2023-24 Insider Information Thread

[sturt]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

Now that we are past the draft, I am starting a new thread for this discussion.  I am reposting the pinned thread guidance and highlighting an additional qualification:

How Moderators Will Deal with  Posters Who Claim to Have Inside Information - A post passing along 'inside information' tends to draw more attention than an average post on the Squawk and comes cloaked in a higher level of credibility due to the referenced source(s).  Some posters have been skeptical of the legitimacy of the posts and previously indicated they did not want to see them.  Others have showed strong interest in this content.  

As a moderator team, we do our best to assess whether these claims are being made in good faith or not.  If we conclude that there are reasons to doubt whether the poster is making them in good faith, we will generally pull those posts from the board as we do with other bad faith content.  Where the posts are being made in good faith, they will generally be permitted.  I think it is important to stress that we have evaluated this issue specific to Soth, Supes and campster in a couple of ways and our conclusion is that we will continue to permit these posters to share their 'inside information' on the board for these reasons. 

Character of the Posters - First, we looked at the posters themselves to see if there were indicia of bad faith.  I don't need to belabor this so I'll just be direct.  These are veteran posters on the Squawk who have shown themselves to be reasonable, ethical people in the past.  Like with other posters who have shown themselves to be honest men (or women) of character, this earns them a degree of trust from our team in the absence of some compelling reason to think that some ill will is in play.  We see none of that here.  We think that those who are sharing this info are not bull****ing the board for some capricious pleasure or out of some desire for attention and are passing along the information in good faith because they think it will be of interest to some posters.  In particular, I'd note that Sothron has been targeted by a really bad actor in the past who (IMO) criminally harassed him and his wife so he is a great example of someone who not only isn't out for attention but has compelling reasons not to share other than doing what he thinks is good for other people here.  So from the standpoint of bad motives which might be a reason to moderate that content (trolling, using the board to make money, whatever, etc.), we don't see any indication of that and believe in the good faith of all three of these people.  If we had a reason to think any future posts are not made in good faith, we would certainly treat that very differently from where we have some confidence about the good faith of the posters.  Notably, mrh specifically stated in his original post that he was not questioning the integrity or good faith of soth, camp, and supes.

Reliability of the Content -  Second, we took a look at the accuracy of the content that has been shared under the insider label and view the accuracy of that coming to pass as mixed.  This is likely to be expected if real since nobody is getting their leaks from TS (meaning there is a bit of the phone game in terms of degrees of separation from the ultimate  decision maker to the post coming onto the board) and if we use media members who share inside info that is not in the vein of Wojo (i.e., things that are done and happening and just leaked moments before they become verified anyway) this is consistent with their 'accuracy'.  We have no intent of banning media content of this variety so don't see that as being more problematic in terms of poster content.  To the contrary, all three of these posters have been very explicit about the limitations and distance from actionability of their information so there is a degree of caveat emptor for people reading this content.  The posters providing this make no bones about the fact that most of what they share will never result in something tangible because by its nature most trade talk and similar discussions between teams that might be shared by an inside source amounts to nothing and sometimes the inside source is simply wrong.  In sum, there was not a concern about reliability here that rose to a level where we felt moderation was required.

Disinterest / Negative Reaction from Some Posters - Third, we considered that there are some posters who don't want to see this content or simply think it is all garbage that the Squawk would be better off without.  That is fair but I think it isn't that different from posters who are uninterested in other discussion like Diesel's trade threads or arm-chair psychologist speculation on a player's state of mind, off-season work, etc.  That is part and parcel of a board like this.  The approach from the moderators that we will continue going forward is to try to keep most of this content in discrete threads so that it doesn't shut down other content that may be of interest to these posters.  Think of this as being somewhat like the tanking discussions from a few years ago where moderators did affirmatively step in to remove that content from threads.  In those cases, when the OP's subject for discussion was lost due to the thread getting derailed with tank talk we culled the tanking content out of those threads.  Please reach out to a moderator if you see this becoming an issue on the board and we will be happy to help out.  The intent is that this be a topic of discussion and not to overwhelm other topics.  I'm confident we can strike that balance.

