the speculating being passed off as "reporting" that he does (with his statements that EVERYTHING is sourced) no matter how many of those supposedly involved deny them, it stands to reason that it is shortsighted to question MY perspective in doubting Emplay's "reports".

The deal makes no sense for the Bulls. Not only that, but it makes little sense for Curry.

Then we have the fact that the Bulls deny any conversations have even been started refering to it as an 'internet rumor'.

As a moderator (and supposedly I would assume someone with higher standards) it would seem odd that you would (in the face of the word of those involved and the lack of anything the guy rights coming to pass) be a little more careful before talking about getting "a beating".

You have NOTHING to back up your beating. It is non-sensical ramblings that basically amount too... "who are you to question Emplay since you aren't an insider"

And the thing is... what does being an "insider" such as Emplay grant one?

*Accountability? No. Everything is sourced. Everything has legs to hear him tell it.
*Accuracy? Pa-lease.
*Credability? No.

What he does is a decently intertaining piece of half full Laker Kool aid where the ideas (supposedly sourced) are vehemently denied by all parties and never come to pass.

As for my takes on the matter, he asks for opinions on a public thread. As such, I am hardly getting a beat down for showing why there is no logical basis for such a trade nor any acknowledgement from any concerned parties.

In the end your "beating" is merely the following points:

A.) You aren't an insider, Emplay (no matter how inaccurate) is.
B.) You are only listening to people "paid to lie" to the media. (instead of Emplay apparently)
C.) Curry (an overweight, lazy albeit talented non personality health impared player) may be looking to go to LA for "endorsements".

As a moderator (and Ill say this again since you didn't catch it last time).

1.) There is not one iota of place for a moderator to refer to "smack" or "beatings" in a thread.
2.) The flimbsy excuses you call rebuttals can in no way shape or form be taken seriously as either smack or a beating. They are poorly constructed counterpoints that are based on fantasy, conjecture and plain ignoring the facts that "we do know".

Again, 

A.) Contracts don't make sense for Curry's party. (apparently he is looking for all the endorsements)
B.) Deal wouldn't make sense for the Bulls (becuase of the extra payroll needed to entertain a BYC sign and trade.)
C.) Paxson (generally regarded as a very forthwright and honest person) says such conversations have not taken place. Emplay (generally regarded as writing Laker centric pieces that involve Laker friendly trades that never come true and are denied by GMs accross the leauge) says they have.

I beleive Paxson. You believe Emplay.

There is no beating there. No Smack.

I would highly advise your use of other words to describe your actions. As a moderator you should know better.

*again, that other guy who was bashing on emplay needs to chill because theres are really dumb (check the nba rumors n some scientist guy) reports and rumors (some of them are mine) you can flame on if you need to

but really, emplay probably spend some decent amount of time writing that stuff for us and if you cant appreciate it then shut it*

1.) Emplay is inviting a critique of his writing by posting it here and asking for thoughts. Not just good thoughts. 

2.) This is NOT... again NOT a board for Laker fans. It is a board on basketballboards.net to DISCUSS the Lakers. The article is posted here and as such SHOULD be accountable for many of the blatant liberties it takes and lines of logic it ignores.

As such, there is no reason (nor do you have any authority or right) to tell people when to "shut it."


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

LoyalBull said:


> 2.) This is NOT... again NOT a board for Laker fans. It is a board on basketballboards.net to DISCUSS the Lakers. The article is posted here and as such SHOULD be accountable for many of the blatant liberties it takes and lines of logic it ignores.
> 
> As such, there is no reason (nor do you have any authority or right) to tell people when to "shut it."


LoyallBull, eventhough i think you are a great poster, there´s no doubt in my mind that you have some kind of agenda. Every Emplay thread you will come down hard on him. "he is making things up", "his scenarios always favour the Lakers", bla, bla, bla...

Now i know Pincus' "reports" are hardly accurate. His "scenarios" tend to favour the Lakers... Personally, i take what he writes with a HUGE grain of salt.

Still, i tend to question your motives... What's up with that? Why do you feel the need to flood Emplays' threads with criticism?


