I love Grant Napear! I hate Grant Napear! (split from the KHTK thread)

[carmichaeldave]

This is a fair statement. And my response to it is to say that these words could just as easily be thrown back in your face. So, you're saying that just because this message board "tends to swing pro-Kings player" (in your opinion; I'd argue that mileage varies on the subject), that doesn't mean that we're right, and Napear is wrong. Fair enough. I would say that just because there are "PLENTY of Kings fans who agree 100% with Grant, and think he's dead on," that doesn't mean that they're right, and we're wrong. I mean, you did just get done saying that just because a bunch of people co-sign what you think, that doesn't mean that what you think is correct, didn't you?

Why do I think that he'd do something purposefully counterproductive to his job? I don't think that he thinks that it is counterproductive to his job. Why do I think that he's prone to being petty? Because I think that everyone is prone to being petty. I trend towards cynicism: it's not in my character to see the best in people. Not only have I never personally interacted with a person whom I felt comfortable saying was "evolved" above being petty, but it's been my experience in life that the more influence a person is able to exert, the more likely they are to be petty. Grant Napear has been an influence in your area for decades: for not merely tens of thousands, but basically an entire generation of Kings Fans, he is the authority on the Sacramento Kings. I find that people with that kind of influence tend to wake up petty, go to sleep petty, and stay petty all day in between. I don't actually believe that there is a grudge so small that Napear wouldn't hold onto it, and there's nothing that he's allowed me to know about him that would give me any reason to believe otherwise.


Why do you think we know it when we see it? We can smell our own.

To your first paragraph, I agree one million percent. Neither proves either correct. Just more than one side.


I disagree with this wholeheartedly, but I cannot refute your personal truth. I have mine, you have yours, and I respect that.

Your final sentence? Touché!

 

[Bricklayer]

Forgive me- but says the highly opinionated moderator of a message board that deals with zero players nor forum posters personally. So maybe cool it on the coward stuff.

One could argue that you can come off as a bully pitching a narrative from an even safer perch.

Now before you flame me, you don't think the comparison has merit- emotion aside? I'm honestly not trying to attack you.

1) you will note, or should, that I rather notoriously do NOT ban people for coming after me, almost always. The ones who make it purely personal or disrupt the whole board over it, sure. That's my job to keep the board accessible to other people. But I am right here, right out in the open, ready, and many would say spoiling for, anybody to challenge my position, in the open, with results left forever for posterity. No cutoffs, and a slice and dice preference to stupid yelling.

2) and that is why for instance you don't have to tell me you are not trying to attack me. I don't care. Have at it. I know hanging around an entitled little flower like Grant probably has you walking on eggshells, but I get shouted at for a living. I don't think its at all your style and would have to move you over into my must be dispatched column from my general benevolence column, but still, I'm right here. In recent weeks I have seriously pondered popping up over on STR under my name and starting what would be a massive battle royale with the local anti-Cuz horde, because boy do they need it. I have not yet purely out of some longstanding sense of not stirring things up on another board. But I surely don't mind the fight.

The only part of your statement which is problematic is the nonsense about not dealing with people personally. I don't hide what I am, and at absolutely no point, except for a handful of contract type issues, do I ever claim special basketball knowledge because of my status or profession. I'm the anti-Grant. As for personal personal stuff? Not only worthless, actively counterproductive when you are trying to talk issues. Whether I am tall, short, fat, thin, ugly, pretty, am missing all my teeth, like girls, boys, dogs, cats, bow ties, wear too much cologne, shave my legs, or my eyebrows, or am a one-armed paraplegic little person has absolutely nothing to do with basketball analysis, and tiresome attempts to use any of it in a futile effort to get me to release my grip would be nothing but a distraction from the issues. And I surely hope you don't think I'd be intimidated by a professional ball bouncer, off the court anyway. I could name drop as to why that's silly to even think, but again, refrain from the personal. Suffice it to say that if any of them want to stop on by and chat about the issues, send them our way. I rather think on a personal level their status as ballers would give them inherently more credibility than mine as a lawyer anyway. But if they want to come on by, register under a nom de plume, and see if they can hang with the personal not getting in the way, they're welcome. So are your cohosts (including a former ball bouncer who has proven her acumen and ability to hang with just about anyone). So is Grant for that matter. But I don't think that's the way it works for Grant. He's got his kingdom and his stature and his hordes of dittoheads. And he's using them for selfish purposes and damaging the franchise I happen to root for, and that is where he crosses the line. He likes to talk about DeMarcus Cousins not being bigger than the Kings. You know who else isn't bigger than the Kings? Or even a franchise player? Grant Napear. He's a talking head. One that is even employed by the Kings. He's irrelevant to the product on the floor...unless he stokes the fires of a disgruntled fanbase to help create a fractured toxic disunified mess ready to turn on its own. That he can do.

 

[Bricklayer]

Still recovering from the cuteness of Bricklayer calling someone a bully.

As noted I am not a bully who hides from anyone. Bullies are essentially cowards. Notoriously they can dish it, but can't take it. Indeed they often depend on people not putting up a fight at all. Grant makes sure of it.

I make sure of exactly the opposite.

