# Is It Safe To Say Now That No One Here Has "Inside" Info?



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

I held on to my shorts and I like talent and after much ado, we got nothing. Sure, James Jones is a nice piece, but hardly worthy of 100 pages of speculation.

So just because you are a season ticket holder and your account rep shares a rumor with you, or you happen to know a receptionist at One Center Court, I hope we can all agree that that does not count for insider info.

I mean come on, do you really think Pritch is going to share stuff with anyone who happens to work for the Blazers? No one saw the Steve Francis trade coming at all. Where were your little birdies then?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I think the correct response is "PUDDING".:biggrin:


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

The "hold on to your shorts" threads were good for post padding. But I knew they were full of crap from the get-go.


----------



## Sabas (Jun 24, 2005)

Yeah, and I love how there's absolutely no accountability for the dude who absolutely got this thing wrong. At least Quick puts his info out there for all to read. Right or wrong he puts his credibility on the line, where we can hold him accountable when he's wrong.

edit: no calling out other posters directly or indirectly. Thanks -sa1177-


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

I have no idea who knows thing or doesn't know things....I do know that I have happened to receive a few choice bits of info over the years prior to them becoming public knowledge....and I assume that's the same for a few others here as well.

What's a message board without rumours and speculation?


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

It has always been safe to say that.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Nope, I'm still saying people have inside sources.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Who's No One Here and what does he/she know? Spill it.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

There's a sucker born every minute, and message boards are full of people who prove that theory.

With a medium where anonymity reigns supreme and there are no checks or balances against sharing false information, what you see is what you get. Personally, I like that freedom, but I understand how frustrating it is when you read someone's supposed inside information, only to see it not come to fruition. My advice to you would be to take the information you get here with a grain of salt.

-Pop


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

I assume there are those with inside info. I also assume there are those who say they have it, but don't actually. I approach every "My source says..." thread with cautious optimism.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

whether someone knows something or not, it does NO GOOD to only know that they know it. 

"I know something you dont know!" is a childs game, and usually ends after a couple of turns.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I think it's safe to say it, but I don't think it's accurate. I think those who do have inside info are generally smart enough not to divulge too much information and get their 'source' fired. I also believe GMs talk about hundreds of trades for every one they pull off. So, if a source divulges that something is being discussed, just because it doesn't happen doesn't mean they were full of 'it.'

Now, do I think Pritchard is sharing info on the final stages of sensitive trade negotiations with anyone he knows to frequent message boards? No way, Jose. I think when the talks get serious, the iron curtain of secrecy goes up. And we are just left guessing.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I think you guys are all full of it.

There are a lot of trades on the table that may end up not happening. If someone gets information that they think is reputable, then I encourage them to share it. If their source requests that they don't share the details, that is fine with me. 

The alternative is that nobody posts anything. What a great thing to encourage on a forum. Let's make sure that we keep all these rumor providers shut up, because we don't seem to be able to handle it if they don't actually happen.

*Grow up and get a life. I like to here these reports. If you don't then don't read the threads, or go ahead and block the members. Just don't try and dictate what can or can't be said on this board.*:curse: :rant:


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

I agree with Bert and would also note that it depends on how you define inside information. I mean, on some level even the Mikes or team trainers don't have all the goods -- sure they're on staff but they're not part of Pritchard's "inner circle." Still, some of those people will occasionally here things and some of them almost certain have friends who post hear -- a few probably even post here themselves, though I'd bet that those folks toss out ideas and ask questions more than the say "I've got a little secret."


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

I don't have information until the Blazer season starts and I am amongst the staff in the back hallways of the Rose Garden. That is the only time I can hear information about the players or staff.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

How many times in the past have guys got it right? Has anybody's inside rumors ever come true hear on the boards?


----------



## lalooska (Jan 17, 2004)

I think what is bothersome is the insistence that the insiders are legit, moreso with the other board. 