----------



## sylaw (Nov 7, 2002)

LoyalBull does have an agenda, it's called telling it like it is. He's skeptical of these so called trade talks and he should be. I read the emplay articles but I don't believe a word of it. I don't know why you guys feel the need to attack him when he's not the one posting rumors from "insiders" on deals that never happen. If the articles were actually right sometimes, I don't think there would be a need for him to criticize them.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

sylaw said:


> LoyalBull does have an agenda, it's called telling it like it is. He's skeptical of these so called trade talks and he should be. I read the emplay articles but I don't believe a word of it. *I don't know why you guys feel the need to attack him * when he's not the one posting rumors from "insiders" on deals that never happen. If the articles were actually right sometimes, I don't think there would be a need for him to criticize them.


You got it the other way aorund.

Emplay posts an article.
LoyallBull bashes it.
Posters respond.

Skeptical is good.
Doubt is good.
Reallity-checks are good.

Still...


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

I read Emplay's articles, but each time, once I finish, I tell myself, "Too bad nothing this guy ever says actually happens." Still, I cant stop myself from reading. Reading supposedly supported rumors is better that not hearing anything at all. But I cant keep from feeling frustration at Emplay for not getting anything right.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

*I read Emplay's articles, but each time, once I finish, I tell myself, "Too bad nothing this guy ever says actually happens." Still, I cant stop myself from reading. Reading supposedly supported rumors is better that not hearing anything at all. But I cant keep from feeling frustration at Emplay for not getting anything right.*

Exactly.

I have no reason for hating on Pincus past the point of them being lableled "reports" or some of his statements such as "everything is sourced nothing out of the blue sky" (paraphrased by me).

Pincus's Indiana report had Laker boards from one world to the next already looking at who the Lakers should select or package that pick with as well as the benefits of Bender.

Thats one example of saying you have sourced rumors.

If... Pincus were to say... this is what is happening with the lakers... this is what I have heard... and these are some ideas I have... it would be mere blog like material. And interesting to boot.

But the way he "reports" it gives more weight than it deserves. And while such things are fun to discuss... you are hard pressed to deny that somewhere down the line the discussion will go something to the effect of "Mihm is almost worth Magloire... afterall, he could have gotten Curry for him but the Lakers turned it down cause Curry wanted more years... but the Bulls would have totally pulled the trigger".

His "reports" do nothing but blur known facts from local papers and pure speculation on his part. The result... unfullfilled and unrealistic expectations from fans that one will ultimately have to discuss the topics with.

I just find them... irresponsible.

I wouldn't keep going on and on if it weren't for those that would enter the fray and actually try and defend and rationalize why someone shouldn't question it.

Inaccurate speculations are rarely part of responsible journalism.

I would do the same to Vescey, or too Sam Smith when they do such things. The difference of course... is that Vescey and Smith get it right every once in a while!


----------



## luckylakers (Aug 10, 2005)

nice stuff


----------



## Rhodes (Dec 9, 2004)

I marvel at the emotional energy LoyalBull invests in this topic.

Dude... get a life...


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

Rhodes said:


> I marvel at the emotional energy LoyalBull invests in this topic.
> 
> Dude... get a life...


Got one.

Thanks.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

I like LoyalBull. He's better than truth or DynastyRaider.


----------



## Unique (Apr 13, 2005)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> I like LoyalBull. He's better than truth or DynastyRaider.



DynastyRaider :hurl: hate that guy.


----------



## Sean (Jun 7, 2002)

update



> Chicago Sun-Times: With less than three weeks before training camp begins on Oct. 3, the Bulls' contract negotiations with restricted free-agent center Eddy Curry are at an impasse.
> 
> *A source familiar with the talks between the Bulls and agent Leon Rose said Thursday that "it looks more and more'' like Curry will play this season for the team's one-year qualifying offer of $5.14 million guaranteed.
> 
> ...


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

thanks for erasing my post :curse:


----------



## clippers2playoffs (Aug 22, 2005)

if spreweel signs, wont he just ruin the team with his "i need a raise" mentality?


----------



## Unique (Apr 13, 2005)

clippers2playoffs said:


> if spreweel signs, wont he just ruin the team with his "i need a raise" mentality?



He wasnt always like that, maybe he can finally realize that hes almost forty years old , he needs to look in the mirror and say "o **** are those wrinkles" so he can realize no team will give him more money.