 

[carmichaeldave]

1) you will note, or should, that I rather notoriously do NOT ban people for coming after me, almost always. The ones who make it purely personal or disrupt the whole board over it, sure. That's my job to keep the board accessible to other people. But I am right here, right out in the open, ready, and many would say spoiling for, anybody to challenge my position, in the open, with results left forever for posterity. No cutoffs, and a slice and dice preference to stupid yelling.

2) and that is why for instance you don't have to tell me you are not trying to attack me. I don't care. Have at it. I know hanging around an entitled little flower like Grant probably has you walking on eggshells, but I get shouted at for a living. I don't think its at all your style and would have to move you over into my must be dispatched column from my general benevolence column, but still, I'm right here. In recent weeks I have seriously pondered popping up over on STR under my name and starting what would be a massive battle royale with the local anti-Cuz horde, because boy do they need it. I have not yet purely out of some longstanding sense of not stirring things up on another board. But I surely don't mind the fight.

The only part of your statement which is problematic is the nonsense about not dealing with people personally. I don't hide what I am, and at absolutely no point, except for a handful of contract type issues, do I ever claim special basketball knowledge because of my status or profession. I'm the anti-Grant. As for personal personal stuff? Not only worthless, actively counterproductive when you are trying to talk issues. Whether I am tall, short, fat, thin, ugly, pretty, am missing all my teeth, like girls, boys, dogs, cats, bow ties, wear too much cologne, shave my legs, or my eyebrows, or am a one-armed paraplegic little person has absolutely nothing to do with basketball analysis, and tiresome attempts to use any of it in a futile effort to get me to release my grip would be nothing but a distraction from the issues. And I surely hope you don't think I'd be intimidated by a professional ball bouncer, off the court anyway. I could name drop as to why that's silly to even think, but again, refrain from the personal. Suffice it to say that if any of them want to stop on by and chat about the issues, send them our way. I rather think on a personal level their status as ballers would give them inherently more credibility than mine as a lawyer anyway. But if they want to come on by, register under a nom de plume, and see if they can hang with the personal not getting in the way, they're welcome. So are your cohosts (including a former ball bouncer who has proven her acumen and ability to hang with just about anyone). So is Grant for that matter. But I don't think that's the way it works for Grant. He's got his kingdom and his stature and his hordes of dittoheads. And he's using them for selfish purposes and damaging the franchise I happen to root for, and that is where he crosses the line. He likes to talk about DeMarcus Cousins not being bigger than the Kings. You know who else isn't bigger than the Kings? Or even a franchise player? Grant Napear. He's a talking head. One that is even employed by the Kings. He's irrelevant to the product on the floor...unless he stokes the fires of a disgruntled fanbase to help create a fractured toxic disunified mess ready to turn on its own. That he can do.

Brick-

You moderate the board. You do a fine job in my opinion. You hold a ban hammer, have an avatar of the Dilbert dog with a bat, and the saying "don't make me use the bat".

Now our mutual dramatic friend in this thread would probably take that as you threatening physical violence on board members, tell you not to dare do so, and flail around uncontrollably.

I of course think it's tongue in cheek, a way of perhaps poking fun at yourself and I appreciate the humor.

The irony to me again is: you call Grant a coward, yet the very people he criticizes he lives with and sees every day 6 months a year.

His callers can access him at any number of public appearances and wouldn't find it hard to locate the studio. Call him wrong, call him petty, blowhard, or the many other names thrown around here. But for a guy on a message board (I believe across the country) who rarely if ever deals with those (on this board that he argues with) to say someone ELSE is dealing from a "safe position", well.....that's rich.

I don't know where the personal appearance stuff came from, or whatever you were talking about. Like I'm one to talk.

And your inference that I walk on eggshells around the man is laughable, if only you knew the debates and arguments we get into. But the inference screams of those who say the DMC defenders must CERTAINLY work for Kings PR, because what other logic could they have?

Look, this will go nowhere. Agree to disagree or whatever they say. I should've never taken the bait. Many of you have your reasons, I'm not going to change your minds, good on you.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

This nonsense about Napear just being honest and keeping things "real" makes me want to vomit dayglo. Unless I've been misinformed, this turncoat just accused Caron Butler of lying on air because the things he said about Big Cuz didn't fit the narrative that he and Poi-son have been trying to sell for years now. I don't see anything "real" in that behaviour.

Caron Butler probably won't be with the team next season. And if he is, it's because he wants to be. The guy has no motivation to lie about his opinion about Cousins. At this point, anything negative regarding Cousins is used for confirmation bias and anything that contradicts is quickly dismissed -- as Napear has done here.

Brick is exactly right. Napear is a blowhard that's rarely, if ever, interested in ever having a serious debate. I remember him from his early days at CH31 on up to what he's doing now. I've soured on listening to him in recent years because his act has grown tiresome. I truly believe that I could count on 1 hand the number of occurrences where he's admitted that he was flat wrong about a topic he's taken a hard stance on (once it has been publicly disproven). And, from the looks of things, it doesn't appear that he's ever going to let up on this anti-DeMarcus Cousins campaign no matter what.

While Napear may have access that the general fan doesn't, he's not closer to things than actual teammates such as Caron Butler. I get that Butler has only been with the team for 1 season, but he's a vet that has seen a lot during his career. His opinion is much more credible than Napear's ever could be. And there's plenty of evidence that suggests multiple other players, such as Omri and Rondo, agree with Butler's take.

