Reiss suggests the Pats might be concerned with Butler off the field

[PatsFanSince74]

Just heard that Reiss sent out an apology to Butler to clear this up. He said it was taken out of context and tried to explain what he meant was Gilmore being married has more of a responsibility. Hmmm

That's also known as digging the hole deeper, Mike.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

there will be no offer..if he comes to terms on a contract with the Saints, he will then be traded.

Source?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Just a side note, people need to remember that Mike never puts anything out there unless it's 100% accurate and purposely has held off on many stories others jumped have jumped all over about other players (that were really in poor taste) because he refuses to do it before making sure he had all the facts first.

So my guess is he knows something, and the fact he's not going to really trash him by telling us the details doesn't make him a bad reporter. It just shows the discretion and restraint he has that a lot of other guys don't while trying to give the fans some sort of explanation as to how it ever got to this point. People are trying to find out why the Patriots paid Gilmore what they did and left Butler without a new deal and potentially gone from this football team. Reiss essentially revealed that there's more to this than we might have thought, so at least it now makes a little more sense.

I respectfully disagree, Ian.

A reporter doesn't show "discretion and restraint" via innuendo and veiled suggestions of behavioral or other issues.

If Reiss has verified knowledge about a player that is more than several years old and is relevant to a situation (in this case, a contract negotiation) and if he feels he must report it, he should report it.

If Reiss has that knowledge and has decided to protect the player by not publishing it, he should protect the player and not report it.

For a reporter with Reiss' credibility, suggesting that something might be wrong implies that he knows that something is wrong. He can't have it both ways.

Reiss now has two alternatives: publish the whole story, if there is a "whole story," or retract the "incomplete piece" that he wrote earlier.

 

[bormio]

I respectfully disagree, Ian.

A reporter doesn't show "discretion and restraint" via innuendo and veiled suggestions of behavioral or other issues.

If Reiss has verified knowledge about a player that is more than several years old and is relevant to a situation (in this case, a contract negotiation) and if he feels he must report it, he should report it.

If Reiss has that knowledge and has decided to protect the player by not publishing it, he should protect the player and not report it.

For a reporter with Reiss' credibility, suggesting that something might be wrong implies that he knows that something is wrong. He can't have it both ways.

Reiss now has two alternatives: publish the whole story, if there is a "whole story," or retract the "incomplete piece" that he wrote earlier.

Damage done - no unringing this bell. Reiss is not inexperienced. He had to know what he was doing - to say otherwise is simply not credible.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I agree. It's a speculation piece. He's walking a very fine line here to being Perez Hilton of the NFL here.

But I have no doubt he's hearing something from someone. Whether it's true or not is a different discussion

It will suck if Malcolm leaves, because we all love him. And always will.

Would be worst loss since Vinatieri.

 

[RobertWeathers]

It will suck if Malcolm leaves, because we all love him. And always will.

Would be worst loss since Vinatieri.

The thing we all need to remember is BB has a plan and more often than not, his loss won't impact the team's Ws and Ls.. Gilmore was part of that plan and backfilling Malcolm's loss with defensive talent I'm sure is something he will focus on.

But yea...it sucks.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Damage done - no unringing this bell. Reiss is not inexperienced. He had to know what he was doing - to say otherwise is simply not credible.

I'd agree that, if there is "no there there," then Reiss is no longer "credible."
So, at the end of the day, we will have either a discredited Malcolm Butler or a discredited Mike Reiss.

Either way, Butler deserved better than this:
If there is truth to the as yet unnamed "allegations," he or his agent deserved the right to confront them openly before they were rumored by Reiss.
If there is no truth to them, then he has been badly wronged.

 

[bormio]

Disagreements about money heal with time. Trashing someone's character on the way out the door leaves scars. I would hate it if Butler had no desire to come back after his career.

 

[Gronkowski123]

the off the field character assassinations! i love the patriots!

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I'd agree that, if there is "no there there," then Reiss is no longer "credible."
So, at the end of the day, we will have either a discredited Malcolm Butler or a discredited Mike Reiss.

Either way, Butler deserved better than this:
If there is truth to the as yet unnamed "allegations," he or his agent deserved the right to confront them openly before they were rumored by Reiss.
If there is no truth to them, then he has been badly wronged.