----------



## XXSASSXX31 (Aug 19, 2005)

Very good article.

I can't wait until Media Day so I can write new articles without repeating the same old news.

It is around the corner. We don't have to wait much further.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

LoyalBull said:


> First EHL.
> 
> We can only speak to what we know... by your own admission.
> 
> So when you say "you got a beat down cause you don't know anything for sure" well... neither do you.


I never said you got a beat down because you don’t know anything for sure. Reread what we talked about before if you’re still confused. 



> And... if history holds any weight... neither does Emplay.


This is the main problem here; you don’t actually know the history, yet claim to. You don’t, stop pretending. I told you in the other thread that sports writers very rarely get anything right, be it speculation or information based on sources, that’s how the business works. But emplay has still gotten _several_ trades correct, while you claimed he never did (you said something like “once” he got one right, though I can’t remember what your exact words were). 



> For all the speculating being passed off as "reporting" that he does (with his statements that EVERYTHING is sourced) no matter how many of those supposedly involved deny them, it stands to reason that it is shortsighted to question MY perspective in doubting Emplay's "reports".


Most of emplay’s reports are open speculation, with actual sections labeled _speculation_ for god sakes. And when he does source a trade, he often makes sure the reader understands if it’s a reliable source or a source confirmed by other independent sources.

I don’t know why you simply can’t read what is written in his articles. You make it seem as if nearly every trade he mentions is being “guaranteed” by him to come true. 



> The deal makes no sense for the Bulls. Not only that, but it makes little sense for Curry.
> 
> Then we have the fact that the Bulls deny any conversations have even been started refering to it as an 'internet rumor'.
> 
> As a moderator (and supposedly I would assume someone with higher standards) it would seem odd that you would (in the face of the word of those involved and the lack of anything the guy rights coming to pass) be a little more careful before talking about getting "a beating".


Did emplay say Curry is locked into LA and it’s just a matter of time? Did emplay even say it’s very very likely Curry is coming to LA? Please take the time to carefully read his articles. You just look foolish claiming he’s so damn certain Curry is coming. Even worse, you don’t have any of your own sources and have never worked or talked to anyone remotely involved with the NBA, yet you’re claiming emplay is a liar. Just sad. 



> You have NOTHING to back up your beating. It is non-sensical ramblings that basically amount too... "who are you to question Emplay since you aren't an insider"


That last part is certainly legit. Again, you are an outsider who has never been involved with the NBA, writing, or even journalism correct? Have you ever written for a web site, paper, etc.? Do you know how reporting and sources work? If not, I can’t imagine why you continue to have these debates about soures, journalism, or reporting. For the record, I was a journalist for many years.



> And the thing is... what does being an "insider" such as Emplay grant one?


Access to information you simply will never have. Yes?



> *Accountability? No. Everything is sourced. Everything has legs to hear him tell it.
> *Accuracy? Pa-lease.
> *Credability? No.
> 
> What he does is a decently intertaining piece of half full Laker Kool aid where the ideas (supposedly sourced) are vehemently denied by all parties and never come to pass.


Not really. That last part is, again, why I said you got your "beating" before. Emplay broke the Boston-Laker trade last year, draft-day trade with Utah, a couple press releases about Divac/Walton happenings, and others I’m not remembering at the moment. It happened, you didn’t know about it, and you look pretty foolish claiming otherwise. Just like the time you told me there were no players in the NBA that held out on their teams with fake injuries or some such nonsense. 



> As for my takes on the matter, he asks for opinions on a public thread. As such, I am hardly getting a beat down for showing why there is no logical basis for such a trade nor any acknowledgement from any concerned parties.


I’m not sure why you believe GMs would confirm a trade rumor. It’s just the most ridiculous and idiotic thing a GM could do, whether the sources reporting the rumor are accurate or not. It’s not in a GM's best interest to comment, confirm, or deny a trade the vast majority of the time. That's how it has always been and always will be. 



> As a moderator (and Ill say this again since you didn't catch it last time).
> 
> 1.) There is not one iota of place for a moderator to refer to "smack" or "beatings" in a thread.


"“Beatings" isn’t remotely close to crossing the line. Let's not get oversensitive.



