Matt Moore of Hardwood Paroxysm takes exception to our post criticizing the use of unnamed sources in articles where sports writers use "sources" to bolster their own opinions. His even-keeled piece is entitled "The State Of Minnesota Is Now The Edge Of Madness"

In the post Moore says the Wolves "didn't look themselves in the mirror" before they walked into the draft room and picked the best player on their board. You see, Rubio is special and because of this, he has a scary agent and handlers who can get what they want.

We are then accused of waging a jihad (yes, a jihad) on "sources who are widely respected not only by fans and media, but by the GMs themselves, under the guise of wanting transparency. Transparency which would, of course, eliminate their ability to siphon any information whatsover from GMs who honestly hate anyone involved in the media on a general basis." In other words, ESPN wouldn't have enough content to fill a 24/7 news cycle. Moore then lets us in on the dirty secret of access: "I talk to guys that are on the inside. Me? I’ve landed on the surface with a rock hammer and tried to chip my way in. And I can tell you from my very limited experience? GMs HATE most media members." Guess what, so do most press secretaries but they sure know something useful when they see it. (Also, we did this under the guise of wanting transparency? Did you even read the whole post?)

Let's make this very clear to Matt: No one here is blaming the New York media for this mess. What we are doing is marveling at the idiocy of it all; basking in the warm glow of a 24/7 media machine that doesn't shine this way all that often but when it does (as is it with Favre), it is fueled by ready-made story lines and whispers from unnamed and unaccountable sources. For a guy who just wrote a post dressing up this issue with claims of "jihad" and "shadowy enemies", I don't think you're in the position to say that Wolves fans are the ones on the edge of madness.

That being said, we encourage our readers to head on over to Matt's excellent and entertaining site to read his whole post. Are we misrepresenting his argument? Does he have a point? Are both of us just a little off? Does this site really speak for the entire state of Minnesota? If so, can we also speak for the liberal media as well? Should Hoopus even be running a back-and-forth argument with another site or is that just to silly? What say you?

(Ed Note: I moved this off the front page because it is kind of silly and is more about an exchange between two sites than the Wolves.)