Andriod_KiNg
Starter
http://www.king5.com/news/Growing-rift-between-NBA-commish-and-league-owners-202429701.html
And this is from the side they consider "unbiased"
And this is from the side they consider "unbiased"
Chris Daniels : David Stern backing Sacramento.
- Thread starter Andriod_KiNg
- Start date
Löwenherz
Starter
First time I've actually read Chris Daniels' drivel beyond the snippets and twitter feeds posted on here, but wow, dude is worse than Randy Youngman.
Good news though, Daniels is clearly building himself a villainous scapegoat to blame when all his bravado and bold predictions of an eminent Seattle victory come crashing down right on his face. The article can be paraphrased: "OMG you guys, look how way, waaay better Seattle's offer is, but for some mysterious reason that evil, slimy snake Stern is going to screw us again!"
Good news though, Daniels is clearly building himself a villainous scapegoat to blame when all his bravado and bold predictions of an eminent Seattle victory come crashing down right on his face. The article can be paraphrased: "OMG you guys, look how way, waaay better Seattle's offer is, but for some mysterious reason that evil, slimy snake Stern is going to screw us again!"
Gary
All-Star
When he was on Grants show I kept spamming Grant with texts saying how the guy has been doing nothing but bashing Sacramento since I heard of him, and Grant still tried to call him "unbiased". Hopefully Grant saw a few of those texts. I made sure I spammed him with about 20-30 texts when he had that retard on his show.
rhythmless
Starter
Chris Daniels has been consistently one of the worst bloggers/tweeters on their end. it will be most satisfactory if we can rub this in his biased face. hes cinstantly spewing trash.
Section 101
All-Star
They just called each other unbiased for ratings.
uolj
Starter
It's so weird how everybody bashes on Daniels. I follow him on Twitter, read the article above and heard him talk on a Seattle radio station. He's not a great reporter but he hasn't been super biased at all. He even said on that Seattle radio show that he didn't know what was going to happen and that it could go either way. His reports have a Seattle slant to them, but he doesn't actively root for any individual outcome as far as I can tell and he has sources that Sacramento news folks don't necessarily have so he's a good resource.
Are there any Seattle reporters that you guys think are better?
Are there any Seattle reporters that you guys think are better?
whozit
Starter
He's the Seattle version of Bruski. And yes, I know Bruski is a National writer. IMHO, their biases are obvious. As the shift in tides have occurred, Bruski has become more reliable whereas in the beginning it seemed the opposite was true in terms of who was grasping at straws.
Gary
All-Star
You have to read between the lines with some of his articles and tweets. He's not only posting from a Seattle POV he's also bashing Sac. He brought up Stockton BK which has nothing to do with us. It's just douchebaggery on his part.
UK_King
Starter
I agree tbh. Obviously passions flare in this debate and Daniels and "Bruski" have become the target of a lot of abuse going from either side. If you expand their tweets the first reply is generally always some abuse from a Sac/Sea fan. If they don't like them, why are they following? So strange to me. Neither deserve it IMO. It's their prerogative on which stories they chose to write and their editors (though i have no idea who Bruski writes for) will be telling them how to slant it.
I was following Bruski before the Seattle sale was even mooted and he wasn't particularly complementary about this team, and spoke some utter rubbish about certain players, I'm sure it's an online "persona" but he was full of hot air and bluster and absolutely no substance when it came to his "analysis" of the basketball side of things.
Most people noticed him after he wrote that "Major League" article.
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
This^^^ I've been following Daniels for awhile now, and his style of reporting annoys me...he always finds a way to get a passive-aggressive shot in on Sac, and that obviously panders to the Seattlites that have ALL drank the Hansen/Ballmer kool-aid.
uolj
Starter
Actually, you don't have to read between the lines. That's just an opportunity for your own bias to color things.
But I get where people are coming from in that he does post things that aren't terribly relevant that appear to favor Seattle even though in reality they don't mean much. I guess I just read that as him being not a great reporter and someone looking for any possible leads (and doing it from an obvious Seattle POV). At least he retweets and discusses the news that goes against Seattle as well. I had to stop following Bruski because no matter what the news was he was always spinning it towards Sacramento's favor rather than just reporting it.
I actually really like the Bee guys in all this, as well as Sam Amick. I just want at least one person with a Seattle point of view and Seattle sources to follow, and I haven't heard of anybody, let alone anybody better than Daniels.
whozit
Starter
Actually, you don't have to read between the lines. That's just an opportunity for your own bias to color things.