It is entertaining, but bottom line is, its an anontnous forum, which means we're all keeping company with folks we normally wouldn't . Which I think is mostly a good thing.

Stephenson, I think we've both met one of these "insiders", and most likely share the same impression - check your wallet!


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

I wouldn't mind the rumors if they stated which players were actually involved. To say stuff like "Hold on to your shorts, something big is going to happen" is just stupid. It is a waste of threads. It also allows for no accountability if the trade actually goes through. If you want to post a rumor, stop with the "my sources say there is going to be a trade, but I can't tell you who is involved."


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

I don't know why all you posters got so excited about that post? "I have inside info, a trade is going to happen. A big, big trade!"

Wow. I guess some are easy to entertain.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

lalooska said:


> Stephenson, I think we've both met one of these "insiders", and most likely share the same impression - check your wallet!


Yep, I hear ya, brother!


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

No one here has an inside source, period. At least that's what my inside source tells me.

However if you do want to be a poster who posts "inside information" (a.k.a. giant douchebag), this might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/coldread.htm


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

I don't think it's safe to say we won't have another trade before the season starts. We've got an abundance of PFs, a pile of PGs and no real backup at SG. I'd say a trade is more than possible, it's likely.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I'd like to go on record........*I don't have an inside source* and if I did I wouldn't tell you I did. :biggrin:


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

I think it's safe to say that some of us might hear things that others don't, for whatever reason...


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Real insiders (such as me) don't share any of the inside info we have or hint that it exists!


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Nightfly said:


> I think it's safe to say that some of us might hear things that others don't, for whatever reason...


Some of you hear a lot more things than I do. I listened to too much rock and roll in my youth, and now my hearing is a bit impaired.

barfo


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

I'm quite certain that I have more insider information than any other on this board.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

TLo said:


> I'm quite certain that I have more insider information than any other on this board.


I'm actually Paul Allen, so I doubt that.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Xericx said:


> I'm actually Paul Allen, so I doubt that.


I don't tell Paul anything except what I want him to know.

Kevin Pritchard


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

barfo said:


> I don't tell Paul anything except what I want him to know.
> 
> Kevin Pritchard



fired! 

P.S. An impact player will arrive on the Blazers either this season or next offseason.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Xericx said:


> Real insiders (such as me) don't share any of the inside info we have or hint that it exists!


No, instead, "real insiders" fly off the handle on draft night and demand the GM should be fired.

:lol:


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

papag said:


> No, instead, "real insiders" fly off the handle on draft night and demand the GM should be fired.
> 
> :lol:


indeed! My sources were wrong and I demand satisfaction!


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

barfo said:


> Some of you hear a lot more things than I do. I listened to too much rock and roll in my youth, and now my hearing is a bit impaired.
> 
> barfo


What? :biggrin:


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

I interned at the Blazers offices for several months, and while you *might* hear something slip through the cracks once and a while, it rarely doesn't find it's way into the Blazers blogs on Oregonlive or some other source. I didn't feel like an insider at all being there, although, I guess it depends who you are and what you do.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

I'm sure there are people who do have some inside info that check this site out. I'm quite sure they would not post it. Any legitimate source would not pass info along to someone here. I don't get as upset as some people on here. I think it's kinda cool to have all of us talk about possible trades and moves. The only thing that bugs me about all this is the guys that come on here and say,"my source told me........." like I just said, nobody would give info out knowing it would end up on here. Keep up the work boys! By the way, nobody answered my question about if anybody on here predicted a trade or draft pick. Has any rumor actually happen, ever?


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

I disagree with MM on 90% of what he says. He pisses me off a lot. That being said, his opinions are just as valuable as mine or anyone elses, and he's entitled to them and he may very well be right. I respect that. The reason I bring this up is because, my first gut feeling when he broke the "news" was that he was full of ****. But I pushed those knee-jerk reactions aside, and gave it a wait and see aproach. So far, by his own admission, the trade he predicted based off "sources" hasn't occurred. 