In summary, Napear's willingness to sink to the level of accusing a player of being dishonest simply because it conflicts with his own POV debunks the notion that he's just keeping things honest and real.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Brick-
The irony to me again is: you call Grant a coward, yet the very people he criticizes he lives with and sees every day 6 months a year.

His callers can access him at any number of public appearances and wouldn't find it hard to locate the studio. Call him wrong, call him petty, blowhard, or the many other names thrown around here. But for a guy on a message board (I believe across the country) who rarely if ever deals with those (on this board that he argues with) to say someone ELSE is dealing from a "safe position", well.....that's rich..

I do agree with you here. For the reasons stated above. Coward isn't the right word at all. That said, Brick is correct in that he more often than not isn't interested in honest debate. He's a blowhard. Always has been, likely always will be. There's no shame in it. It makes him a nice living. Just don't sell me that he's being "real".

 

[whozit]

Brick-

You moderate the board. You do a fine job in my opinion. You hold a ban hammer, have an avatar of the Dilbert dog with a bat, and the saying "don't make me use the bat".

Now our mutual dramatic friend in this thread would probably take that as you threatening physical violence on board members, tell you not to dare do so, and flail around uncontrollably.

I of course think it's tongue in cheek, a way of perhaps poking fun at yourself and I appreciate the humor.

The irony to me again is: you call Grant a coward, yet the very people he criticizes he lives with and sees every day 6 months a year.

His callers can access him at any number of public appearances and wouldn't find it hard to locate the studio. Call him wrong, call him petty, blowhard, or the many other names thrown around here. But for a guy on a message board (I believe across the country) who rarely if ever deals with those (on this board that he argues with) to say someone ELSE is dealing from a "safe position", well.....that's rich.

I don't know where the personal appearance stuff came from, or whatever you were talking about. Like I'm one to talk.

And your inference that I walk on eggshells around the man is laughable, if only you knew the debates and arguments we get into. But the inference screams of those who say the DMC defenders must CERTAINLY work for Kings PR, because what other logic could they have?

Look, this will go nowhere. Agree to disagree or whatever they say. I should've never taken the bait. Many of you have your reasons, I'm not going to change your minds, good on you.

It's political season. You know what side you lean towards, Right or Left, it doesn't matter. Think of the pundits representing the extremes on the other side (this goes both ways that's why it doesn't matter if your right or left). Facts be damned, they will not acknowledge the validity of any of the positions of your side. They would rather unwittingly burn the joint down to prove themselves right while all the while thinking they are doing right. And a segment of the masses takes it hook, line and sinker.

For anyone who isn't anti-Cousins, Grant is the pundit representing the other extreme. He may not be entirely wrong but he seemingly won't acknowledge that he may be ANY wrong.

Grant is Grant but for the record, I think the organization needs to analyze if his dual roles is a net positive to the organization. If not, bite the bullet.

 

[Warhawk]

Carmichael Dave - I'm just going to say that I can't think of a time when I didn't enjoy listening to you on the radio. I really enjoy your style, humor, and down-to-earth nature. Now that Kayte is on there with you the morning show is just that much better - don't mess with that dynamic. She brings the gravitas of a professional player and that point of view which is great to hear. (The third wheel, at this point, I can take or leave, but that is a different conversation.) Point is - you are honest, open, and out there. You are a part of Sacramento. And, like the attached photo (us watching your movie last year at SMG) shows, we believe that you have our best interests at heart because you are one of us. It shows. It resonates with folks in Sacramento. Don't ever stop what you are doing.

I love Gerould. Jerry is a lovable hick. May not agree with everything he thinks basketball-wise, but love listening to him talk and tell his yarns.

I was listening to Grant (pretty religiously) for a LONG time precisely because he was THE window to the Kings world. He had team news, updates, etc., during my drive home. You knew he had favorites and biases/agendas, but you could deal with them for the most part in order to get the info you wanted. But not anymore. I get tired of a brash New Yorker (as he keeps reminding us) yelling at folks unless they agree with him. Sometimes he does have a good back and forth with folks that disagree, but it is much rarer now than I recall it being even a few years ago. Most of the time now I listen to something else. Haven't really listened to 1320 at all but I definitely am going to try it now.

I also agree that Grant talks out of both sides of his mouth because he has two different bosses, 1140 and the Kings. He can't be impartial; he has stated over and over again how "loyal" he is to his boss (for instance, see the Maloofs before they sold - would not really criticize them on air, talked about how fairly they treated him, etc.). But with two masters to serve, you get two different "Grants". And yes, he does talk a lot of smack about certain players/coaches, etc., and then if they come in for an interview he might ask one "tough" question and then say for weeks how he "held their feet to the fire" in the interview. Or how he rips them on the radio and then is all happy with them on TV. I just get sick of the duplicity and lack of transparency. I think to a large part that is due to his different jobs revolving around the same team but coming from different angles. I wish there were more options for in-depth Kings news other than the Bee (Voison, Andy, and the Laker lover - just ick) and the 1140 afternoon show. Maybe 1320 will help.....

Of course, with Twitter and other internet sources it is easier to keep up with immediate happenings, but even so some of the national guys also have their biases you have to wade through. We just want it straight. Why is that so hard to get any more???