> Again,
> 
> A.) Contracts don't make sense for Curry's party. (apparently he is looking for all the endorsements)
> B.) Deal wouldn't make sense for the Bulls (becuase of the extra payroll needed to entertain a BYC sign and trade.)
> ...


Sure there is, just look at the following (inaccurate) claims you made:

1) Emplay has never broken anything. 
2) GMs (_especially_ Paxson) don’t lie….normally! 

Both of which have been proven to be false many times, especially #2. 

And to expand slightly on the first point; GMs talk all the time and don’t get the majority of their trade talks actually finished, that’s the nature of the business. Just because a trade doesn’t occur doesn’t mean it hasn’t been talked about. *This is by far the biggest point you continue to miss.*



> I would highly advise your use of other words to describe your actions. As a moderator you should know better.


Take it up with the higher-ups if you truly believe the word "beatings" warrants mention.


----------



## Unique (Apr 13, 2005)

EHL said:


> I never said you got a beat down because you don’t know anything for sure. Reread what we talked about before if you’re still confused.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



O god no plz don't get EHL started , EHL will kill you.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

EHL said:


> I never said you got a beat down because you don’t know anything for sure. Reread what we talked about before if you’re still confused. .


Im not confused about anything but your open use of inacurate and inappropriate words for this forum.





EHL said:


> This is the main problem here; you don’t actually know the history, yet claim to. You don’t, stop pretending. I told you in the other thread that sports writers very rarely get anything right, be it speculation or information based on sources, that’s how the business works. But emplay has still gotten _several_ trades correct, while you claimed he never did (you said something like “once” he got one right, though I can’t remember what your exact words were). .


I can read all his old articles EHL. And while you sit there arguing just to argue here are some quotes from Emplay on his own articles:

_None of the ideas set forth in this article have come out of thin air. They're all well sourced as players the Lakers have pursued or considered this off-season on some level _ 

There are a number of articles (one can think of his interview with Kupcheck) where Kupcheks commentary was blurred with Emplay's speculation. 

These are hardly "reports"

As for the trades that "did go down" I read Pincus's stuff over the last year. Of all the moves and players that were being discussed (subsequently denied by the teams supposedly involved)... the only ones that went down were ones that had already happened prior to the report.




EHL said:


> I don’t know why you simply can’t read what is written in his articles. You make it seem as if nearly every trade he mentions is being “guaranteed” by him to come true.


Hmmmm, I never made those statements. Only pointed out that for all the talking that he said has gone down... it seems to be only him that knows it. Emplay has a lot of "ideas" but he continually says they aren't out of thin air and are active conversation pieces. What we find is anything but when ACTUAL people continue to dismiss these "internet" rumors.




EHL said:


> Did emplay say Curry is locked into LA and it’s just a matter of time? Did emplay even say it’s very very likely Curry is coming to LA? Please take the time to carefully read his articles. You just look foolish claiming he’s so damn certain Curry is coming. Even worse, you don’t have any of your own sources and have never worked or talked to anyone remotely involved with the NBA, yet you’re claiming emplay is a liar. Just sad.



Even worse than that EHL is you trying to call me out on things that I am not saying. I simply said that no such deal is being discussed between the Bulls and the lakers. The reasons being that it makes no sense money wise for the bulls, contract wise for Curry, health wise for the Lakers and Paxson denies any conversations have taken place. I continue to take common sense, logic and Paxson's words over Emplays insistance that conversations ARE or HAVE taken place even though it contradicts reason, logic and the word of those involved.





EHL said:


> That last part is certainly legit. Again, you are an outsider who has never been involved with the NBA, writing, or even journalism correct? Have you ever written for a web site, paper, etc.? Do you know how reporting and sources work? If not, I can’t imagine why you continue to have these debates about soures, journalism, or reporting. For the record, I was a journalist for many years


Hard to see why you aren't anymore... :boohoo: 





EHL said:


> Access to information you simply will never have. Yes?.


Thank God! What use do I have for "information" such as Emplay's? Inaccurate reporting mixed with editorilizing speculation... along with some outright lies to boot... Oh yes... I am SOOOOO sorry I dont' have "access" to that information.



.


