Josh-For-Bargnani: Reversal Of Rumor

     I predicted earlier today that Hoopsworld might slow its roll on its “emerging story’’ of some alleged Josh Howard-for-Andrea Bargnani trade. And so far, my prediction is the most accurate part of this strange tale.

    Hoopsworld’s Bill Ingram initially wrote that a deal was virtually pending according to a “source’’ who texted him Tuesday at midnight. The website later inched away from the newsiness of the claim after Toronto GM Bryan Colangelo apparently contacted it to strongly deny any such trade talks.

   Ingram – to his credit cooperative all day in communicating his thoughts to DallasBasketball.com – later said that “perhaps it's Dallas floating it to try and stir up interest.’’

    Well, perhaps.

    At that point, my cynicism about the story felt essentially confirmed. And so, as part of this DB.com column in which Ingram and I barroom-brawled a bit, I issued my own bold “scoop’’:

    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.

    Voila. Hoopsworld’s afternoon update of the Howard-for-Bargnani exclusive is no longer even about Bargnani. Rather, it is about the Mavs’ “master plan.’’ (Hoopsworld’s words.) In fact, the site has shifted not only the focus of the trade rumor but also the blame of the misguided story onto the Mavs.

     Writes the site: “While it's clear that the Mavericks are anxious to move Josh Howard, it appears the talk of the Raptors being involved are exaggerated at best.’’

    Additionally, Bill responded to his critics in the comments below by explaining that his “source was a good one, but he was given bad information by the Mavs.’’

    Respectfully, I say three things to the well-meaning gang at Hoopsworld:

    1 I’m an old man with a probably bygone way of doing things. But there used to be a thing called “The Two-Sources’’ Rule. And if I had both a press credential to Mavs games and easy phone access to the Raptors GM, I guess I would’ve asked around before running the story, not after. And this “Mavs give bad information’’ thing. … how can I know if it came via the Mavs, if it’s bad, or even if it’s information, if I didn’t even get it from the Mavs, but instead got it second-hand? Oh, and this "good source/bad information'' idea: That's a contradiction in terms. If my "good'' grocer sells me "bad'' fruit, he's no longer a "good'' grocer.

     But I’m an old man with a probably bygone way of doing things.

     2 At this point, is it really wise or fair to credible to write with such assuredness that “the Mavericks are anxious to move Josh Howard’’? I’m not dismissing what might happen between now and mid-February with J-Ho -- we all have our theories on what the Mavs might do with Josh -- but rather whether such a statement should be made so cavalierly.

    3 How can Hoopsworld call the rumor “exaggerated’’ when the generator of the rumor is Hoopsworld itself?

    Like I say, a strange tale.

620pm jan 7 2009