Setting the Story Straight

I just finished reading Chris Vernon's blog, where he basically says that we here at 3 Shades of Blue are in Michael Heisley's back pocket because we defended him, rather than taking Adrian Wojnarowski's column at face value. I don't think that's a fair label, given that we have been vocally critical of Heisley's tenure as owner on several occasions since starting this blog. Allow me to go step-by-step in offering a rebuttal to Verno's post.

I am mentioned as giving Adrian a forum so that he could get his "fifteen minutes." Adrian is an award-winning journalist who has worked for a lot of newspapers, espn.com, etc. He is also the author of one of the greatest sports books ever "The Miracle at St. Anthony." At 3 Shades of Blue they assume that Adrian is some blogger trying to make a name for himself and by misquoting Heisley it makes it hard for other legit bloggers. Hahahahahahhahaa. Oh for goodness sakes. The guy has been on the NY Times Bestsellers list and he is trying to make a name for himself talking about the freaking Grizzlies? Come on. 3 Shades trash Adrian and stick up for Heisley.

Unlike myself, Chip does not read every single piece of NBA-related information that passes across the tubes we like to call the internet. This is probably because he has a life and I don't. However, because of this, he was completely unaware of who Wojnarowski was (or who he even wrote for) and went with the description that Heisley gave him...because Heisley believed that Wojnarowski was a blogger just like us at 3SoB. That's right -- Heisley had no idea who Woj2 was when conversing with him a few days ago. I know who Woj2 is and even mentioned having previously had a great deal of respect for him in my response to his column yesterday morning. I have read his columns for years and own copies of both The Miracle of St. Anthony (currently in my library) and Jimmy V: The Life and Death of Jim Valvano (pre-ordered on Amazon.com). Rest assured, I know who the man is. However, I also knew that Heisley is prone to speaking off-the-cuff about things in a manner that could very easily be perceived in a manner out of context with how he actually intended them to be conveyed. That's why I was willing to step out there and take issue with the column, even though I knew it wouldn't be a very popular move. I saw things being presented in a light that was the opposite of what we had been told upon interviewing Heisley not that long ago and wanted to point that out. I didn't see it as "sticking up for Heisley" so much as sticking up for journalistic integrity (something most bloggers don't consider often enough) and making sure that the truth was being represented. If that makes me "Heisley's boy", then so be it. Unlike Chip, I've never met the man, so I can say that he hasn't had any direct influence on me. Also, I hate for Chris to paint all of us on 3 Shades of Blue with the same brush, given that there are 4 writers (and one fantastic genius) with distinct and unique viewpoints. That's something we're proud of here -- we offer opinions from every viewpoint, rather than just one.

I am not writing anything that I have not already talked to Chip from 3 Shades about. Do I believe that Adrian misquoted Heisley or took him out of context? No. Do I agree with all of the opinions Adrien had in the article? No. Do I think that Heisley regrets what he said? Yes. Do I know that the CA will soon come out and defend him too? I would be shocked if they did not. What I told Chip is that just because Heisley says something does not mean that it is true and that you have to stick up for him. In fairness, maybe they believe him (Lord, I hope not).

What would be so bad about believing Heisley? What has he been dishonest about during his time in Memphis? Again, I'm not defending his moves and direction of the team as the owner -- I'm just wondering why it is that everyone has painted him as an evil person who will lie, cheat and steal to achieve some sinister goal. I haven't seen any evidence of that to this point -- but if someone has such evidence, I will surely be more than willing to examine it.

You may not get the access if you call him out, I get that. I understand not biting the hand that feeds you. It is a legimate concern for anyone that reports on things. You have to weigh what is more important, access or objectivity? I struggle with it too. Now Heisley has the best Grizzlies blog and the local paper pumping his PR and sticking up for him. I am a big fan of the 3 Shades blog and have mentioned that many times, not to mention that I have met most of the authors and they all seem like nice guys (and they have been pretty nice and fair with me). Sad day I say. Heisley is killing the franchise, Adrian Wojnarowski isn't.

He is speaking the truth here. If we start blaming Heisley for everything that goes wrong with the franchise -- as Verno has been known to do in recent history -- then we might not get the same level of access to him and he almost assuredly won't be calling us from halfway across the world to give us the "real story" first. Of course, the only reason he agreed to be interviewed by us in the first place was because he disagreed with something we wrote and wanted to set the story straight on that issue. That's right -- he let us interview him because he didn't like us, not because he particularly enjoyed our little corner of the internet.

