Double Standard Sando
by Seahawks12th on Mar 20, 2010 3:06 PM PDT
Email
PrintHas anyone noticed the crap Sando publishs sometimes? He is at it again. If you go to his blog on ESPN he goes from talking about how the Seahawks were to easy on the Chargers and didn't submit any counter offers to how it is ok for the Cards to overpay for Joey Porter. I am not saying the Seahawks shouldn't have counter offered but Sando's double standards need to go! Here is the link below:
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Sando has seemed to become a lot more snide over the past couple of years.
That being said, I don’t read much anymore past the headlines.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
Perhaps it's the chronic exposure to the typical fan post over at ESPN.
That might have an impact in the way that he presents information.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 20, 2010 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I hadn't thought of that, but yeah, that would definitely take its toll after a while.
Those ESPN boards are terrible.
It seems to me that the situations are different enough
that Sando isn’t “double standard-ing.” In one case, he’s saying that it sounds like the Seahawks didn’t bargain for Whitehurst, that they took the first deal they were offered. He thinks that’s a bad idea.
In the Cardinals situation, he is saying that they overpaid for Porter. I think he’s assuming here that they didn’t pay Porter his first request for a contract.
At this point, there’s “evidence” (though who knows if this is true or not, based on one person’s words) that the Seahawks did not fight for a better deal, but we have no evidence that the Cards didn’t.
At any rate, probably badly put, as usual, but that’s my opinion.
I'm not getting a double standard vibe at all.
Sando is talking about two different things. In the case of Arizona, he’s saying that Porter (in his mind) seems like a good fit and it’s worth overspending a bit to secure his services.
In the case of Seattle, Sando is saying that it appears that the Seahawks didn’t bother to do any serious negotiations, which may have resulted in an overspend of Whitehurst. Simply put, he’s saying that the Seahawks may have been able to drive the cost down if they had negotiated better. (This is speculation on his part)
To clarify, he's not saying that it's okay for Arizona to overspend but it's not okay for Seattle to overspend.
He’s saying that Seattle didn’t appear to do a very good job in negotiations.
Or, from what I'm reading, negotiate AT ALL.
But this is coming from A.J. Smith, and he might be over-simplifying the process to either make himself sound good, or just out of inaccurate storytelling.
Also
The Hawks gave up picks and money, whereas the Cards only gave up money (which, theoretically, doesn’t really matter in an uncapped year).
by Brendan Scolari on Mar 21, 2010 12:56 AM PDT up reply actions
He condoned it
BrianL, Sando was condoning that the Cards overpaid for Porter. The name of the post was “it’s ok if Cards overpaid for Porter.” He actually goes on to say it’s ok because the franchise wouldn’t have done that in the past and fans should smile if someone says they overpaid. I am not saying the Hawks shouldn’t have driven a harder bargain but I bet if it was the Cards who took Whurst for the same amount we gave up Sando would have probably wrote it was ok for them because they were getting the guy they wanted. Just my speculation… I could be wrong.
Use the reply button.
And actually read what I wrote.
I read what you wrote
and I think maybe you should read what I wrote! Just because I disagree with you Mr. High and Mighty doesn’t mean you have to be so sensitive!
by Seahawks12th on Mar 21, 2010 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions
If you had actually read what I wrote, you would see that Sando was talking about two distinct issues.
One was the Cardinals potentially overpaying for Porter, the other was the Seahawks appearing to engage in little to no negotiations in acquiring Whitehurst.
And for grins, let's delve in further.
Sando isn’t taking issue with the Seahawks apparent overpay of Whitehurst. He’s taking issue with the seeming lack of negotiations that went on. Had AJ Smith not put out that soundbite that made it sound as if Seattle accepted the first offer given to them, Sando doesn’t write that blog entry.
Now let me be clear, Sando is not my favorite beat writer out there
there just isn’t a double standard to be found in these two posts.
I think Sando was OK on these posts
Interestingly enough I don’t think Sando has been hard enough on the Seahawks over the Whitehurst and Tapp crap trades. The Seahawks are the laughing stock of sports radio right now. I do think Sando was too tough on the Seahawks when we were GM-less, but man I wish he’d rail into them now.
Personally,
I think Sando is becoming increasingly biased in his articles. It makes them really hard to read sometimes.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
