CPND Exclusive: Demasio Defends His Story

[Tarhog]

Thanks TK - great news

jbooma - heres the thing - how do you know it wasn't Coles himself or another disgruntled player who leaked this? Is Gibbs supposed to muzzle them as well?

[rtandler]

I did get a clarification from Nunyo and he did make multiple efforts to get the principles in the story to react to it before it hit the presses. First, from the original article Monday morning:

Coles, who has changed his cell phone number, could not be reached for comment. Barnes didn't return several calls last week to his Roanoke, Ind., office. Snyder, through spokesperson Karl Swanson, referred questions to Gibbs. Reached last night, Cerrato declined to comment.

In fact, Vinny gave him a triple "no comment, no comment, no comment."

Now, I was incorrect in inferring that the story would have gone through even if Gibbs' flat denial had been issued over the phone on Sunday, before the release story was printed. Demasio told me:

If Gibbs denied the release stuff, the story would have just been that Coles is unhappy and unlikely coming back -- instead of being more specific on how he would be jettisoned

Demasio also told me that he tried to get comments from Breaux and Bugel. He pressed them and they told him to talk to Gibbs.

So, there you have it. Demasio tried to get comments from Snyder, Cerrato, Bugel, Breaux, Coles, and Coles' agent. For various reasons, he couldn't.

True, he could have waited until Gibbs got back in town. However, it was pretty obvious that the paper would have been scooped had he done this. Again, you can decide if he conducted due dillegence here.

A couple more comments from Demasio:

Perhaps my reporting damaged the team, but i still don't know exactly how, and it wasn't my intention. as you could see by how many people i spoke to, my preference was to work with the team. If coles' leaving was inevitable -- and old news among some guys (players) -- did the skins expect the story to stay quiet until coles was officially gone?

And this about having a stake in the success of the team a writer is covering:

Here's the deal: it's actually EASIER to cover a team that wins. As a beat writer you WANT the team you cover to win, although you're not supposed to root for them. It makes it more fun to go in the locker room.

HOWEVER, when the team you cover is struggling and there are newsworthy stories like Coles, you need to write it. if not, you're doing a disservice to your paper, your readers and yourself. And you need to find another job.

There it is. Again, you decide.

[TK]

Off Topic

Is that releaseable? Or should it wait?

On topic

Jb, do you know how to uncover a leak?

[rtandler]

heres the thing - how do you know it wasn't Coles himself or another disgruntled player who leaked this? Is Gibbs supposed to muzzle them as well?

I really don't want to keep beating this up, Tarhog, but look at the original article and at mine. This came from multiple sources on the "team" side of it and from some on the player's side of it. It wasn't like one guy gave Demasio a call and that make the Post run with a story like this.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Tarhog

Thanks TK - great news

jbooma - heres the thing - how do you know it wasn't Coles himself or another disgruntled player who leaked this? Is Gibbs supposed to muzzle them as well?

I don't know Tarhog, but Nunyo said he had one source on coles side and one on the skins side, and he said it wasn't coles.

To me one is the agent for sure.

If I had the answers maybe I would be the GM. For something this large and important he has to think of something. If there are only four people in the room and that is all that knows what is going on make a demand saying if this is leaked then no deal at all. If this was made clear to Coles's side and if he wants out, why would he risk this deal??

[Tarhog]

Thanks for the additional insight. I feel a little more sympathetic having read those comments. I wouldn't want his job to be frank. You've got competing interests all over the place....promote positive relationships - positive relationships translate into access....get as much access as you can in order to trump our competitors, but don't violate trusts or burn bridges with ownership....

I couldn't handle it. Thats a hell of a ethical canal system to navigate.

I wish he'd just gone with the 'something is afoot' theme and left the rest for the Redskins to clarify. But I'm not going to condemn him for it. We all make judgement calls in our daily jobs. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you. It remains to be seen who the bear is here.

Thanks Rich.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by TK-IV II I

Off Topic

Is that releaseable? Or should it wait?

On topic

Jb, do you know how to uncover a leak?

In the business world yes, in the sports world no. You give certain information to a certain individual who you think will talk and wait till you hear what you want to hear. If your suspicions are correct then you will know.

For Gibbs, you set up a meeting with Vinny and Danny and say something so off the wall and tell them both not to mention anything.

Then when Nunyo reports it in the paper, Gibbs can laugh as he cleans out Vinny's office :laugh: (sorry but it was too easy)

[PCS]

I believe Nunyo refered to his sources as those in the "inner circle" of both parties in yesterdays interview on WTEM. Coles can leak this easily if he wants. He's not stupid. Simply have a few friends and/or aqquaintances be available for comment. Next thing you know.