Net Positive to the Board -  Fourth, even in the absence of a violation of the rules we considered whether the board would be better off without this content on the main board and concluded that just wasn't the case.  There are a lot of posters who are very interested in and enjoy discussion of these posts.  For those who don't, they can simply skip the "ask Supes" type of threads that are focused on this content and they will be spared most of it.  Removing this content or gating it in a more limited way we think would not do a lot for the board and would be seen as a real negative for the significant number of posters who are interested in this content.  In short, we think the discussion is overall a good thing for the Squawk and our members.

 

HOW TO DEAL WITH POSTERS OF 'INSIDE INFORMATION' - A natural corollary to the conclusion that we will permit these posts from these posters (absent some significant change in circumstances) is that we aren't going to have a debate on the board about whether they are lying or full of it, etc.  The mantra all of you are probably sick of hearing from me is "address the post, not the poster."  If you believe a poster is acting in bad faith PM a mod.  If you think that discussion is encroaching on other topics, PM a mod.  You are 100% entitled not to believe a word of these posts in which case it might be recommended to skip the thread entirely.  However, we are not going to move into a referendum on the posters and their good faith on the board. 

Report it if you think there is some compelling reason that there is a problem.  But do not insult the posters, attack their integrity, etc. on the board.  Feel 100% free, to the contrary, to give every reason under the sun you think that the inside information doesn't make sense.  Hopefully he doesn't mind, but I'll use bleach as a good example of how to do this.  There were 'inside information' posts concerning potential Ben Simmons trades that were made.   He did not attack the posters but very vocally stated why he thought that a trade along those lines didn't make sense and would therefore never happen.  That is totally fair discussion.  It is basketball discussion about the content of the post rather than the poster themselves.  That is how to engage on this if you don't think the 'inside info' is credible rather than to challenge the poster.  (Recap:  Engage on a basketball discussion or reach out to a moderator).

CLARIFICATION:  If you want to taunt the posters when their information doesn't pan out, go ahead and self edit that post.  This thread is not a place to dump on someone every time info doesn't pan out.  To try to illustrate this see the difference in the #3 response:

1 - "My source tells me we are going to draft Isaiah Jackson with the #20 in the 2021 draft."

2 - Hawks actually draft Jalen Johnson.  

3 -

"You were wrong.  LMAO."

"The Isaiah Jackson thing never made sense to me because we didn't need a center with CC and OO on the roster.  A PF like JJ was always a much bigger need."

The former is going to get removed and you'll be asked not to repeat it.  The latter is fair basketball discussion.  Focus on basketball, not on the poster and you are going to be fine.  Focus on the poster and you'll have problems.

Conclusion

We appreciate your patience and you giving us the chance to have some discussion among the mods/admin in order to give everyone on that team a chance to voice their opinions more fully before we came back with something more official.  

The Squawk is a great site where all of us are united in our love of the Hawks.  We share the frustrations and celebrations along the way together so let's keep that spirit as we move forward.  Thanks.

 

Surgically well said. I hate that you guys have to spend so much time doing the job you do. It's crazy how the various caretakers of this site for over 20 years now have given it the passion and time necessary to make it the exceptional community generating exceptional conversation for our still-trophy-less ATL team. Thank you (all).

 

I would only add... police aren't the only way that a society maintains some control over behaviors that work to the greater good of all.

Culture has its place, too.

If in my neighborhood, one of my neighbors' teenage kids is hosting a Saturday night pool party that continues to be loud as midnight nears, it would be better if the adults in the pool party household  knew that some of the other adults in the households that surround them try to get to sleep around 11 in anticipation of church the next morning... then...

How much better is it if those adults who have influence with the kids exert some of that influence... rather than a neighbor pecking on the door... or, rather than one of them calling to ask police to come out to say something?

Sometimes if not often the best way for a situation to resolve itself is for people of conscience within someone's circle to be kind enough to help that someone operate within conscientious, respectful boundaries... because they're the people who that someone is gonna consider to have his/her best interests at heart, whereas everyone else are just meanies and, in effect, pool party poopers.

[Spud2nique]

4 minutes ago, sturt said:

everyone else are just meanies and, in effect, pool party poopers.

Only if you play by the rules and agree with everything the insiders say, then you are good. Just walk this way…  

Never been about that. I was respectful and said his outcome didn’t happen. That’s all. I’m not the reason this thread was made, or at least I shouldn’t be.

[sturt]

1 minute ago, Spud2nique said:

Only if you play by the rules and agree with everything the insiders say, then you are good. Just walk this way…  

Never been about that. I was respectful and said his outcome didn’t happen. That’s all. I’m not the reason this thread was made, or at least I shouldn’t be.

