And yet, he didn't even try to get Joe to let him interview Curry for the Bucks coaching spot.Originally Posted by Hammond
And yet, he didn't even try to get Joe to let him interview Curry for the Bucks coaching spot.Originally Posted by Hammond
STEW BEEF!
Maybe because he already knew Joe was going to hire him.
Find a new slant.
Sure, I thought of that and it could be the case. But the only fact we know is that he didn't even try and Rosenberg didn't ask an obvious question.
STEW BEEF!
why ask a question when you already know the answer? hammond knew curry was our future coach and we were bringing him along to succeed flip. that was no secret to insiders and was talked about for a while. so of course hammond knew that.
so he's not going to ask when he already knew the answer.
Rosenberg needs to ask the question of Hammond.
It's great to assume when you don't have access to the people who actually know, but when you are interviewing a guy who just had to hire a coach for his team and he is calling someone other than the coach he just hired a sure-fire great coach, the natural thing to do is to ask why the guy didn't have any interest in the sure-fire great coach for his own team.
Also, claiming "insiders knew all along" as your answer for why a reporter didn't ask the question or tell THE PUBLIC is very McCosky. I hope you had a condescending tone in your head when typing it.
STEW BEEF!
What, like Curry resents guy that replaced him? Anyone that can last that long in the NBA with that little talent surely has no illusions about how good he is. I'm sure he is enough of a realist to have accepted and dealt with the times he has been replaced, cut. etc.Originally Posted by Glenn
On the other hand, maybe Tay will get mad when Curry reinserts himself as a player coach and Tay gets traded.
Tay is a cancer, so who knows?Originally Posted by Glenn
As far as the forearm shiver, looks like we are bringing the hired goons back to Detroit.
^
Stalked by a Mod who gives 1 percent credence.
I understand what you're saying Fool, but I don't think that was the angle Rosenberg was looking for. This was more about a guy from the Pistons organization who had had a lot of experience with Curry telling stories and talking about the guy more than getting a GM's view of whether or not he would have liked him as a coach. It just happens that in this case those two angles are pretty much joined at the hip if the quotes come from Hammond.
I agree with this, a good reporter asks that question and possibly comes away with a scoop.Originally Posted by Fool
We know why Hammond didn't interview Curry, or ask to interview him, but you need to try and make Hammond tell you himself if you are Rosenberg.
Maybe we need a journalism subforum.
Find a new slant.
you're right- he should have asked the question of hammond. i meant that the reason hammond didn't ask permission is because he knew the deal and/or he didn't want to take a key guy from dumars. perhaps.
speculation on my part? yeah. but it's a pretty reasonable assumption. and i've read several times on ESPN that it was common knowledge that curry was our future.
that being said, yes- the reporter should ask the question of hammond. but like was mentioned, the line of questioning appears to be that of a reporter looking for someone else's opinion of curry and not of a reporter trying to write aout whether he's fit for the job or not.
FWIW the bulls asked permission to talk to curry and were denied. just an interesting tidbit.
Bookmarks