Yet I don't think he posted fake rumors or doesn't have a solid source. Why? Again, realize I have to push aside my emotional knee-jerk reaction and try to use my limmited brain power to reconcile this.

The NBA is a fluid business. One day an exec can be 100% behind one thing. Things change that are out of his control or the situation looks different after a second look. That's why you see that Pritchard and his staff map out scenarios and backup plans for everything. On top of that, even the best plans can go wrong and something completely unexpected happens, and you have to make it up as you go along. Something "set in stone" one minute, can disapear completely the next minute in the NBA. I aint gonna give him crap, he relayed some info that was probably pretty solid at the time, and may in some way still happen. Just because things outside of his, his source, and probably many other people at the Blazers changed, doesn't mean it was BS to begin with.

And, after all, isn't this what this board is about? Speculation, posting the little inside info some people have, and discussing it? If not, wouldn't this board be as simple as us just copying snippets of news from the Oregonian and the AP? Sounds pretty lame. Obviously some people post made up stuff and have thier "sources". I like to think most of those are pretty obvious (i.e. I heard Darius was caught in bed with Paul Allen. I have a source. Don't question it I am God.).

Keep the rumors and info from inside sources coming! Simple fact is, some people have proven they do have sources. Sometimes the sources are wrong (Quick and Canzano's sources are often times wrong while other times right), but sometimes they are right.

Cheers to MM for having the guts to give us the info he did and not stand down from it under fire. :clap:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

TheBlueDoggy said:


> Cheers to MM for having the guts to give us the info he did and not stand down from it under fire. :clap:


Yes, except I believe (a) it was supposed to happen "soon", and (b) he disclosed his info to others to verify whether it was true. 

Part (b) is what I'm just a bit annoyed at... it's not soon anymore, and the draft had passed, and I had thought that they were going to spill the beans. 

It's not a big deal. Just sayin'.

Ed O.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> I'm sure there are people who do have some inside info that check this site out. I'm quite sure they would not post it. Any legitimate source would not pass info along to someone here. I don't get as upset as some people on here. I think it's kinda cool to have all of us talk about possible trades and moves. The only thing that bugs me about all this is the guys that come on here and say,"my source told me........." like I just said, nobody would give info out knowing it would end up on here. Keep up the work boys! By the way, nobody answered my question about if anybody on here predicted a trade or draft pick. Has any rumor actually happen, ever?


Bingo. That's the point.

Of course it is fun to dish about rumors and possible trades - we all love that. The DIFFERENCE is that with the trade in question (that never happened) the "insiders" said it was a "done deal," *as if they knew something we mere mortals did not*. They adopted a holier/cooler/smarter/more informed-than thou attitude. But It Was Unjustified. 

Hey, I wrote a book about the NBA and I never think I have any knowledge that the rest of don't have (I just like to write more!)

So lets talk smack about rumors and trades to the cows come home, but keep our eyes open that no one has more info - thereby making their opinion "better" - than anyone else. *That week/thread was a giant waste of time*, and I hate having my time wasted.

I ran into this same BS at another board with one of the guys who started this one, and it was the same thing - he did it to make himself feel important.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

I trust that some on this board or other boards (i.e. MM, Blazerbrass) have REAL, INSIDER information from sources or job situations that most of us do not have.

Trades aren't done until they're done. What is leaked to someone on Monday as being a done deal - can and does fall apart by Tuesday morning!

I think another deal with the Blazers is coming this week! My sources tell me. It probably involves Jack or Sergio or Joel.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> I think another deal with the Blazers is coming this week! My sources tell me. It probably involves Jack or Sergio or Joel.


Wait, wait, wait.

We've just discussed this and you can't come in here spewing bits of rumor without more substance.

Jack or Sergio or Joel for whom!?!?!?

Oh, wait, you were being sarcastic.

Never mind.

:biggrin: 

Gramps...