Spud, I'm not the right person to have this conversation with you. Haven't been for awhile. Something's different today than was true a couple or three years ago. I would like to think the something-different is temporary, and we can engage again. That's all I've got for ya, except my well wishes for better.

[Sothron]

31 minutes ago, sturt said:

That leaped out to me, too.... first time I've ever seen him allege he has "sources."

Brad, if you're lurking, please follow up your tweet and clarify.

Does "prominent" source mean... someone who would know by virtue of their inclusion in the ATL Hawks basketball ops organization chart.......... or......... someone who is "prominent," as-in, say, Bob Rathbun or Kevin Chouinard... a name we all would recognize as a media person with, no doubt, good sources of their own... but the intel is, actually, second-hand then... ???

Not doubting the information so much as, again, you've never  suggested, to my knowledge, that you have what would ordinarily be described as "insider" sources... and even here, it's interesting you choose the term "prominent" which can be read different ways.

Brad has sources. All I will say.

[sturt]

8 hours ago, akay said:

As long as we learn from our mistakes, last one being the Kevin trade, that's fine.

Tony is a new owner figuring out how he wants to play his role with the Hawks, he made a horrendous decision last year that's still biting us in the ass, but it seems he's learned his lesson.

Glad it's sooner rather than later, I'm excited to see what our team is gonna look like next year - feels like that's when we'll have legitimate deep playoff aspirations. 

I don't trust him yet. Not at all.

I know he seems new.

Folks... did you know... and I just now happened on this...

Your Atlanta Hawks have now been under Antony Peter Ressler's (and company) control for 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8, COUNT 'EM EIGHT friggin years ?!? (... as of this day, June 23, 2015!).

He gets no grace from me at this point unless and until there is a queue of substantially  black-and-white facts over a period of time that accumulate to show he's not just telling us what he thinks is in his best interests to tell us.

That's going to take... yes... time. The clock JUST RESET.. at least the one I'm keeping over here on my side of the internet... with his Schultz interview in February, and essentially, with the Landry Fields Collaborative era.

Check back next off-season.

[sturt]

7 minutes ago, Sothron said:

Brad has sources. All I will say.

Well, of course, Brad said that much.

Would you help clarify and go so far as to say he has "primary" sources?

That would help.

[AHF]

34 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Would I get banned if I laughed at this?  Comon @AHF he wiffed, I called him out on it, he didn’t like it, you closed the thread and opened this one. 
 

I think I understand clearly…

If you wanna ban me for making it a fair fight go ahead and do it I don’t care anymore. You got us fighting with our hands behind our backs and you are really protecting your stars ️ (the insiders).

Let it be a fair fight. That’s all I ask.

 

The point is we don't want people fighting.  Not sure how that is unclear.  

On the thread closing, that has been discussed for weeks.  We have closed threads routinely when they get too big so the only discussion on that has been when it would be closed and new one started.  I did it now because I thought the draft was a clean cutoff point.

[AHF]

17 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Only if you play by the rules and agree with everything the insiders say, then you are good. Just walk this way…  

Never been about that. I was respectful and said his outcome didn’t happen. That’s all. I’m not the reason this thread was made, or at least I shouldn’t be.

You weren't the reason this thread was made.  

[Sothron]

Just now, sturt said:

Well, of course, Brad said that much.

Would you help clarify and go so far as to say he has "primary" sources?

That would help.

He quite honestly has sources as good if not better than my own. Brad is a paid media personality so his threshold to relate what he hears is higher than my own. He also is a key member of the Locked On sports podcast team and through them he has access to other team's sources as well.

I frankly have two Hawks sources and one Twolf source. I was giving marching orders not to say a word about Bufkin and I did not. There's no way they could give Brad the same condition since it is literally part of his job description. I am just an informed fan on a message board. I have no illusions about that and neither do my sources, for good and bad.

[Sothron]

39 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Would I get banned if I laughed at this?  Comon @AHF he wiffed, I called him out on it, he didn’t like it, you closed the thread and opened this one. 
 

I think I understand clearly…

If you wanna ban me for making it a fair fight go ahead and do it I don’t care anymore. You got us fighting with our hands behind our backs and you are really protecting your stars ️ (the insiders).

Let it be a fair fight. That’s all I ask.