[bubba9497]

Originally posted by Tarhog

Give me a break - I didn't realize Demasio was trying to safeguard the integrity of our precious democratic system bubba - I figured he might just be trying to make a splash.

Sorry man, while I can live with the loss of Coles if it comes to it, theres a serious possibility we're going to get short-shrifted on this deal, and it may prove to be in large part due to the 'outing' of this story. That should concern Redskin's fans.

lighten up dude I was making an exaggerated point

my point he had enough evidence to have the story printed, if he had gotten a hold of Gibbs or Coles he would have gotten the run around or a no comment.

this story did squat to under-mind the Skins trade value. There was nothing reported that any other teams GM didn't already know when Coles was put on the trading block, and probably still know more than we do after the story broke.

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by rtandler

I really don't want to keep beating this up, Tarhog, but look at the original article and at mine. This came from multiple sources on the "team" side of it and from some on the player's side of it. It wasn't like one guy gave Demasio a call and that make the Post run with a story like this.

I was just pointing out to jbooma that Gibbs shouldn't be held accountable for whats leaked and whats not.

Ultimately journalists live and die on credibility - if this all turns out to be accurate, I'll tip my hat and apologize as no journalist owes the subject of their stories anything to an extent. If its less than factual though, and they went with it anyway to the Redskins detriment, thats a little bit different.

Either way, I appreciate your comments Rich!

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by bubba9497

lighten up dude I was making an exaggerated point

my point he had enough evidence to have the story printed, if he had gotten a hold of Gibbs or Coles he would have gotten the run around or a no comment.

this story did squat to under-mind the Skins trade value. There was nothing reported that any other teams GM didn't already know when Coles was put on the trading block, and probably still know more than we do after the story broke.

exaggerated is the key word there

(hope the smiley made you feel better!)

[BadKarma]

Is Nunyo's BIO available? I searched but could not find it.

[bubba9497]

Originally posted by Tarhog

(hope the smiley made you feel better!)

:adoration much

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Tarhog

I was just pointing out to jbooma that Gibbs shouldn't be held accountable for whats leaked and whats not.

Ultimately journalists live and die on credibility - if this all turns out to be accurate, I'll tip my hat and apologize as no journalist owes the subject of their stories anything to an extent. If its less than factual though, and they went with it anyway to the Redskins detriment, thats a little bit different.

Either way, I appreciate your comments Rich!

I agree with you here, specially if the leak was outside his area, however if the leak was from someone he knows in the FO then that is a different story. A lot of times the FO would leak something they wanted, but it was clear Gibbs did not want this out.

[bubba9497]

Originally posted by BadKarma

Is Nunyo's BIO available? I searched but could not find it.

from Seattle and the :doh: NBA beat

[FBChick]

Man... It's taken a long time to catch up on 2 days worth of this story, but it's amazing.

First and foremost... I don't blame Demasio for breaking the story, but in some respects he had some very bad wording to give it the spin he needed to sell papers... so calling it objective is far off base. But to be honest, it's all the other papers that have stolen the story from the WP that have spun it even worse.

Digesting two days worth of panic post has been an interesting Endeavour.

Fact is both sides are right and wrong on this. You can’t really blame Demasio for breaking the story. It is his job and it’s a huge scoop, especially based on the reaction it’s getting. But he did word it in a very biased and twisted manner to make it sound a bit more then it probably is.

He would do his best to accommodate the request

FACT: “Laveranues Coles has had at least two extensive conversations with Coach Joe Gibbs since the season ended”

Part fact/ part somebody’s speculation: Sources confirmed last night that Gibbs, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder and Roosevelt Barnes, the agent for Coles, have reached an oral agreement that will likely lead to his release

Fact - "We had a couple of good talks. That's the only statement I want to make," Gibbs said earlier this week. "Me and Laveranues talked, and we have a good understanding."

Can we really even call this a fact? - Gibbs, who also serves as team president, intends to accommodate Coles' request instead of keeping a player who prefers to be elsewhere, said two other sources who requested anonymity.

Fact at some point in time, but he doesn’t clarify who was in on the collective decision and when this was done. Before Cole talks, During Cole talks, or after Coles Talks? It makes a big difference when you add a who and a when –

“Sources said that late this past season Coles requested a trade after meeting with Snyder and Vice President of Football Operations Vinny Cerrato, since they were the two most responsible for acquiring him in 2003. But after discussions with Gibbs, a collective decision was made to likely waive Coles.”