But I get where people are coming from in that he does post things that aren't terribly relevant that appear to favor Seattle even though in reality they don't mean much. I guess I just read that as him being not a great reporter and someone looking for any possible leads (and doing it from an obvious Seattle POV). At least he retweets and discusses the news that goes against Seattle as well. I had to stop following Bruski because no matter what the news was he was always spinning it towards Sacramento's favor rather than just reporting it.
I actually really like the Bee guys in all this, as well as Sam Amick. I just want at least one person with a Seattle point of view and Seattle sources to follow, and I haven't heard of anybody, let alone anybody better than Daniels.
The reason that he may be posting things that seem irrelevant is possibly the fact that there has been very little that has come out from the Seattle side. In the beginning there was plenty coming from the Seattle side but not now. They played their cards early. I actually think he may not be that bad of a reporter, biased but aren't we all.
Jose
Bench
He is a bad reporter. Dumb enough to ask Stern what he thought was a clever "loaded" question, only to have the comish slap him publicly on national TV.
Kingsfan23
All-Star
The article is still Seattle propaganda. The part where he heard that the second hand of Sacramento's presentation was "poor", that he heard several NBA owners were leaning Seattle, the side-byside comparison of the arena situation, the television comparison, and as mentioned why in the world would he think Stern was on his side other than the retarded Seattle logic that "since Stern was responsible for our team being stolen that he will help steal another team for us"
ninjabiscuit
Bench
Try and find anything in that article that indicates that Sacramento has a shot at keeping this team. That's about as slanted an article as you could write about the situation and still include actual facts.
Don't forget the bit that a new arena could be ready by 2015. Or was that in another piece.
It takes roughly 2 years from ground breaking to get an arena open and they typically like to book a few test events too. So basically he is claiming they can break ground in the next 3 months or so.
whozit
Starter
This article has been one of the worst I've seen him associated with. As I said in a earlier post, grasping at straws (Bruski was this way early on). However, if you read everything in reverse you get a completely different feel than what was intended. Half empty is the same as half full. Several leaning (don't remember the exact terminology) Seattle way is the same as Several leaning Sacramento's way.
Kingsfan23
All-Star
Just as early as yesterday, after the MAloofs ultimatum, his sources were still tellng him that Sacramento was "way off" in the numbers of their bid. I have better sources than him
I think what this means is that the Sac investors have offered 311 million. This reflects that the Maloofs have been paid their 30 million non-refundable deposit by Hansen. Then the Sac group will make Hansen whole on his deposit. This seems to be coming from the NBA. This is why you get guys like Daniels saying the offer is short. That's because George wants the Sac group to pay 341 million. He cares not a bit about Hansen and his non-refundable deposit.
So the Maloofs posture is a 30 million extra grab. The NBA doesn't want to get sued over the deposit loss for Hansen. So this is the last hurdle and the Maloofs are going to be backed into taking the 311 million from Sac or pushing this to grab the extra 30.
uolj
Starter
Amick said the same thing.
The sources complaint is silly, in my opinion. I happen to think his sources aren't that great, and they're obviously mostly inside the Seattle group, but he doesn't do anything different than any most other reporters.
I'm still waiting for anybody to give me somebody from Seattle to follow instead of Daniels. There are like 5 different, reasonable reporters from Sac, plus Amick nationally, there isn't one reasonable one in Seattle?
whozit
Starter
Try Art Thiel. But be warned, there is a vocal section in Seattle that don't like him (accuse of being the mouthpiece of the port).
Source is definitely the Maloof group. If the Sac group trys to comply with the Maloofs wishes, they would putting out 371 million to purchase 65% of the team. On a team valuation basis, that's almost 575 million!
rhythmless
Starter
He's incredibly biased and douche is a good way to describe him. Up until recently all of his tweets and reporting were heavily slanted towards Seattle without mentioning Sacramento's timeline with the Maloofs at all. Well, looks like Chris Daniels is getting a taste of the Maloofs served up medium rare.
There are a lot of impassioned fans in Seattle that feel bad for how our team was being taken away by them from the start. There are a lot of Seattle fans that admit that this is not how they wanted it done. If things work out for us, I give them my condolences. But for Chris Daniels, I would love nothing more than to laugh in his face.
Löwenherz
Starter
Mentioned more succinctly by other posters before me, but nothing Daniels is doing is accidental. He's using the same tactics grocery stores use to get you to buy more cans of beans than you'd want by advertising them as 10 for $10. They aren't lying, but they're leaving out the important part that the cans are $1 each anyway, knowing the sign is going to be interpreted as meaning you have to buy 10 to get them at a discount price.