 

No one wants you banned. No one wants people fighting on here either. @AHF has talked about closing that monster thread for some time now and after the draft was just a logical place to do so. 

There's no need for any fighting, fair or unfair   We're all just schmucks on a message board that have known each other for years if not decades at this point.

[sturt]

1 minute ago, Sothron said:

He quite honestly has sources as good if not better than my own. Brad is a paid media personality so his threshold to relate what he hears is higher than my own. He also is a key member of the Locked On sports podcast team and through them he has access to other team's sources as well.

I frankly have two Hawks sources and one Twolf source. I was giving marching orders not to say a word about Bufkin and I did not. There's no way they could give Brad the same condition since it is literally part of his job description. I am just an informed fan on a message board. I have no illusions about that and neither do my sources, for good and bad.

Soth, deep respect, but you realize he's never maintained (to my knowledge, and I don't listen to everything, of course)... that he has "sources" at all.

His thing has always been analysis, not insider intel.

Just saying I respect the tweet... I respect that his source in this case is, indeed, "prominent"... but again, it's one thing if your buddy Chouinard tells you "Yeah, this is the situation I'm hearing"... it's another if you actually have Nicky's secretary feeding you what intel s/he feels comfortable sharing. Right?

That's what I'm trying to understand.

[Sothron]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

Soth, deep respect, but you realize he's never maintained (to my knowledge, and I don't listen to everything, of course)... that he has "sources" at all.

His thing has always been analysis, not insider intel.

Just saying I respect the tweet... I respect that his source in this case is, indeed, "prominent"... but again, it's one thing if your buddy Chouinard tells you "Yeah, this is the situation I'm hearing"... it's another if you actually have Nicky's secretary feeding you what intel s/he feels comfortable sharing. Right?

That's what I'm trying to understand.

I listen to all of his podcasts and we've talked privately. He has never told me privately he has sources but he has in fact mentioned a few times he has sources. He's literally in the press room asking questions. Jeff Schultz is by far the most plugged in media person for the Hawks. After that? It gets murky. 

If Brad says he has a prominent source I believe him. I can't tell you how I know he has sources besides what Brad himself has said on his podcasts but yes, I believe he has sources.

[cam1218]

@Spud2niquefor the record, that thread was a mess and the closing had nothing to do with you. Like @Sothronsaid, it was a monster thread that had about 100 different debates going on. I actually asked @AHFand the moderators to consider putting a rumor thread at the top, which they luckily agreed to trial, because once information was shared it would get buried so quickly. I'm normally on here at least once a day and I had no idea what was going on for awhile there lol. 

[sturt]

6 minutes ago, Sothron said:

He's literally in the press room asking questions.

Knew that, of course, but just b/c a person is a member of the media doesn't even barely in my experience certify that a given person has what we would commonly recognize as "primary sources."

Vivlamore is a vivid example. Guy never seemed to break any story. Sure he's a good guy otherwise, but he couldn't even be relied upon to ask natural follow-up questions in a presser. As disinterested/detached a beat reporter as I've ever seen for any team I follow.

 

6 minutes ago, Sothron said:

He has never told me privately he has sources but he has in fact mentioned a few times he has sources.

News to me. But I believe it now that you tell me that.

Still. Again, again. "Sources" is a very nebulous term on its own without a qualifier. Of course.

 

6 minutes ago, Sothron said:

If Brad says he has a prominent source I believe him.

Me, too. He's never, to my knowledge, been one to overstate or understate or mislead.

 

 

[Final_quest]

4 minutes ago, sturt said:

Soth, deep respect, but you realize he's never maintained (to my knowledge, and I don't listen to everything, of course)... that he has "sources" at all.

His thing has always been analysis, not insider intel.

Just saying I respect the tweet... I respect that his source in this case is, indeed, "prominent"... but again, it's one thing if your buddy Chouinard tells you "Yeah, this is the situation I'm hearing"... it's another if you actually have Nicky's secretary feeding you what intel s/he feels comfortable sharing. Right?

That's what I'm trying to understand.

What I have been trying to say for awhile is that having sources and reporting the inside information are two different things.  It's been clear to me that he has sources, but does not leverage them to break news.  It's not the type of coverage he is focusing on. 

But I think with what he chooses to cover and how he talks about players and the FO, the inside bits are sometimes stated between the lines.  