 

[theclash4u5]

This nonsense about Napear just being honest and keeping things "real" makes me want to vomit dayglo. Unless I've been misinformed, this turncoat just accused Caron Butler of lying on air because the things he said about Big Cuz didn't fit the narrative that he and Poi-son have been trying to sell for years now. I don't see anything "real" in that behaviour.

Caron Butler probably won't be with the team next season. And if he is, it's because he wants to be. The guy has no motivation to lie about his opinion about Cousins. At this point, anything negative regarding Cousins is used for confirmation bias and anything that contradicts is quickly dismissed -- as Napear has done here.

Brick is exactly right. Napear is a blowhard that's rarely, if ever, interested in ever having a serious debate. I remember him from his early days at CH31 on up to what he's doing now. I've soured on listening to him in recent years because his act has grown tiresome. I truly believe that I could count on 1 hand the number of occurrences where he's admitted that he was flat wrong about a topic he's taken a hard stance on (once it has been publicly disproven). And, from the looks of things, it doesn't appear that he's ever going to let up on this anti-DeMarcus Cousins campaign no matter what.

While Napear may have access that the general fan doesn't, he's not closer to things than actual teammates such as Caron Butler. I get that Butler has only been with the team for 1 season, but he's a vet that has seen a lot during his career. His opinion is much more credible than Napear's ever could be. And there's plenty of evidence that suggests multiple other players, such as Omri and Rondo, agree with Butler's take.

In summary, Napear's willingness to sink to the level of accusing a player of being dishonest simply because it conflicts with his own POV debunks the notion that he's just keeping things honest and real.

Grant admitted to Rondo's face that he was 100% wrong about him being finished as a NBA player several times. He said it several times throughout the season on his show that he was wrong. He wants Rondo back on the team, although he admits that it depends on the price.

But I don't get you anti-Grant people. If you don't like him, don't listen. It really is that simple. Get off your high horse and just don't listen to the show. Don't like hearing him on the Kings broadcast? Mute the sound and listen to GMan on the radio. It's hilarious how some of you are using your right of free speech to try to block someone else's free speech of opinion. Obviously there are two sides of Grant, one is the broadcaster, and one is the personality. If you have a problem with either one, then don't give him the ratings to continue.

 

[Glenn]

Grant admitted to Rondo's face that he was 100% wrong about him being finished as a NBA player several times. He said it several times throughout the season on his show that he was wrong. He wants Rondo back on the team, although he admits that it depends on the price.

But I don't get you anti-Grant people. If you don't like him, don't listen. It really is that simple. Get off your high horse and just don't listen to the show. Don't like hearing him on the Kings broadcast? Mute the sound and listen to GMan on the radio. It's hilarious how some of you are using your right of free speech to try to block someone else's free speech of opinion. Obviously there are two sides of Grant, one is the broadcaster, and one is the personality. If you have a problem with either one, then don't give him the ratings to continue.

I actually bought a radio to listen to games. You don't have free speech when you are paid by a boss. If such speech agitates the boss, he can fire you. I am not saying that is what should be done but you seemed confused on where free speech applies.

 

[theclash4u5]

He's been doing it for how long now? Obviously when he has the ratings he has, he has the ability to say what he wants on the radio. Grant basically owns KTHK, the station would be nothing without him (no offense Dave).

 

[macadocious]

Grant stated years ago on the air that the berating callers, hanging up on them, going off on them afterward gets him bigger ratings. Why would he stop? It's his NYC style. When he isn't as brash he has less listeners.

This of course has nothing to do with how we talks about Boogie or Cuz, but he's unapologetic about it. He admits to it. I don't know if that is good or bad. I know there are a lot of people on this forum that don't like him. I am Switzerland on him. Can take him or leave him, on the radio that is. I do like him as the PBP guy for the Kings, I know many here don't.

I would like to say that he is a different person on the Rome show, I like that Grant much better.

 

[IfAt1st]

Dammit. It's Saturday night, I can't sleep, and my wife is crashed out and I'm bored.

I'll go point by point with you this one time, because I hate ignoring anyone, no matter how wacko they are. I just can't do it.

This is also why I never engage the Grant subject. Any hope of having a civil debate goes bye bye and I get killed for it. So consider this my final response to you (probably). My comments in italics.

You want to go point by point?
OK.

First off, use the quote button/tag like an experienced poster. Italics read bad.

Second, you'd have more credibility if you stopped personally attacking the poster, and exaggerating your opponents claims to make them easier to topple over. (highlighted)
It's called ad hominem, followed by a steady dose of Straw Man argument, and they are known as the tool of a lazy, unsophisticated debater.
And personal attacks are supposed to be a no-no on this board, but since VF21 Liked your post, she is allowing your repeated personal attacks because of your reputation and cache on here.
You're the one choosing to act uncivilly.

Sure. Except for the fact that if he didn't consistently have great ratings, he wouldn't have had the job for 20 years. And I'm pretty sure I just did one, wait, TWO interviews with two different players asking about DMC being a good teammate. Isn't that the very definition of challenging a statement? Grant and I are polar opposites on the DMC subject, are you forgetting that? But I don't sit around thinking he's the devil. We just see different things.

