Bagley needs to start or Joerger gone?

[rosa u podne]

Who said I would stop posting. Just I would stop posting any comments about what I’m hearing. Not that I post that very often anyway. I think all I have posted:

1) I’m hearing Bagley would be drafted
2) The Kings FO really likes Giles
3) That the story had some truth to it

But clearly it’s not appreciated by a large vocal group on this board so why bother. Some of you clearly seem to know it all anyway.

Well, this time what you claimed appears to be true. I am ready to consider that you have some kind of inside sources. In addition to that, I am glad that my speculation about Bagley father was wrong.

 

[Section 101]

Who said I would stop posting. Just I would stop posting any comments about what I’m hearing. Not that I post that very often anyway. I think all I have posted:

1) I’m hearing Bagley would be drafted
2) The Kings FO really likes Giles
3) That the story had some truth to it

But clearly it’s not appreciated by a large vocal group on this board so why bother. Some of you clearly seem to know it all anyway.

The story had truth in that 1 person thought this way. It was not the front office or the person who makes the decision on the head coach.

This isnt directed at what you said previously, but about the article itself.

 

[jcassio]

Who said I would stop posting. Just I would stop posting any comments about what I’m hearing. Not that I post that very often anyway. I think all I have posted:

1) I’m hearing Bagley would be drafted
2) The Kings FO really likes Giles
3) That the story had some truth to it

But clearly it’s not appreciated by a large vocal group on this board so why bother. Some of you clearly seem to know it all anyway.

Don't overreact to what is usually a small but vocal contingent (on any Kings subject). It looks like a few posters at most wanted you to give them some assurance that what you were saying was ... believeable. Usually when we ask someone what their source is, we're referring to a news source that - clearly - they could cite if they wanted to (and if they weren't lying in the first place). But when someone has a confidential source, I don't think we have more than one or two posters who think you're supposed to identify your source.

 

[andjel]

Who said I would stop posting. Just I would stop posting any comments about what I’m hearing. Not that I post that very often anyway. I think all I have posted:

1) I’m hearing Bagley would be drafted
2) The Kings FO really likes Giles
3) That the story had some truth to it

But clearly it’s not appreciated by a large vocal group on this board so why bother. Some of you clearly seem to know it all anyway.

Hey you cannot please everyone.

Frankly I do not have capacity (nor interest) to keep track of what insight was provided by whom. Thanks for reminding about your info on Bagley, that was type of info that can show extra insight (when all pundits were talking about kings-luka).

Just please keep posting and just say "based on internal source" not internet as a source of info please.
Unlike Dave, it is difficult to keep track who really can know something new and who just relies on internet.

Thanks!

 

[Livinthedream]

Ok, last reply on this as I've clearly explained my stance. I simply wanted to know if his comment was based upon all the hearsay that was going around that night or based on something else. He could have made it easy by answering instead of playing coy. You obviously feel the same way. No worries. We just won't ever agree on this point.

My last comment on this is if someone is paranoid to admit that they have an inside source, then they probably shouldn't bother admitting they know something confidential in the first place. Then they won't be bothered by anyone having the audacity to ask how they know something. Pretty simple concept IMO.

I'm really baffled how you guys are taken back by the follow up on this, but whatever. C'est la vie. I still enjoy bantering with both you guys about the KINGS. Now I'll move on.....

I don't really want to take sides or debate it. But it's fair to say that in the past sactowndog has said he has a source. I'd rather not pick it apart and try to identify the source because that risks losing some potential info on the board. If the info is wrong, it's no different than people on here stating their opinions as fact.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I don't really want to take sides or debate it. But it's fair to say that in the past sactowndog has said he has a source.

I never heard that from him or anyone else. Thanks for clarifying. That’s all I was asking from the beginning.

 

[The Hammer]

Alright Kingsfans so we've had a little drama to entertain us! Bagley is the man going forward and we all know it. Let's not forget about Skal though if a trade happens but like I said before I can't even believe we're even mentioning that word around here, we've got games to win!

This is a very winnable Jazz game tonight and I'm looking to Bagley BIG TIME against Gobert. No easy layups.

 

[burekijogurt]

I never heard that from him or anyone else. Thanks for clarifying. That’s all I was asking from the beginning.

fwiw, I mentioned in this thread after the original question was asked that I remembered sactowdog making a similar statement using similar verbiage about Bagley being the guy we will draft, and pointed out that that turned out to be true (I think i framed it neutraly as a data point to be considered)

 

[sactowndog]

You guys are getting this twisted. This is how journalism works.

There will no longer be journalism guide if anyone can claim to have knowledge on anything without any referencing source. The Reuter's essential guide for sourcing says, "You must source every statement in every story unless it is an established fact or is information clearly in the public domain, such as court documents or in instances when the reporter, photographer or camera operator was on the scene. Good sources and well-defined sourcing help to protect the integrity of the file from overt outside pressures and manipulation and such hazards as hoaxes."

How else can the general public tell fact from fiction if no one ever has to cite their sources anymore?

I’m not a journalist nor did I claim to be one. What I have heard doesn’t meet journalistic standards but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I am judicious what I post and to date I don’t think I have posted anything that hasn’t been proven true. This isn’t a paid publication and you are incorrectly ascribing a standard that doesn’t apply.

That being said if the majority of posters (or mods) would prefer I don’t post I am happy to follow their wishes as it’s no skin off my nose.

 

[whozit]

I’m not a journalist nor did I claim to be one. What I have heard doesn’t meet journalistic standards but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I am judicious what I post and to date I don’t think I have posted anything that hasn’t been proven true. This isn’t a paid publication and you are incorrectly ascribing a standard that doesn’t apply.

That being said if the majority of posters (or mods) would prefer I don’t post I am happy to follow their wishes as it’s no skin off my nose.

This is one poster who enjoys hearing what people have to say. Please don't stop posting what you hear from the whispers on the wind. They'll either pan out or they won't. And even if they don't that doesn't mean you didn't hear it.

 

[The Hammer]

So can we put this question to bed already? Bagley's playing great, showed exactly what he needed to show vs. Gobert and Favors.

 

[PurpleHaze]

So can we put this question to bed already? Bagley's playing great, showed exactly what he needed to show vs. Gobert and Favors.

Absolutely agree. Put it to bed. Coach deserves more credit than ever tonight. Had Bjelica start (hot from get go) and then made sure big Serbian in at the end (hot once again) to close it out. Plenty of young Bagley throughout effective minutes. All's good going forward in Kingsland.

 

[Telemachus]

I’m not a journalist nor did I claim to be one. What I have heard doesn’t meet journalistic standards but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I am judicious what I post and to date I don’t think I have posted anything that hasn’t been proven true. This isn’t a paid publication and you are incorrectly ascribing a standard that doesn’t apply.

That being said if the majority of posters (or mods) would prefer I don’t post I am happy to follow their wishes as it’s no skin off my nose.

Feel free to post, but don't expect everyone to believe you when you say you have a source. There are certain people on this board that I know they have a source and others who I'm not sure about. I have also seen a lot of people come on this forum with big claims that ended up being full of hot air. That is why some are so quick to question those who make claims.

Here's the thing, if you consistently show your sources to have merit, the questions will stop (or at least slow down).