I read a LOT of likelys... which to me means not a DAMN thing was in stone yet. But rumors like these tend to have a bit of truth hidden in them somewhere.

I do believe Demasio was right with the premise of his article. Coles wants to go elsewhere and is willing to try and work things to make it happen. He wants to go badly enough he threw around the idea of giving up part of the signing bonus to make it cap friendly enough to make it happen. But had this been officially agreed to, they’d be writing contracts and the deal would be done. This leads me to believe that at best Coles got a “we’ll see what we can do and we’ll try our best to accommodate your wishes, so long as we can find a way to not hurt the team.” This is where all the “likely” words come from. There was no final decision... it was an agreement to see if they could come up with a solution.

All the rumors about the Jets talking a trade with Coles are also true in a sense. I bet somewhere in those talks names of teams he would consider going to came up and the wheeler, dealers thought “HEY! If we can work out both a trade for a pick or a player, plus get salary cap relief... let’s do it!” Call it greedy, call it smart, call it whatever you want. They saw a silver lining and they reached for it. I imagine they would have asked Coles for approval of the team before finalizing the trade, especially considering this only works with a restructure from Coles. This is what Demasio’s article could have possibly ruined, but Gibb’s denial was in an effort to salvage the talks with the Jets... and in effect to the original article was correct. If they were looking at trades then the “likely to release” quotes were/ are essentially wrong.

But the better question, rather then who’s to blame, is where we are now, and how things can/ would proceed. Can talks with the Jets be salvaged? Will Gibbs and Co be able to get Coles to agree to a trade deal if one surfaces in time? If no trade, do we still release him and will he still give back the signing bonus? If so... then when?

It’s obvious an outright release with no repay in time for FA isn’t going to happen... We can’t afford it. A release with no repay after June 1 is possible but makes 2006 painful at best and may mean Brunell manages to hang on for another year! (uugghh!) Keeping him is still there, a “source” has stated he’d play and give it his all... but would the complication be too much for the locker room? Especially now that it’s all out in the open.

At least we can now say we have something to talk about this off-season!

[rtandler]

And thanks to you, Tarhog, for taking it all in

I'm sure that this is coming across that I'm carrying Nunyo's water for him but all I want to do, and I keep on repeating this, but it's the Fox News line about giving you enough information to decide what's up.

And I personally found it interesting to see how a story like this develops over time.

I also think that Redskins fans and Post readers should have some appreciation for the fact that Demasio thought that is was important to take the time to respond to the questions that many of us had about his story. He could have taken the road that most other Post reporters take, that he's high and mighty and how dare the masses question his story.

Instead, he spoke to a blogger for an audience of message board posters, thinking that it was important to communicate with us, the everyday Redskins fans.

I like that but, once again, you decide.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by rtandler

Instead, he spoke to a blogger for an audience of message board posters, thinking that it was important to communicate with us, the everyday Redskins fans.

I like that but, once again, you decide.

Yes but he should have talked to us at least, we are the real fans

[wskin44]

Originally posted by Tarhog

Thanks for the additional insight. I feel a little more sympathetic having read those comments. I wouldn't want his job to be frank. You've got competing interests all over the place....promote positive relationships - positive relationships translate into access....get as much access as you can in order to trump our competitors, but don't violate trusts or burn bridges with ownership....

I couldn't handle it. Thats a hell of a ethical canal system to navigate.

I wish he'd just gone with the 'something is afoot' theme and left the rest for the Redskins to clarify. But I'm not going to condemn him for it. We all make judgement calls in our daily jobs. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you. It remains to be seen who the bear is here.

Thanks Rich.

Just catching up. Tarhog says it pretty well here. Two things bother me though: Nunyo says that he doesn't understand the implications of writing a story that claims inside knowledge that a player is about to be cut, when in fact according to the team they are trying to work out a trade. What was true at the time of the story we may never know, but Nunyo should know that there is a difference.

Second, although he tried to ask everyone at Redskin Park about the rumor everyone directed him to Joe Gibbs. That should have told him that regardless of who whispered what to him, Joe Gibbs was the only one who knew the whole story other than Coles and his agent. Nunyo wrote his article as a done deal without ever getting confirmation from any of the parties who could have known the truth. And he wrote it apparently without understanding the implications. Neither speaks well for him.

As Tarhog says, "Sometimes you get the beer, sometimes someone gets the beer for you" (or something like that). This time we owe a beer to Rich.