RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

2020 Free Agency

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mavcarter
#NAPT


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5107
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/22/19 10:51 am    ::: 2020 Free Agency Reply Reply with quote

Welp, guess we’ll start with a Free Agent list.

WNBA 2020 Player Movement Tracker: A star-studded group of unrestricted free agents

Quote:
Here are the players entering unrestricted free agency (organized by team):


https://www.swishappeal.com/wnba/2019/10/22/20926146/wnba-free-agency-2020?_gl=1



_________________
wrote:
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree?
root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 5348
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/22/19 11:52 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This writer seems to assume anyone not under contract is an unrestricted free agent. I doubt the new CBA will be that radically different. Just looking at the Liberty:

- Astou Ndour is not a member of the team
- Stokes signed a contract at the end of the season
- Gray, Johannes, Raincock are reserve players under the current CBA
- I believe Charles is still coreable under the current CBA
- Wright has likely retired
- Hartley is probably the only one she has correct



_________________
Even now by the gate with your long hair blowing
And the colors of the day that lie along your arms
You must barter your life to make sure you are living
And the crowd that has come
You give them the colors
And the bells and wind and the dream
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 20494



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/22/19 12:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Lots of errors here. Mostly that no one is listed as a reserved player.



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 53004



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/22/19 12:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Wow, that list is so messed up.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 21639
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/22/19 12:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I can barely believe they had the gall to publish that. If you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, just say nothing at all.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
mavcarter
#NAPT


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5107
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/22/19 1:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
I can barely believe they had the gall to publish that. If you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, just say nothing at all.


I was literally looking at that article like “what the hell Confused “. But I thought I’d still post it. Laughing Laughing



_________________
wrote:
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree?
Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 21639
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/22/19 6:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I added up the errors for fun. Some of them are questionable as one or two (Ndour, not a UFA, also not on the Liberty; Peddy, technically correct as a UFA, but definitely not from the Storm, and not actually on anyone's roster at the end of the season). And there are actually a few UFAs missing, insanely. But my list of errors ended up at 44. Unreal.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 9516



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/22/19 8:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
I added up the errors for fun. Some of them are questionable as one or two (Ndour, not a UFA, also not on the Liberty; Peddy, technically correct as a UFA, but definitely not from the Storm, and not actually on anyone's roster at the end of the season). And there are actually a few UFAs missing, insanely. But my list of errors ended up at 44. Unreal.


They only list 66 FA's - 44/66 wrong. That seems like a failing grade in any school. Razz



_________________
2019 RebKell Tipping Contest Champion
PickledGinger



Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 502



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/26/19 7:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

They’re listening...article no longer exists.


Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 21639
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/26/19 9:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PickledGinger wrote:
They’re listening...article no longer exists.

Yeah, I kinda had something to do with that. The author listened once I pointed out the issues directly to her own twitter account rather than just to the Swish Appeal one. I was actually on my way here to give her credit for doing that when I noticed that she'd followed up by blocking me. Which seemed so ridiculously petty that I was less inclined to offer that credit.

One of the lessons from this (although hardly the only one) is don't use Spotrac for WNBA contract details. They just don't really understand how the league works, so even if some of their numbers might be accurate, things like free agency are way off.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 378
Location: Seattle, WA


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/27/19 12:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
PickledGinger wrote:
They’re listening...article no longer exists.

Yeah, I kinda had something to do with that. The author listened once I pointed out the issues directly to her own twitter account rather than just to the Swish Appeal one. I was actually on my way here to give her credit for doing that when I noticed that she'd followed up by blocking me. Which seemed so ridiculously petty that I was less inclined to offer that credit.

One of the lessons from this (although hardly the only one) is don't use Spotrac for WNBA contract details. They just don't really understand how the league works, so even if some of their numbers might be accurate, things like free agency are way off.