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

No sarcasm!! I think those are our tradeable assets. Jack is somewhat redundant, same with Joel. Webster, I've heard is full of himself and becoming un-coachable. They are the logical three who could be traded to get either a SF or a b/u SG.

*Edit: It could be Ime signing.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Yes, except I believe (a) it was supposed to happen "soon", and (b) he disclosed his info to others to verify whether it was true.
> 
> Part (b) is what I'm just a bit annoyed at... it's not soon anymore, and the draft had passed, and I had thought that they were going to spill the beans.
> 
> ...


Exactly. Where's the accountability?


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

TheBlueDoggy said:


> Cheers to MM for having the guts to give us the info he did and not stand down from it under fire. :clap:


Baloney. He didn't have any information. Very few people have any information of this type and they usually are *not *sportswriters. The people you get this type of info from are the GM's, the coaches, and to a lesser extent the players.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Xericx said:


> I'm actually Paul Allen, so I doubt that.


I'd hope you'd be happier with the roster moves you approve, if you were Paul.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

HOWIE said:


> I'd like to go on record........*I don't have an inside source* and if I did I wouldn't tell you I did. :biggrin:



Ditto for me....

us Steeler fans don't know squat... right Howie


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

TLo said:


> Baloney. He didn't have any information. Very few people have any information of this type and they usually are *not *sportswriters. The people you get this type of info from are the GM's, the coaches, and to a lesser extent the players.


Lets review.

In trade talks, there has to be at least one other team involved. Teams also talk to other teams to see if they can get a better deal. GM's consult their people on trade which beyond coaches includes scouts, both full time and contract as well as the people hey trust outside of their own team. Additionally, all transactions must go to the league office, players and their agents are often informed as well.

When you look at, there are literally hundreds of people that could have pieces of information about any trade discussion at any point in time. Sources exists, they just aren't always accurate with the chance of a deal happening. As was pointed out, deals are very fluid.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

cpawfan said:


> Lets review.
> 
> In trade talks, there has to be at least one other team involved. Teams also talk to other teams to see if they can get a better deal. GM's consult their people on trade which beyond coaches includes scouts, both full time and contract as well as the people hey trust outside of their own team. Additionally, all transactions must go to the league office, players and their agents are often informed as well.
> 
> When you look at, there are literally hundreds of people that could have pieces of information about any trade discussion at any point in time. Sources exists, they just aren't always accurate with the chance of a deal happening. As was pointed out, deals are very fluid.


That is all speculation. Speculative rumors do not constitute good information imo.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

TLo said:


> That is all speculation. Speculative rumors do not constitute good information imo.


No, that isn't all speculation. Deals break down all the time after they have been agreed to in principle. One team gets cold feet, or another team makes a better offer or it doesn't work under league rules. Those are all reasons why deals break down and impact what was once good information.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

TLo said:


> Baloney. He didn't have any information. Very few people have any information of this type and they usually are *not *sportswriters. The people you get this type of info from are the GM's, the coaches, and to a lesser extent the players.


Oh, there are other sources of sources alright, t.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

cpawfan said:


> Lets review.
> 
> In trade talks, there has to be at least one other team involved. Teams also talk to other teams to see if they can get a better deal. GM's consult their people on trade which beyond coaches includes scouts, both full time and contract as well as the people hey trust outside of their own team. Additionally, all transactions must go to the league office, players and their agents are often informed as well.
> 
> *When you look at, there are literally hundreds of people that could have pieces of information about any trade discussion at any point in time. * Sources exists, they just aren't always accurate with the chance of a deal happening. As was pointed out, deals are very fluid.


I think that's an important distinction. Lots of people get bits and hints and clues of information. Those people, aka 'sources' share that info with friends. Those friends pass that tiny scrap of inside info here and there.