It has been said many times over the past 2 decades (paraphrased) that you could put a Coke machine in that timeslot, on the flagship 50,000 watt station of the Kings with little-to-no local sports-talk competition, and they would have great ratings.
And way to dodge/ignore my point : you made it out like Grant suffers attacks from listeners in defense of telling the truth, and I called you on it.
Then you point to the scoreboard and say, "But he's had ratings for 20 years"?
What's your point?
That he should be allowed to say whatever he wants? That he should be able to abuse/harangue/harass anyone he wants and be immune to challenge, by nature of his position?
Notice I'm asking you what your beliefs are, and hoping you make your opinions of Grant's behavior clear, instead of putting exaggerated words in your mouth?
That's how you debate civilly.

And a note about ratings:
According to the little I can see online (without industry data), it looks like AM 1140 (KHTK) is barely clinging to a ratings lead over AM 1320 (KCTC).
That seems an amazing indictment of 1140's operations, since 1320 is a tiny station (1/10th the signal) of mostly syndicated, East-coast, time-delayed shows that are within 7% of 1140's ratings.
Oh, looking closer at that chart, it's for the morning shows (6-12 noon), which I guess covers your show.
Oops.

And interesting info from when The Rise Guys came back to Sacramento air:

Nielsen ratings for the Sacramento radio market was released on Wednesday covering the month of September. Sacramento has two competing sports radio shows: Sports 1140 KHTK and ESPN 1320 KCTC. KHTK is a 50,000 watt powered station that is the radio home of the Sacramento Kings and KCTC is a 5,000 watt station that airs mostly east coast oriented sports feed from ESPN Radio. Starting July 28th, The Rise Guys (Whitey Gleason & Mark Kriedler) joined 1320 to compete in the afternoon drive against 1140's stalwart and Kings broadcaster Grant Napear.

The ratings for September are as followed, KHTK is in 20th place with a 1.5 rating with a CUME (people listening at any time) of 108,500. KCTC is in 22nd place with a rating of 1.1 and a CUME of 100,100. Both station have been trading spots with Sacramento State university radio station KXPR FM during the year and at one point, they beaten 1140 AM in the ratings back in July (1.5 to 1.3). KHTK has been down in the ratings for over a year now and they need to shake up the station if they want to achieve the success they had during their heyday a couple of years ago when they were in the top ten and fifteen.

Sacramento sports radio has been on a downturn during the past few years. CBS Radio really needs to shake things up at KHTK if they want to reach 2012 levels of ratings. Entercom has smelled blood in the water by hiring the Rise Guys to compete against Grant Napear who has become nothing more than a shill and a mouthpiece for the Sacramento Kings. KCTC's radios from the 3 hour old Mike & Mike morning show trumps KHTK's local show of Keith Brooks & Carmichael Dave's in the ratings.

Hahahahaha. This is where I decided you need the meds. Yeah, NBA players are afraid of the play by play guy. They're quaking. His power is infinite.

Honestly, do you exist on the planet earth? Or some other planet and you just beam in and observe humanity?

You're just embarrassing yourself with the ad hominem and straw man attacks.
The mods should be sending you warnings, but they aren't because you hold an elevated stature here and are provided greater latitude than a normal poster.
Sound familiar?
Or do you dispute that Grant is afforded greater latitude because of his seniority and ratings just like you are here because of your position with the Kings' station?


Now, if you are actually saying that NBA players don't control their behavior and treat people differently because of their influence and position, than we'll have to agree to disagree (and frankly, I find that stance delusionally disconnected from the reality). NBA guys don't have to be quaking to choose not to tell Grant what they really feel about him and his narratives.
I'm not going to strawman you, but it sure sounded like you are saying that NBA guys are unconcerned with media members slandering them for their entire careers, and single-handedly influencing the fanbase and even national media (see even Voison's unsupported vendetta picked up by national media).
Frankly, seeing what Grant has done to Cousins for SIX YEARS, any NBA player would be suicidal to take on Grant.
And no, you getting an interview with two players who speak well of Cousins doesn't in any way directly challenge Grant - I'm kinda surprised you'd try to claim that for yourself. Pretty weak.
You want to be a proponent of Cousins and call Grant on his agenda or distortion of what you see, then challenge the man directly and support it with quotes.
I'd be willing to bet you are afraid to do so.
And I don't blame you. Sam Amick got attacked by Grant, his credibility eroded and soon thereafter he was let go by the Bee. (Link to Interesting 6-year-old article and comments which echo my current statements)

It's New York style sports talk radio. Go listen to it. It's where he's from. Francesca, Mad Dog, etc. You open the mic, make bold statements, and argue with callers. It's his style. It's not how I work, or maybe you work, but it works. Again, longevity and ratings. Sorry you don't like it. So your "definition" is stupid.

Go ahead and excuse his behavior and point to ratings again.
It doesn;t make his abusive, insulting attitude right.
And I'd wager I've been listening to Grant at least as long as you have - since 1997 - and he wasn;t always like this - not remotely.
He used to be one of the more insightful, critically-astute voices who actually DID speak against the power at the time, at risk of his own reputation, I'd wager.

Now, he IS the establishment and abuses his authority whenever he can, dodging debate with scorn and invective.

Do you know what "wackadoodle" means?