Didn't someone on here just talk about Sue Favor blocking them on twitter for either pointing out a correction or literally asking a normal question?? Seems to me it has become a bit of a recurring theme with people who cover this particular sport. Maybe it's because of the presence of actual trolls (or even just rude people) that Favor and Spruill are naturally on the defensive and are susceptible to overreacting to legitimate inquiries from people like us with the unnecessary blocking. Unfortunate circumstances, unfortunate hostile responses for sure. I'm gonna guess the vast majority of actual fans/followers of this league are not, in fact, trolls Razz


root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 5348
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/27/19 8:08 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

A big part of the problem is that the WNBA is largely covered by amateurs. People view women's basketball as a relatively non-competitive starting-level gig, whether they're self-appointed experts or rookie reporters assigned by one of these new, ever-proliferating sports websites. Either way, you're talking about individuals who are not reliably knowledgeable. Nonetheless, once an article is published, it's liable to be quoted by other sources and the misinformation spreads. If you expose these reporters in any public way, naturally they're going to be sensitive about it and react defensively. You're endangering their careers by attacking their credibility.



_________________
Even now by the gate with your long hair blowing
And the colors of the day that lie along your arms
You must barter your life to make sure you are living
And the crowd that has come
You give them the colors
And the bells and wind and the dream
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 20494



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/27/19 9:21 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
PickledGinger wrote:
They’re listening...article no longer exists.

Yeah, I kinda had something to do with that. The author listened once I pointed out the issues directly to her own twitter account rather than just to the Swish Appeal one. I was actually on my way here to give her credit for doing that when I noticed that she'd followed up by blocking me. Which seemed so ridiculously petty that I was less inclined to offer that credit.

One of the lessons from this (although hardly the only one) is don't use Spotrac for WNBA contract details. They just don't really understand how the league works, so even if some of their numbers might be accurate, things like free agency are way off.


She blocked me too after I tweeted her about her errors. Didn't really care for criticism and being called out for misinformation. Guess she's not a good reporter then.



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 21639
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/27/19 10:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

root_thing wrote:
A big part of the problem is that the WNBA is largely covered by amateurs. People view women's basketball as a relatively non-competitive starting-level gig, whether they're self-appointed experts or rookie reporters assigned by one of these new, ever-proliferating sports websites. Either way, you're talking about individuals who are not reliably knowledgeable. Nonetheless, once an article is published, it's liable to be quoted by other sources and the misinformation spreads. If you expose these reporters in any public way, naturally they're going to be sensitive about it and react defensively. You're endangering their careers by attacking their credibility.

All of that's true, but I've still had wildly varying responses to correcting elements of WNBA articles. I admit I'm picky on this stuff, but we have such a small community and I like to see the articles we do get on this league - especially if they're in reasonably major, visible places - be accurate. I've had journalists say "thank you, I'll get that fixed as soon as possible" and then it was fixed within minutes (I remember mentioning Temi Fagbenle played for 'Great Britain', not 'England', and that happened). I've had journalists argue they were right - and if they are, great - but usually that involves pointing towards an unreliable source like Spotrac. The Athletic's Connecticut Sun reporter did that a couple of weeks ago when I pointed out that the Sun didn't actually have eight unrestricted free agents, and tried to explain why. As far as I know she never changed that article. I've also had people just flat ignore me (although especially with writers for bigger publications like ESPN, sometimes you can't be 100% sure they see it).

The thing is, obviously in an ideal world you'd like people to do the work/research beforehand and get things right in the first place. Think "Most years there are only about 25 UFAs. Why would there suddenly be 70? I should check what the rules are." But I bet most journalists have tales about getting facts wrong here or there and having to correct them, especially in the online world where people are quick to publish and corrections are easily made after the fact. So just have the respect for yourself and for the subject to want to get things right. I admit I made a couple of complaints/jokes about how many errors there were in that Swish Appeal piece, but when I was talking to her directly I think I was polite. If the person isn't a dick, then just listen. If it somehow gets brought up by a future employer, I bet they'd prefer to hear "yeah, I made a mistake and made sure I fixed it" rather than "that guy was a troll, fuck him".

And Swish Appeal might be a bit niche, but she's one of the features writers for The Athletic. That place is trying to be taken seriously, and people are paying for their content. You'd like to see their people do better.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10121



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/27/19 12:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
root_thing wrote:
A big part of the problem is that the WNBA is largely covered by amateurs. People view women's basketball as a relatively non-competitive starting-level gig, whether they're self-appointed experts or rookie reporters assigned by one of these new, ever-proliferating sports websites. Either way, you're talking about individuals who are not reliably knowledgeable. Nonetheless, once an article is published, it's liable to be quoted by other sources and the misinformation spreads. If you expose these reporters in any public way, naturally they're going to be sensitive about it and react defensively. You're endangering their careers by attacking their credibility.