The whole article is rife with these "lying by omission" and "loaded words" sleights of hand, but the real glaring example is this graf:
"Sacramento has scrambled since the Seattle deal was announced in January to put together a term sheet for an arena deal and investor group to counter the Hansen-led bid. Billionaire Ron Burkle was expected to join the Sacramento effort, but dropped out of the investment group this week citing a business conflict. Burkle has an ownership stake in Relativity Media, which has a division representing NBA players."
First off, "scrambled" conjures imagery of haphazardness, chaos, futility and unprofessionalism that "raced," "sped" or even "rushed" among many other possible word choices would not. But it's key when considering the sentence that follows and otherwise has absolutely no connection to the first. Burkle removing his name from the investor group and instead focusing on the redevelopment and arena building aspect (another inconvenient fact omitted) is not at all related to the hurried and, to put my own biased spin on it, nigh-miraculous pace at which Mayor Johnson has forged together said term sheet and investor group. But because the sentences are adjacent and the word "scrambled" is already implanted in the mind, the reader is left to assume they're connected.
And then Daniels drives home this perception by dropping the coup de grace of his three pronged attack, the anonymous source.
"A league source said the conflict was just one factor in Burkle's decision. Burkle “wasn’t all that fired up about this deal," the source said."
A "league source" could be anyone at all related to the NBA, from Commissioner Stern down to a hot dog vendor at Sleep Train Arena, and that's the least damning part of this quote. Let's not forget that Burkle was the first investor tapped by Mayor Johnson to take control of the team more than two years ago and instrumental in preventing the team's move to Anaheim, had a person-to-person private meeting with Commissioner Stern fairly immediately after the sale to the Seattle group had been announced, handpicked the K Street Mall site over the Railyards and is still a major player in the development aspect of the project. Given the evidence to the contrary, the quote makes little sense unless the "league source" is a master empath and can read the mind of this absurdly private man or you're a Seattle reader who knows none of that and believes Burkle was just one of the many California billionaires whose name KJ "scrambled" to slap on the term sheet.
ninjabiscuit
Bench
I've been saying all along that I don't blame the Seattle fans one bit...but he seems like a tool.
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
I just read Daniels latest piece regarding supposed "dissension" between David Stern and the owners. How anybody cam claim that he isn't EXTREMELY biased is beyond me. Nothing I've read from the Sacramento local beat writers come close. Every sentence written is backed by "un-named sources". Anybody reading this now can do the same job Daniels is doing.
The only reason he is trying to spin this "dissension" thing is because David Stern has publically stated that the 2 bids are essentially equal and that there's no longer a meaningful gap in the numbers. That contradicts what Daniels continues to try to sell so now he has to punch holes in what Stern has stated on record.
The guy is the ultimate tool. How he and Randy Youngman still have a job is puzzling to me. Both are worse than the average Internet troll that jumps to conclusions without any facts whatsoever.
The only reason he is trying to spin this "dissension" thing is because David Stern has publically stated that the 2 bids are essentially equal and that there's no longer a meaningful gap in the numbers. That contradicts what Daniels continues to try to sell so now he has to punch holes in what Stern has stated on record.
The guy is the ultimate tool. How he and Randy Youngman still have a job is puzzling to me. Both are worse than the average Internet troll that jumps to conclusions without any facts whatsoever.
Löwenherz
Starter
Because the conclusions to which they jump appease their respective readership bases.
I think it goes beyond that. I think the Hansen/Maloof groups are feeding him stuff. But it's a read on what cards they have left to play.
Play one is to threaten the NBA into making sure Hansen is made whole on his deposit. That appears to have worked according to the Bee article.
Play two is for George Maloof to require a dollar for dollar match on the 341 million offered by Hansen. The deposit does not apply to matching the team value for Sac because they did not pay the deposit.
By shifting the deposit loss to the Sac group and forcing the full team match, they hope to make this so expensive for Sac, that they actually back out. Even if they don't back out, it's a battle with the Maloofs over the 311 bid versus 341 match.
Basically this is the final Maloofery by forcing Sac to overspend to keep the team. I would have hoped the NBA had some leverage, but that move today by making Hansen whole on his deposit was not good. It shifted the burden of refund to the Sac group. That's not a good sign.
rhythmless
Starter
He's also brainwashing more casual fans that don't care enough to research the issue on their own, or can't be bothered to read more than 140 characters at a time.