Stay classy there, Dave.
Keep making this about me personally whenever you can - THAT'll win the internet for ya.

Wait a minute. His ENTIRE caller pool is made up of sycophants? Hold on, you just said he hangs up on those that question his takes. Why would he hang up on ANYONE if his ENTIRE caller pool consists of sycophants?

You actually hang your debating hat on a quickly-written pedantic nitpick?
Fine - add "majority of..." to my statement if it helps you stay on focus more and not completely dodge the point in favor of pedantry.
Are you going to refer to the dictionary next?

Do you know the definition of sycophant?

Too late.

And this is just where you're unfortunately naive. And really weird.

Let me make sure I get it-

Grant hates DMC because he needs DMC to leave so he can get interviews with players because they won't go on his show because DMC would be mad.

Right?

Wrong.
I don't know where Grant's irrational hatred of Demarcus comes from - I'm positive you could illuminate us more, but you wouldn't want to be the source for any real information for fear of reprisal...

I'm sure Grant loves having the best player on the Kings - a dominant force of the franchise for good reason - not like him (for many good reasons).
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that many Kings players only show up on his show the bare minimum number of required times...

Also, naive is my word for your argument.
That's not the way it works in a debate - you don't reply to someone calling your statement naive with, "oh yeah? well, you're naive!"

You know what?
I've ran out of F's to give.
I'll leave the rest of your personal insults and mis-statements as they are.

 

[carmichaeldave]

Meds dude. Take them. That is all.

 

[Padrino]

an individual simply has no leg to stand on when claiming that grant napear operates from some sort of critical high ground. he's a second-rate shock jock who has always used his khtk bully pulpit to skewer his king of choice. he had an axe to grind with chris webber and he's had an axe to grind with demarcus cousins. now, there were certainly legitimate criticisms to levy against c-webb, just as there are legitimate criticisms to levy against big cuz, but grant is much less interested in engaging in criticism and much more interested in rabble-rousing. radio is a dying format, and it's much easier to a inflame a mob than to nurture an audience with a carefully-measured discourse...

 

[sdballer]

an individual simply has no leg to stand on when claiming that grant napear operates from some sort of critical high ground. he's a second-rate shock jock who has always used his khtk bully pulpit to skewer his king of choice. he had an axe to grind with chris webber and he's had an axe to grind with demarcus cousins. now, there were certainly legitimate criticisms to levy against c-webb, just as there are legitimate criticisms to levy against big cuz, but grant is much less interested in engaging in criticism and much more interested in rabble-rousing. radio is a dying format, and it's much easier to a inflame a mob than to nurture an audience with a carefully-measured discourse...

This. It sucks to lose a job but I'll crack open a cold one the day that d-bag loses his. Nothing about his current shtick is for the team, the players or the fans (even the ones that agree with him). It's all about his persona and his ratings. Good riddance

 

[VF21]

You want to go point by point?
OK.

First off, use the quote button/tag like an experienced poster. Italics read bad.

Second, you'd have more credibility if you stopped personally attacking the poster, and exaggerating your opponents claims to make them easier to topple over. (highlighted)
It's called ad hominem, followed by a steady dose of Straw Man argument, and they are known as the tool of a lazy, unsophisticated debater.
And personal attacks are supposed to be a no-no on this board, but since VF21 Liked your post, she is allowing your repeated personal attacks because of your reputation and cache on here.
You're the one choosing to act uncivilly.

It has been said many times over the past 2 decades (paraphrased) that you could put a Coke machine in that timeslot, on the flagship 50,000 watt station of the Kings with little-to-no local sports-talk competition, and they would have great ratings.
And way to dodge/ignore my point : you made it out like Grant suffers attacks from listeners in defense of telling the truth, and I called you on it.
Then you point to the scoreboard and say, "But he's had ratings for 20 years"?
What's your point?
That he should be allowed to say whatever he wants? That he should be able to abuse/harangue/harass anyone he wants and be immune to challenge, by nature of his position?
Notice I'm asking you what your beliefs are, and hoping you make your opinions of Grant's behavior clear, instead of putting exaggerated words in your mouth?
That's how you debate civilly.

And a note about ratings:
According to the little I can see online (without industry data), it looks like AM 1140 (KHTK) is barely clinging to a ratings lead over AM 1320 (KCTC).
That seems an amazing indictment of 1140's operations, since 1320 is a tiny station (1/10th the signal) of mostly syndicated, East-coast, time-delayed shows that are within 7% of 1140's ratings.
Oh, looking closer at that chart, it's for the morning shows (6-12 noon), which I guess covers your show.
Oops.

And interesting info from when The Rise Guys came back to Sacramento air:


You're just embarrassing yourself with the ad hominem and straw man attacks.
The mods should be sending you warnings, but they aren't because you hold an elevated stature here and are provided greater latitude than a normal poster.
Sound familiar?
Or do you dispute that Grant is afforded greater latitude because of his seniority and ratings just like you are here because of your position with the Kings' station?