Verno says that Heisley is killing the franchise. I say that what is really killing the franchise can in no way be blamed on just one man. After all, did Heisley do something to make fan support start to dwindle after the magical 50-win season? Did Heisley convince Jason Williams, James Posey and Bonzi Wells to become overwhelming distractions on a playoff team? Was Heisley responsible for Pau Gasol's injury in the World Championships or Damon Stoudamire's knee injury? Did Heisley handpick who we drafted and signed over the past 7 years? Did Heisley create the "Memphis Mentality", where everyone wants everything given to them on a silver platter and believes that they are entitled to a title contender immediately without having to suffer through any of the normal growing pains? I'm fairly confident that the answer to all of those questions is a firm "No".

With that said, is Heisley completely blameless for the disconnect that fans feel with the franchise or with the below average product that has been put on the floor the past two seasons? No. But that's a post for another day -- and believe me it will be coming soon. I just wanted to illustrate that just because we don't believe that Michael Heisley is the second coming of Goldfinger doesn't mean that we don't disagree with things he has said, suggested or ordered. If Chris really wants to find out how true that is, then he knows how to get in touch with us and I'll be more than happy to spend a few minutes on his show explaining just what those things are.

Heisley Not Unhappy with Wallace

Michael Heisley called me from Kuala Lumpur. He is pissed off at Adrian Wojnar-who-ski or whatever that blogger from Yahoo's name is. I am not linking to that trash but I am sure you can find it if you look around. The truth is exactly what 3 Shades of Blue wrote earlier this week. Adrian had an agenda and took comments out of context and ignored statements that completely contradicted the tone of the article he wanted to write.

This is the message Mr. Heisley wants Memphis fans to hear and understand.

Michael Heisley is in no way unhappy with Chris Wallace. Michael Heisley approved the deal with LA and it accomplished what Mr. Heisley wanted. If anyone wants to be upset about the deal they should be upset with Heisley not Chris Wallace.

I wish I had exact quotes but I didn't have a tape machine with me when he called and I honestly wasn't expecting a phone call from Mr. Heisley at 8:30 in the morning at my office. I mean does anyone expect a phone call from a billionaire at anytime in the morning?

Anyway, Heisley said when he conducted the interview he was about to walk into a meeting and assumed the blogger would do an interview like 3 Shades of Blue did and simply report what he said. If he had realized that instead it was going to be a 'hatchet job' where statements were going to be taken out of context and misrepresented he would have been far more wary of what he said. Mr. Heisley isn't a media savvy man who spins what he says. He is brutally honest. He tries to tell the truth which leaves him susceptible to tricks like this blogger used to forward a position the writer wants.

Mr. Heisley isn't saying that everyone has to love the deal he made. However, you should understand the deal he made. He tried for over a year to get a deal done where he received back what he believed to be equal talent. All the other teams in the league knew this. No one was offering anything close to fair value. Once the decision was made to go with a youth movement and acquiring cap space relief the Grizzlies again approached teams about acquiring Gasol. He made public the negotiations with Chicago but that doesn't mean there weren't negotiations with other teams. Only Los Angeles was willing to provide a huge salary cap savings, 2 #1 draft picks and young talent that the Grizzlies wanted. No one else was coming to the table with comparable offers. Mr. Heisley made the decision to take the LA offer and it was his decision alone. Any team now pretending to not know Gasol was available is not telling the truth. Memphis contacted many teams but they did not conduct an auction for Gasol. You can't do that in the NBA. Any team could contact the Grizzlies and many did. Memphis also initiated contact with many teams.

It is blogs like that one that really hurt the efforts of people like us who are trying to educate fans about the team. When we write our opinions we do so where it is clear that this is what we are thinking or feeling. When we quote other people (like we have in the Heisley interview and others) we don't slant the comments to fit our agenda. We simply lay it out there and let the readers decide what to think. If the Yahoo blogger had done the same thing the blog would have had a decidedly different feeling to it.

Of course he wouldn't have been interviewed on Chris Vernon's show and been linked to stories all over the country either. So congrats Adrian for getting your 15 minutes of fame. Too bad it had to come at the expense of the truth and the Memphis Grizzlies.

Adrian Wojnarowski Stirs Things Up

If you haven't already read the column that Yahoo! Sports' Adrian Wojnarowski posted yesterday, then read it here. Yesterday, I read the article and I heard him on 730 ESPN with Chris Vernon. I have to say that my initial impression was quite simple: hatchet job. Now that I've had time to sleep on it and allow it to rattle around my head, my viewpoint hasn't changed one iota.

I know that the Pau Gasol trade has been the running joke of the NBA world all spring, with Kobe calling it "a donation", Gregg Popovich calling it "beyond comprehension" and everyone else saying that Grizzlies GM Chris Wallace should be named the Lakers' team MVP. I understand that many fans were upset about what was accepted in return for the gifted 7-footer and that most of them continue to be irked about it. However, it seems that many people have forgotten to examine their history books when they label it "one of the NBA’s worst trades in years", as Wojnarowski does in his column. He states that "you don’t trade your franchise player without getting back a minimum of a sure-thing young star and/or two solid young starters". Oh really?