However, nobody who knows every single nuance of a deal being discussed is going to share that kind of detail outside of those having a need-to-know status. What we are left with is: "Jack is being discussed with Atlanta and Memphis." Or: "My source heard that a deal is supposed to be finalized tomorrow." 

It's up to us, nay, it's our sworn duty, to then speculate on the details based on those scraps of information. But since hundreds of deals are discussed for every one that is consummated, most of the time we come up completely empty. So what? It doesn't mean the info wasn't legit. And without all the endless speculation, we wouldn't have much reason to come in here and antagonize each other. :biggrin: 

:cheers:


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

BBert said:


> But since hundreds of deals are discussed for every one that is consummated, most of the time we come up completely empty. So what? It doesn't mean the info wasn't legit.


I think we all know that deals and players and contracts are discussed all the time. What's troubling is that these people that get these small parcels of information pass them off as 'agreed in principle' and 'pretty much done' or whatever. It's simply not the case.

I'd rather only know about something if it was literally about to go down, not that it had simply been talked about.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Hey, ABM said he had his colonoscopy done, so I'm guessing he has some "inside" info.

Not that we necessarily are interested in hearing about it.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I here you Samuel. But there are a lot of other folks here who seem to live to speculate on possible deals, and any little 'what if' will set them off. That's what they are here for. I also understand those who are perturbed by the really vague post like: "My source says something is going to happen one of these days. I just can't tell you what." I get that lots of people would rather a guy just didn't say anything than, well, say absolutely nothing. As in, if you can't give any details, what's the point of bringing it up? If I had any sources, I have to admit I'd protect my source and leave everyone here high and dry. :biggrin: But I'd like to think I wouldn't tease every one. Much. 

:cheers:


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

cpawfan said:


> No, that isn't all speculation. Deals break down all the time after they have been agreed to in principle. One team gets cold feet, or another team makes a better offer or it doesn't work under league rules. Those are all reasons why deals break down and impact what was once good information.


Sorry, but I disagree. Any time you take a bit or piece of information and present it as a forthcoming deal you are speculating. Personally, I hate reading this crap. I prefer reading players' and teams' performances.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

ABM said:


> Oh, there are other sources of sources alright, t.


*BAH-LOH-NEY!*


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> Hey, ABM said he had his colonoscopy done, so I'm guessing he has some "inside" info.
> 
> Not that we necessarily are interested in hearing about it.


Are you suggesting that the inside info is something ABM is pulling out of his ***?


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Reep said:


> Are you suggesting that the inside info is something ABM is pulling out of his ***?


Far be it from me to make such an accusation.

Still, if the rubber glove fits ....


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Ok, NOW there is a deal coming soon.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Ok, NOW there is a deal coming soon.


When you say "soon" do you mean . . . awe, nevermind.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Reep said:


> When you say "soon" do you mean . . . awe, nevermind.



I figure I'll just keep saying it until the deal happens.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> I figure I'll just keep saying it until the deal happens.


I just used my once a year travel back in time allowance to come and post in this thread. The rules state that you can only take one item with you on the trip and I chose to take a picture of MM in 2031 doing the "told ya so" dance:


----------



## AudieNorris (Jun 29, 2006)

This thread is a waste of bandwidth and boring. To the posters who say a trade is coming based on your "sources", what little credibility you previously had no longer exists and I think your "sources" are playing with you.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

andalusian said:


> picture of MM in 2031 doing the "told ya so" dance:


LOL. Nice.

Gramps...


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

I'll say it again- *do we need another thread ABOUT the thread? *someone needed attention, and he got it. i think he even got more attention than he wanted, if that's possible.


^^^ having said that, I'll donate all my points to anyone who changes their login name to "deal coming soon"


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

GrandpaBlaze said:


> LOL. Nice.
> 
> Gramps...





LOL I hope I'm that limber in 2031. I should have more hair though, and I can say without hesitation that the player I had heard of being traded will no longer be playing for the Blazers in 2031.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

more or less. people on the internet often talk alot of bull****.


----------