 

[sturt]

12 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

It's been clear to me that he has sources, but does not leverage them to break news.  It's not the type of coverage he is focusing on. 

Again. Again. Again.

"Sources" is a relative term. I've illustrated that.

But I'll go further. Does Brad talk with John Collins? Sure he does. Does Brad talk with assistant coaches? Sure he does.  Does Brad talk with Kyle Korver. Sure he does.

But what we're talking about here is "insider intel" that only certain people are both (a) well-placed to provide and (b) willing to provide.

A John Collins or Joe Prunty isn't/wasn't ever going to be well-placed to provide player movement intel and related.

Kyle Korver is well-placed, but he's certainly never going to be willing to provide that kind of intel, unless it's already agreed to release it.

So, the question is what sources Brad... or for that matter, any other media person... has that meet those two criteria, not just one.

 

Chris Kirschner, for instance, somehow someway seemed to have those kinds of sources.

[Final_quest]

My take on the Insider thread is that I think there is a tendency to overreact on all levels.  Sometimes it's a poster reacting negatively to an insider.  Sometimes a poster defending an insider.  Sometimes an insider taking something personally.  Sometimes a mod getting too defensive over the conversation.  

At this point we should expect some disbelief from a few posters towards the insiders and everyone should let it go unless it gets really ugly.  Most people take the info the way they should, with a grain of salt.  The people who question it usually are not being hostile. 

I think the overreaction to some mild questioning of "insider info" is what escalates the thread more than anything.

 

[sturt]

12 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

towards the insiders

If by "towards the insiders" you actually  meant to say "towards the information a given insider has presented" ... then yes.

I believe that's consistent with what AHF stated, as far as I understood it.

It is an important clarification, though.

We do not have liars passing along what they want us to believe. We do not have disingenuous posters posing as insiders who don't actually have people who should be regarded as such. The information may be deserving of disrespect... but the person passing along the information should never be held in contempt or mocked. In my opinion. There's an adult line of respect that's been forged over many, many years now with Supes, Soth and Camp.

[AHF]

4 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

My take on the Insider thread is that I think there is a tendency to overreact on all levels.  Sometimes it's a poster reacting negatively to an insider.  Sometimes a poster defending an insider.  Sometimes an insider taking something personally.  Sometimes a mod getting too defensive over the conversation.  

At this point we should expect some disbelief from a few posters towards the insiders and everyone should let it go unless it gets really ugly.  Most people take the info the way they should, with a grain of salt.  The people who question it usually are not being hostile. 

I think the overreaction to some mild questioning of "insider info" is what escalates the thread more than anything.

 

There has never been an issue with anyone posting why they think "insider info" doesn't make sense.  If an insider report says we will trade Jalen Johnson for Kevin Durant and someone pipes in to explain why that doesn't make sense for Phoenix or why it doesn't work under the cap that has never been a problem.

Beyond that, no one pretends the information is infallible.  The insiders themselves say they are only passing along things that are being discussed and that 100 discussions happen for every trade that is actually made, etc.  So there is no insistence that people pretend all the information shared turns out to be right.  I think it is usually self-evident whether it is right or wrong and the only time I've ever seen the people who post it go back and note where they were right has been in response to posts that essentially claim it is all made up BS.

The issue the moderators are solving for are the posts that are less focused on the information and more focused on the poster.  We've had posts in the past by multiple people where they say the poster is full of BS, that the poster lacks integrity, that the poster shouldn't be trusted, etc.

What we've tried to do over time is encourage people to engage on the basketball side and stay away from focusing on the poster.  If people just focus on basketball talk, we will stay in the clear and the tone tends to be one of mutual respect.  When people focus on the poster, things predictably get personal and too often go off the rails.  This idea of talking basketball instead of about other posters is a general rule on the Squawk not just for the insider thread. 

[deester11]

Well...if yall can have an opine...so can I.  No one likes to be wrong or I would hope they don't.  Regardless of Supes concern over BBIQ on here, there is more iq here than is sometimes displayed.  As for rumors, I'd rather they come from sources in the Hawk community but I know that's not totally always possible. We're mostly all Hawk fans..so the inevitable "I don't believe you" may be applicable.  But the love is there.

As a hawk's fan, I pledge to not ever attack someone intentionally, but a passionate respond will be construed as such I hope.  Mods...you gotta Mod. 

Edited June 23, 2023 by deester11