Almost always, reality and the BSPN world are two separate, distinctly different things.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Almost always, reality and the BSPN world are two separate, distinctly different things.

Agreed 100%.
But, I was naively hoping that Reiss and "the BSPN world" were also still somewhat separate things, with Reiss maintaining his integrity in the middle of a den of vipers.

 

[borg]

Reiss' follow up explanation was a hot mess of absurdity.

 

[DaBronxPats14]

Reiss' follow up explanation was a hot mess of absurdity.

I haven't seen it yet. Just report on radio.

 

[Family]

Reiss' follow up explanation was a hot mess of absurdity.

So, at the end of the day, we will have either a discredited Malcolm Butler or a discredited Mike Reiss.

Reiss has no way out unless he comes clean and his original reporting somewhat makes sense. There is no excuse for making damaging character inferences based on his flimsy premise.

The explanation accompanied with the apology embarrassed Reiss professionally.

 

[Ian]

I respectfully disagree, Ian.

A reporter doesn't show "discretion and restraint" via innuendo and veiled suggestions of behavioral or other issues.

If Reiss has verified knowledge about a player that is more than several years old and is relevant to a situation (in this case, a contract negotiation) and if he feels he must report it, he should report it.

Mike doesn't report or mention anything that he doesn't know for sure. I can promise you that, which I mentioned in my other post.

If Reiss has that knowledge and has decided to protect the player by not publishing it, he should protect the player and not report it.

For a reporter with Reiss' credibility, suggesting that something might be wrong implies that he knows that something is wrong. He can't have it both ways.

Reiss now has two alternatives: publish the whole story, if there is a "whole story," or retract the "incomplete piece" that he wrote earlier.

With all due respect, I disagree with that as well. If there are off the field issues factoring into their decision, I don't need to know what they are. I'd obviously like to know (everyone would), but Mike shouldn't be forced to tell us the entirety of the details behind what those are just because he hinted they exist. You can't expect a reporter to just hide the issue if it's true, because if it's relevant to the story that people are looking for answers to, it needs to be mentioned if it adds context behind something as bizarre as this one. If a reporter decides to just say there are off-the-field issues that caused them to elect to go in another direction, I don't feel they should be forced to tell us what they are if that will only exacerbate the situation. I know the details behind a couple of stories over the years that would have been far worse if we knew "the whole story" behind the "off the field issues" that caused moves to be made "because it was the best thing for the team". It would have been really bad for the player and not necessary for us to know, aside from making some serious noise and I give credit to the reporters who opted to not go there but still reported an issue existed.

I understand what you're saying, but I think the other thing that is a little ridiculous too is just because of one error where he got burned by trying to tell us something in the most indirect way he could without causing a problem (which instead, caused a problem) there are a fair amount of people out there who are now ready to tar and feather him over one entry despite the fact he's been one of the most honest and fair guys over the years. I know people love to kill the media and seem to relish when this thing happens, but I wish the ones who deserved it if they admit an error got the benefit of the doubt. Not saying you fall into that category, but I've seen others in this thread that do and Mike is definitely a guy who has earned a little leeway given his history of how he handles things.

 

[mosslost]

Making sense of how Malcolm Butler and Patriots are on verge of a split

I am fairly anti-Butler right now (being a huge baby) but that article stinks.

 

[mosslost]

Yeah. Reiss should have either put in "Sources near the team say..." (if they did) or give some other basis for his speculation. It's unfair to Butler to throw out something like that as an "I'm just thinking" piece.

That said, I very much doubt this is an "I'm just thinking..." piece. Reiss was either fed something from the team, heard something from players or other reporters, or witnessed something himself and for whatever reason is not willing to say that.

He must actually know something, otherwise is not only total trash (as the article is already) but it is horribly irresponsible if he actually has nothing!

 

[mosslost]

Exactly. Reiss isn't borges. He has a reason for this "speculation." And the truth of the matter is we don't know who MB is off the field. Did any of us expect chandler jones to be busted for synthetic weed? That blindsided me - but maybe i'm naive.

Butler clearly damaged goods...

 

[mosslost]

Perhaps his off the field issues illuminate and are reflected in the tantrum he threw over not understanding RFA status verse UFA?

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Reiss' follow up explanation was a hot mess of absurdity.

...which won him great cred with his employer...