Now, if you are actually saying that NBA players don't control their behavior and treat people differently because of their influence and position, than we'll have to agree to disagree (and frankly, I find that stance delusionally disconnected from the reality). NBA guys don't have to be quaking to choose not to tell Grant what they really feel about him and his narratives.
I'm not going to strawman you, but it sure sounded like you are saying that NBA guys are unconcerned with media members slandering them for their entire careers, and single-handedly influencing the fanbase and even national media (see even Voison's unsupported vendetta picked up by national media).
Frankly, seeing what Grant has done to Cousins for SIX YEARS, any NBA player would be suicidal to take on Grant.
And no, you getting an interview with two players who speak well of Cousins doesn't in any way directly challenge Grant - I'm kinda surprised you'd try to claim that for yourself. Pretty weak.
You want to be a proponent of Cousins and call Grant on his agenda or distortion of what you see, then challenge the man directly and support it with quotes.
I'd be willing to bet you are afraid to do so.
And I don't blame you. Sam Amick got attacked by Grant, his credibility eroded and soon thereafter he was let go by the Bee. (Link to Interesting 6-year-old article and comments which echo my current statements)

Go ahead and excuse his behavior and point to ratings again.
It doesn;t make his abusive, insulting attitude right.
And I'd wager I've been listening to Grant at least as long as you have - since 1997 - and he wasn;t always like this - not remotely.
He used to be one of the more insightful, critically-astute voices who actually DID speak against the power at the time, at risk of his own reputation, I'd wager.

Now, he IS the establishment and abuses his authority whenever he can, dodging debate with scorn and invective.

Stay classy there, Dave.
Keep making this about me personally whenever you can - THAT'll win the internet for ya.

You actually hang your debating hat on a quickly-written pedantic nitpick?
Fine - add "majority of..." to my statement if it helps you stay on focus more and not completely dodge the point in favor of pedantry.
Are you going to refer to the dictionary next?

Too late.

Wrong.
I don't know where Grant's irrational hatred of Demarcus comes from - I'm positive you could illuminate us more, but you wouldn't want to be the source for any real information for fear of reprisal...

I'm sure Grant loves having the best player on the Kings - a dominant force of the franchise for good reason - not like him (for many good reasons).
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that many Kings players only show up on his show the bare minimum number of required times...

Also, naive is my word for your argument.
That's not the way it works in a debate - you don't reply to someone calling your statement naive with, "oh yeah? well, you're naive!"

You know what?
I've ran out of F's to give.
I'll leave the rest of your personal insults and mis-statements as they are.

Since you called me out by name, I'll answer:

You started this and Dave took the time to respond. It's a classic case of being careful what you wish for. As a moderator who has often been accused of stifling legitimate conversation, I decided to sit back and see how this played out. It's not because of Dave's reputation or anything else...I've known Dave for years and you can ask him yourself. I've had stern words with him on occasion when I thought it was warranted.

You love playing the role of board whackadoodle so don't be surprised if someone calls you on it. It goes both ways.

Now, as Dave asked, maybe we can all get back to bashing KHTK.

(Note: Tinfoil hats will be available in the lobby during intermission.)

 

[ForlornKing]

an individual simply has no leg to stand on when claiming that grant napear operates from some sort of critical high ground. he's a second-rate shock jock who has always used his khtk bully pulpit to skewer his king of choice. he had an axe to grind with chris webber and he's had an axe to grind with demarcus cousins. now, there were certainly legitimate criticisms to levy against c-webb, just as there are legitimate criticisms to levy against big cuz, but grant is much less interested in engaging in criticism and much more interested in rabble-rousing. radio is a dying format, and it's much easier to a inflame a mob than to nurture an audience with a carefully-measured discourse...

This is all that needs to be said.

Padrino I think is my favorite poster these days.

 

[VF21]

But I don't get you anti-Grant people. If you don't like him, don't listen. It really is that simple. Get off your high horse and just don't listen to the show. Don't like hearing him on the Kings broadcast? Mute the sound and listen to GMan on the radio. It's hilarious how some of you are using your right of free speech to try to block someone else's free speech of opinion. Obviously there are two sides of Grant, one is the broadcaster, and one is the personality. If you have a problem with either one, then don't give him the ratings to continue.

FYI - The "right of free speech" only applies to the government not abridging the rights of a citizen of the U.S. It has absolutely nothing to do with us trying to block Grant's freedom of expression. He, as a paid employee of KHTK and the Sacramento Kings, is offering a product (his opinion). We, the consumers of the product, are entitled to voice our impression of said product. The point some are making is that they are refusing to listen to KHTK any longer because they do not like the product being offered on The Grant Napear Show. If anything, that should/could be a concern to the sponsors of The Grant Napear Show, who depend on listeners buying/using their products.

I find it rather ironic that you're upset about people ranting about Grant ranting about certain players. If he can dish it out, he certainly should be able to take it...

 

[PurpleHaze]

For the record I hate arrogant, rude, know it all Napear. Recounted specific reasons many times before, most expressed by several others here. Long ago wore out his welcome in Sacramento. G-Man all class, all the time. Quirky Reynolds can stay as long as he wants with retirement best deserved on his terms. But pathetic 30+ years in town NYC homer Napear needs to go before new arena opens to clear the air - FINALLY.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

For the record I hate arrogant, rude, know it all Napear. Recounted specific reasons many times before, most expressed by several others here. Long ago wore out his welcome in Sacramento. G-Man all class, all the time. Quirky Reynolds can stay as long as he wants with retirement best deserved on his terms. But pathetic 30+ years in town NYC homer Napear needs to go before new arena opens to clear the air - FINALLY.

