"A scout said"

You must work for a Gannett paper.

 

You can't tell me this doesn't add anything to a story. It was in a Philadelphia Inquirer story this week.

"They won't trade [Kyle] Korver and [Andre] Iguodala, and if [Steven] Hunter, [Willie] Green and [Rodney] Carney are your tradeable assets at 12, would you return their phone calls?" one NBA scout said

 

I generally narrow it a little, (e.g. "a veteran scout from an Eastern Conference rival"), so long as I get something enlightening...("never gives away an at bat... not afraid to use all his pitches"same in both hockey and baseball...always makes that quick first pass out of the zone, etc.")....same rules of thumb apply in hockey and baseball...reasons for anonymity have already been discussed...

 

I don't think it adds much at all. You're assuming that the scout knows what he claims to know. Because there's no attribution, there's also no accountability. And scouts have all sorts of reasons to be manipulative.

Then there's the issue that scouts are often wrong about things even when they believe they have all the right answers. It's one thing to say that a player is generally perceived as a top prospect by scouts, but it's something else to quote one of hundres of MLB scouts regarding some rookie pitcher.

 

I don't like that. It's like saying, "I won't tell you who the source is, but here's who it's not."

When the Mets were at their wildest and every beat writer had his go-to guy, they started identifying them as "a veteran pitcher," which instantly eliminated 15 position players and every pitcher with less than two years of ML service. Always struck me as semi-desperate, as though you're saying, "See, I didn't make this up."

I don't think the reader is served any better by the tease, and any effort to narrow it might make the scout edgy.

 

It does add something. It speaks to what people around the league are saying.

My experience has been that scouts are the least manipulative people in sports. They tend not to waste energy with ulterior motives.

 

But if you only quote one or two scouts, does it really speak to what people around the league are saying?

 

Knowing scouts is the best way to get information, provided the relationship is good. Their very presence at places often separates fact from fiction when it comes to trade stories etc., and, if the relationship is good and can't stress that enough, won't bullshit. Most aren't weasel political animals that most GMs are and, almost by definition, need to be. Most scouts get their satisfaction in seeing the kids they recommended or drafted move on.

 

Then an NFL story should quote every head coach on the same topic because quoting one or two doesn't present a full view?

 

I think scouts can offer good insight, but you have to have developed a good relationship with them first. Also, when covering team workouts/NFL draft stuff, a lot can't tell you anything because of an organization's policy against it. As stupid as it sounds, teams think they get an edge by keeping everything secretive.

 

That has been my experience as well. Scouts tell you exactly what they think, no filter, even for language. They're supposed to be opinionated, and they are. That's what makes their quotes so entertaining -- they're very flavorful.