EHL said:


> Not really. That last part is, again, why I said you got your "beating" before. Emplay broke the Boston-Laker trade last year, draft-day trade with Utah, a couple press releases about Divac/Walton happenings, and others I’m not remembering at the moment. It happened, you didn’t know about it, and you look pretty foolish claiming otherwise. Just like the time you told me there were no players in the NBA that held out on their teams with fake injuries or some such nonsense. ..


I remember that quite a few people had those trades/moves pegged in advance of Emplay.


.


EHL said:


> I’m not sure why you believe GMs would confirm a trade rumor. It’s just the most ridiculous and idiotic thing a GM could do, whether the sources reporting the rumor are accurate or not. It’s not in a GM's best interest to comment, confirm, or deny a trade the vast majority of the time. That's how it has always been and always will be. .


So... even though none of them make any sense for the other team involved but rather fall in line with Emplay's own speculation... that doesn't mean anything. 

Essentially you are saying... throw fairness of a deal out the window... throw common sense and logic out the window... throw the words of the GMs (who incidently are REAL insiders) out the window and listen to Emplay... cause through all his sourced material and specualtion... he was "right" a couple of times?

Ridiculous and idiotic ARE applicable terms... just not as you are applying them.

How funny... you are actually trying to make a case that a GMs denial actually strengthens Emplay's perspective and articles... how amusing.



.


EHL said:


> "“Beatings" isn’t remotely close to crossing the line. Let's not get oversensitive..


Im not oversensitive... Im telling you how it is. Its a bully tactic. And not one I would want posters thinking is an intellegent way to discuss the issues on this board. 



.


EHL said:


> "“Sure there is, just look at the following (inaccurate) claims you made
> 
> 1) Emplay has never broken anything.
> 2) GMs (_especially_ Paxson) don’t lie….normally! :.


The funniest part of this... is that neither of those are my quotes. If you are going to quote me... try actually quoting me.

You were a journalist... and aren't any longer... can't see why...

How abnormally embaressing that you would make up quotes that I didn't say in order to try and prove an illogical point.

Im not sure which is worse... being so fundamentally wrong... or fabricating things to justify it.


.


EHL said:


> "“And to expand slightly on the first point; GMs talk all the time and don’t get the majority of their trade talks actually finished, that’s the nature of the business. Just because a trade doesn’t occur doesn’t mean it hasn’t been talked about. *This is by far the biggest point you continue to miss.*:.


Funny how all these GMs all seem to discuss trades that overly benefit the lakers. :banana: 

that said I DO understand that... but the thing is... all logic and reason are against such a deal being discussed by either side. That along with Paxson saying its not.

So on one side one has common sense, logic and benefit to all parties along with the denial of the principal parties... 

On the other... you have Emplay and his past record.

Now to try and skew some sort of weight to the horribly disadvantaged side of the argument you are on you are going to try and rationalize it with "GMs talk all the time".

What you are trying to rationalize and the specific case at hand are completely indepdent of one another.

.


EHL said:


> "“Take it up with the higher-ups if you truly believe the word "beatings" warrants mention.


I am one of the higher ups...

That said, Im sure you can realize the reason why I am saying it has no place in any intellegent conversation.

The total lack of reason of applying the term nonwithstanding... it has no place on BBB.net.

.


EHL said:


> "“god no plz don't get EHL started , EHL will kill you..


No, he won't.

He will have to start:

A.) abiding by the community standards
B.) Talk sense
C.) Use actual quotes when quoting
D.) Stop denying common sense and logic (along with true insider's takes on the subject) when rationalizing the accountability and viability of Emplay's "reports"

EHL is using the typical bully tactics of taking things out of context, making up his own logic, making up his own quotes to justify his perspective, along with a host of other unsavory practices. For once he isn't in a power position to utilize them.


----------



## tatahbenitez (Jun 18, 2004)

Can anyone please tell me how this extended debate started? Seems like it has been dragged down to become personal attacks on each other and all I can say is...



I LOVE IT!!! :biggrin: :banana: 



This is better than Ultimate or Pride Fighting! :rock:



But, after all the :sfight: :boxing: :starwars: :argue: , calmer heads will prevail (either that or all the insults will be used up) and then all the :ghug: :kiss: :cheers: :makeout: :kiss: will take over. :yes:


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

This one has hit its ends course.

Let happier days come forth...


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

That's fine LB, but there was zero reason for the last post to be deleted.


----------