Maybe it's just because of my nomadic background, but that last sentence is really stupefying to me: according to a quick internet search, Grant Napear is 56. That means that he's lived in northern California longer than he lived in New York. It could be due to the fact that I don't grok the idea of "roots," but I legitimately don't get why he still considers himself a "New Yawkah."

 

[fansinceday1]

Personally I only tune in to grant the first 15 min of his show. I might listen if he's ragging on DMC again, just to see how long and far he takes it.
The rest of his show sucks. It's 3 hours of him taking calls and not really commenting on anything. He's mails it in on a daily basis and Sacramento is too small time to realize what a tub of sh** they're being served.

How do i know he's mailing it in? Listen to when he fills in for Jim Rome. Grant is engaging and very knowledgable about multiple sports. We don't hear any of his Jim Rome fill in persona on his daily show. He mails it in because he can.

 

[Glenn]

Maybe it's just because of my nomadic background, but that last sentence is really stupefying to me: according to a quick internet search, Grant Napear is 56. That means that he's lived in northern California longer than he lived in New York. It could be due to the fact that I don't grok the idea of "roots," but I legitimately don't get why he still considers himself a "New Yawkah."

For the same reason I call myself a Minnesotan. You learn a lot in those formative years of your life. You don't forget them as you age. A few years ago, someone said to me that I must be from Wisconsin or Minnesota. So happens the Minnesota roots are huge but I graduated from high school in Wisconsin.

Maybe I should have taken off the sign.

When I say small town Minnesota, click on my personal info and then click on St. Charles, MN. It was half the size when I lived there.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Grant admitted to Rondo's face that he was 100% wrong about him being finished as a NBA player several times. He said it several times throughout the season on his show that he was wrong. He wants Rondo back on the team, although he admits that it depends on the price.

So you're just telling me that my comment is still correct. I said I believe I could count on 1 hand the amount of times it's happened. You found one occurrence. Good for you because it certainly doesn't happen often.

But I don't get you anti-Grant people. If you don't like him, don't listen. It really is that simple. Get off your high horse and just don't listen to the show. .

First off, READ. I clearly stated that I've soured on listening to him over the last several years. Not sure how that comes across differently to you.

Secondly, heed your own advice. If you don't like the anti-Grant people, then don't read what they have to say. And certainly don't reply to any of it. But you did.

I didn't start this thread. I only chimed in because someone mentioned in another thread that Napear accused Caron Butler of not being truthful and that type of behaviour seemed relevant here considering the direction the conversation had gone in. Again, if you don't like it -- heed your own advice.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

For the same reason I call myself a Minnesotan. You learn a lot in those formative years of your life. You don't forget them as you age. A few years ago, someone said to me that I must be from Wisconsin or Minnesota. So happens the Minnesota roots are huge but I graduated from high school in Wisconsin.

Maybe I should have taken off the sign.

When I say small town Minnesota, click on my personal info and then click on St. Charles, MN. It was half the size when I lived there.

Huh. Maybe if I'd lived in any one spot for more than five years in a row in my lifetime, I might understand it?

 

[Glenn]

Huh. Maybe if I'd lived in any one spot for more than five years in a row in my lifetime, I might understand it?

Absolutely.

 

[IfAt1st]

Since you called me out by name, I'll answer:

You started this and Dave took the time to respond. It's a classic case of being careful what you wish for. As a moderator who has often been accused of stifling legitimate conversation, I decided to sit back and see how this played out. It's not because of Dave's reputation or anything else...

So are you officially saying that I can respond to carmichael dave in the same kind, with rampant ad hominem and straw man attacks?

Because I turned the other cheek quite a bit for the sake of civil debate and board rules...

 

[Glenn]

So are you officially saying that I can respond to carmichael dave in the same kind, with rampant ad hominem and straw man attacks?

Because I turned the other cheek quite a bit for the sake of civil debate and board rules...

I would settle for logic.

 

[whozit]

I would settle for logic.

What does logic have to do with it? Didn't you read the title? This is a love, hate thread man.

Logic is good.

 

[whozit]

I do have a question for those who have followed Napear. It seems several have indicated he has gotten worse the past few years. Do you think he has gone rogue?

And by that, during the Maloof's years (based on what little I heard him along with what has been posted by both pro/con sides) he seemed to side-step pushing the narrative the team wanted driven. Under current ownership, direction of the franchise has been in limbo/confused due to power plays and fractured upper management along with coaching carousal going none stop. Without clear direction has he been selling the only thing he knows will sell, considering he hasn't know what ways the winds would blow from day to day?

 

[VF21]

So are you officially saying that I can respond to carmichael dave in the same kind, with rampant ad hominem and straw man attacks?

Because I turned the other cheek quite a bit for the sake of civil debate and board rules...

No. No way am I saying that.

And excuse me, but the mere suggestion that you "turned the other cheek quite a bit" is possibly one of the most ridiculous things you've said in a very long time - and you say some pretty out there things.

You are the resident conspiracy theorist, much like Piksi used to be the resident pessimist. It's cool, as far as it goes, but don't act as though you're being picked on.

You and Dave had an exchange. It's over and done. If you want to continue it, I suggest you call him at his day job.