Bargnani For Josh? Note That Question Mark

   It was 11:59 p.m., March 29, 1994, and I had nailed it. The NFL story of the year. Jerry Jones was hiring Barry Switzer to be the next coach of the Cowboys and I had every detail exactly right. From Switzer’s contract specifics to the private home in Plano where Switzer was hiding out, waiting for Jimmy Johnson’s dust to clear. I had talked to all the right people. I was sure. Nailed it.

   Right at the last deadline, I submitted the exclusive blockbuster to my paper, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and I insisted on the no-room-for-doubt headline:

   “Cowboys To Hire Switzer.’’

   My editor agreed. But 20 minutes later, the phone rang. The paper’s muckety-mucks decreed the header would be changed to:

    “Cowboys To Hire Switzer?’’

    Yeah. With a question mark. My response: “I will stake my job on you taking that question mark the hell off of there,’’ I yelled into the phone. “If the Cowboys don’t hire Switzer, I’ll resign.’’

    Three points, as I think back on this:

    1.Gawd did I take my job (and myself) seriously.

    2.As absolutely sure as I was. … what if somebody abruptly changed their mind overnight? Or what if I misunderstood? Or was too zealous? I promise you, from 11:59 to the next day, when a Valley Ranch press conference was announced, I did not sleep.

    3.“Scoops’’ constructed of “absolute sureness’’ always give me pause. Even my own scoops.

   Which brings me to the website report of a Mavs-Raptors trade involving Josh Howard and Andrea Bargnani/Anthony Parker. Almost as intriguing as the tale itself is the odd certainty – almost a “past-tense’’ certainty -- with which the report is written.

   And I’m just not certain whether the certainty is a result of the website’s irrefutability or the website’s … well. … earnestness.

   Powerful wording.

   Because this story is unusual in so many ways, I’ve decided to take the unusual step of visiting with the author, Bill Ingram, in an attempt to get a feel for what has him so convinced. I do this with a full belief in Dallas’ hunger to upgrade, with a full understanding of the organization’s need to voice its support for Josh, and with full respect for anyone who is knocking on doors while chasing an important story.

   (It is to Ingram’s credit that he’s willing to play along with me in what is essentially a barroom sports debate in print. I informed him that my response to his story might include the phrase, “Aw, ya mudda wears Army boots!’’ And Bill responded playfully, “Actually, my mom did wear Army boots as she was in the Air National Guard for years.’’)

    “There are only one or two sources I trust enough to base our reputation, and this is one of them,’’ Ingram tells me, and in his chat he adds that the “front-office source texted me last night at midnight.’’ “It's a source we've known for a long time.’’

    In his story, Ingram adds his personal analysis of those involved, calling Howard “troubled,’’ asserting that the Mavs “are clearly interested in seeing if Jason Kidd can help bring out’’ Bargnani’s potential as a starter in Dallas, and that Parker is a “prolific scorer’’ who would give “Dallas the starting two-guard they (sic) desperately need.’’

  As Hoopsworld writes it, “A deal being discussed would send troubled forward Josh Howard to the Raptors in a deal that would land Andrea Bargnani and Anthony Parker in Dallas, with a combination that could involve DeSagana Diop and Antoine Wright headed back to Toronto.’’

     I asked Ingram why he didn’t allow himself a bit of elbow room. As an example: In all my coverage of the organization’s “we’re-not-trading-core-players’’ stance, I’ve tried to make it clear that everything is subject to re-evaluation and change; if we learned anything from the dismissal of Avery and the acquisition of Kidd, we’ve learned that this is an organization that acknowledges fluidity and does so without fear.

   You might say that’s CYA. I say that there is always margin for error. (Plus, I sleep better that way. I’m old. I need my sleep.)

  There is especially margin for error when:

   *There are some salary-dump aspects to this rumor that don’t add up. Why would Dallas want to salary-dump Josh?

  *The rumor, as constructed, does not fit “at all to meet the rules,’’ according to DB.com capologist David Lord.

   *We cannot for the life of us figure out how Bargnani steps in as a starter in Dallas.

   *Anthony Parker, at age 33,  has averaged 9.8 ppg for his career and 9.6 this season. That makes him about 50-percent shy of “prolific.’’

  Is there any evidence to offset the “midnight text message’’? Yes, and Hoopsworld itself has it: Bill writes in his chat today, “I was told by an extremely credible source that it was being discussed by both teams. Colangelo told me this morning he isn't having that discussion, so perhaps it's Dallas floating it to try and stir up interest.’’

   There’s a strong denial from the Toronto GM? And nobody from the Mavs organization ever commented on it? And now Bill is saying this is “perhaps’’ only the “floating’’ of a rumor?

   Oh-oh.

   “That,’’ Bill tells me, “doesn’t necessarily kill (the validity of) the story.’’

   Well, no. It doesn’t kill the notion that Donnie Nelson is exploring three-ways, or that is Dallas fielding calls about its players, or that the Mavs might eventually make a swap. But didn’t we already know all that?

    So no, the “denial’’ and the “perhaps’’ and the “floating’’ doesn’t necessarily “kill’’ the idea of Josh-for-Bargnani. But it would seem to wound it a bit. I humbly predict that Hoopsworld will soon write a follow-up that reflects the needed "elbow room,'' "gray area'' and "CYA.'' It won't be a retraction -- but it will be a tap on its own brakes.

   As I say, “scoops’’ constructed of “absolute sureness’’ always give me pause. As that is always the case with my own stories, it is certainly the case with this one.

200pm jan 7 2009