February 24, 2005: The Golden State Warriors acquired guard Baron Davis from the New Orleans Hornets on Thursday for guard Speedy Claxton and forward Dale Davis.

December 18, 2004: Vince Carter was traded by the Toronto Raptors to the New Jersey Nets for Alonzo Mourning, Eric Williams, Aaron Williams and a pair of first-round draft picks.

August 19, 2003: The Dallas Mavericks finally made a major offseason move, acquiring Antawn Jamison in a nine-player trade with the Golden State Warriors. The Mavericks also got guard Jiri Welsch and forwards Danny Fortson and Chris Mills from the Warriors for guards Nick Van Exel, Avery Johnson and Antoine Rigaudeau, center Evan Eschmeyer and forward Popeye Jones in the deal.

June 17, 1992: Charles Barkley was traded to the Phoenix Suns from the Philadelphia 76ers for Jeff Hornacek, Andrew Lang, and Tim Perry.

I think I've made my point, haven't I? I'm confident in saying that the Sixers, Warriors, Hornets and Raptors not only bounced back from those seemingly one-sided trades, but actually became better teams down the road because of the trade. So now that I've shown evidence that you cannot judge a trade in just a matter of a few months, how about we take a closer look at the rest of this column, shall we?

The title of it was quite eye-catching: Memphis owner now questions value of Gasol deal. I mean, that's sure to set tongues to wagging and drive traffic, isn't it? I wonder what exactly it was that Wojnarowski got in his 15-minute interview by cell phone (cut short by his own admission) that we were unable to glean in talking to Michael Heisley face-to-face for over 90 minutes? After all, we have Heisley's words out there for everyone to see in five parts (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5), where he describes quite clearly why the Gasol trade went down the way it did. But Wojnarowski has this quote that makes things less clear:

“I don’t know if I got the most value,” Heisley confessed. “Maybe our people should’ve shopped (Gasol) more and maybe we would’ve gotten more, done a better deal. Maybe Chris did call every team in the league. I don’t think he did, but maybe he should’ve…”

Yes, maybe Wallace should have called every team in the league. I mean, it's not like Pau Gasol had been surrounded by trade rumors for over a year since the word of his closed door meeting with Heisley was leaked out to the press and then categorically labeled a "trade demand". Sure, Chicago had seemed to be the most logical destination, given their outstanding need for a low-post presence. But if a team had interest in acquiring the Spaniard, wouldn't their GM have at least made a perfunctory phone call to see what Wallace might have been willing to accept? Doesn't that seem logical?

Well of course it bloody well does! But -- after none of them made an offer that would give the Grizzlies a young star in the making, they went for the next best thing: cap relief and draft picks - the staple of a rebuilding effort. The offer that the Bulls allegedly made (Nocioni, Thomas, Noah, Sefolosha and Griffin) would have put the Grizzlies back into position of being marginally talented, which is good enough for a few years' worth of first round exits in the Western Conference. With the deal that was accepted, the Grizzlies have the opportunity to start over from the ground floor up, as the Raptors, Hornets and Warriors did before them. I'm sick and tired of having to explain this over and over and over to people whose vision and scope stops at the end of their own nose. You cannot judge a trade after 4 months -- especially if future draft picks are involved -- and you cannot judge a draft class after only one season. Proper, informed evaluations take time -- which is lost on everyone in this "instant history" day and age.

The crux of my objection to Adrian Wojnarowski's column is that I feel he is misrepresenting his writing. This appears to me as though it is an opinion-based column posing as an interview. He uses only 6 direct quotes in an 1100+ word column by my count. The rest is his opinion and conjecture. To wit:

When much of the league was determined to make a serious bid for the 7-footer, how could Memphis settle so long before the February trade deadline for such a paltry offer out of the Lakers?
For the first time, even Heisley wondered whether his general manager, Chris Wallace, blew it by caving so soon to the Lakers.
Crittenton is nothing special...

There isn't one, single fact in the three statements above. There is a lot of opinion though. Wojnarowski has shaped this column to reflect either his own viewpoint or at least that which he feels will drive the most traffic. I have no problem with that from a columnist -- as long as they are clear about their intention to do so. Picking and choosing from quotes, while (in all likelihood) leaving out the parts that don't lend themselves to his goal, only gives media members an even worse reputation. Up until this point, I had always like Adrian Wojnarowski. From now on, I'll be a lot more wary of taking his writing at face value though.