All of that's true, but I've still had wildly varying responses to correcting elements of WNBA articles. I admit I'm picky on this stuff, but we have such a small community and I like to see the articles we do get on this league - especially if they're in reasonably major, visible places - be accurate. I've had journalists say "thank you, I'll get that fixed as soon as possible" and then it was fixed within minutes (I remember mentioning Temi Fagbenle played for 'Great Britain', not 'England', and that happened). I've had journalists argue they were right - and if they are, great - but usually that involves pointing towards an unreliable source like Spotrac. The Athletic's Connecticut Sun reporter did that a couple of weeks ago when I pointed out that the Sun didn't actually have eight unrestricted free agents, and tried to explain why. As far as I know she never changed that article. I've also had people just flat ignore me (although especially with writers for bigger publications like ESPN, sometimes you can't be 100% sure they see it).

The thing is, obviously in an ideal world you'd like people to do the work/research beforehand and get things right in the first place. Think "Most years there are only about 25 UFAs. Why would there suddenly be 70? I should check what the rules are." But I bet most journalists have tales about getting facts wrong here or there and having to correct them, especially in the online world where people are quick to publish and corrections are easily made after the fact. So just have the respect for yourself and for the subject to want to get things right. I admit I made a couple of complaints/jokes about how many errors there were in that Swish Appeal piece, but when I was talking to her directly I think I was polite. If the person isn't a dick, then just listen. If it somehow gets brought up by a future employer, I bet they'd prefer to hear "yeah, I made a mistake and made sure I fixed it" rather than "that guy was a troll, fuck him".

And Swish Appeal might be a bit niche, but she's one of the features writers for The Athletic. That place is trying to be taken seriously, and people are paying for their content. You'd like to see their people do better.


Of course, this is just part of a wider problem ...

And of course, journalists make mistakes. I make them on simple things (dates, etc.) even though I work hard to avoid them.

And of course, the issue is primarily the continued starvation of the industry. Back in the day, at a small paper, if I wrote a story, it would be read by my direct editor, read again by another editor, and read again, albeit cursorily, before it made print.

And if an error did creep in, all of us involved were going to be explaining to the editor how that happened.

Now the writer isn't paid very much, and it's not a full-time job, so a) there's less time to work on things, and b) there's less incentive to be 100% accurate. And the edits are made, if at all, by one person, usually, who has way too much to edit and not nearly enough time to edit carefully.

But accuracy, literally, doesn't pay, which is why the varied responses. For some, they do want to get it right; for others, getting it wrong is just part of the job and moving on to the next low-paying assignment is more important than correcting the last one.

And editors are too thinly spread to worry about small or minor factual errors -- their main concern is to avoid something inflammatory or libelous.

That's the new world of journalism, and I don't see it changing ...



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59984
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/27/19 12:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Back in the day, at a small paper, if I wrote a story, it would be read by my direct editor, read again by another editor, and read again, albeit cursorily, before it made print.


Not every small paper sports page was that rigorous



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10121



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/27/19 12:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
Back in the day, at a small paper, if I wrote a story, it would be read by my direct editor, read again by another editor, and read again, albeit cursorily, before it made print.


Not every small paper sports page was that rigorous


Actually, I was talking about the news side, where I spent the bulk of my career ... sports was indeed a little less rigorous, as there was less danger of libel.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 21639
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/27/19 4:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

And the general point still stands. The death of the sub-editor/proof reader is really a shame. And on the WNBA side, even ESPN's proofing has been terrible for years. Always leaves the feeling that someone's probably read it before publication, but not someone who knows a single thing about the WNBA.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10121



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/27/19 5:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
And the general point still stands. The death of the sub-editor/proof reader is really a shame. And on the WNBA side, even ESPN's proofing has been terrible for years. Always leaves the feeling that someone's probably read it before publication, but not someone who knows a single thing about the WNBA.



Another great point. With several editors, some would be more knowledgeable about certain areas than others and they would tend to edit those stories.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin