Kovacevic on why the Penguins traded Despres: "They don’t trust Despres off the ice and, hence, lost trust on it."

Actually, almost all of it applies to you.

I replied specifically to your reporting. In your article, you imply that it's the team who told you about Despres. In your posts here, you explicitly state that it was a person outside the organization who contacted you.

This isn't "fourth-grade conspiratorial stuff," this is me regurgitating your writing.

If it was someone outside of the organization, what was their interest in "seeing the player succeed." If it was easily found through simple reporting, why were you unable to find it in 6 years?

I am not angry. I do not wish to yell at anyone. I have to say that between your attempt to show off your psych 101 skills and your cute claims of a wild conspiracy theory, you seem to be attempting to deflect attention away from actual, legitimate questions about the situation that you raised when you wrote an article that implied a source from one place and then wrote in this thread that your source came from another place.

See, if you weren't deflecting, you would have said something like,

"my source did come from outside of the Penguins organization, but through the process of reporting, I confirmed..."

or

"That's just a misunderstanding, what I meant was..."

Note that in neither of those very simple suggestions do you actually reveal your "source," nor do you come close to spilling the beans on the big secret that we wouldn't want to get out.

No, instead, you made a very deliberate attempt to deflect all of those back to me, and in the most predictable way possible: by attaching some unfounded emotional quality to them.

As is usually the case in these sorts of scenarios: when someone lacks the ability to deal with the topic at hand, they try to make it about everyone else.

Before we move on, one quick question: why don't you want the "off-ice problem" getting out? Because it would be too damaging? Any more damaging than stating there's a problem and letting the internet recklessly speculate? It's an interesting question, if I do say so myself. Does the damage come simply from the problem existing - if it exists - or what the problem is?

Or is "protecting the secret" not about Despres? Is it about protecting the team? It's so ridiculous and petty that it makes them look bad? Well, probably not, but in this case it doesn't matter, because by stating unequivocally that there is a problem but not saying what it is, you've made all of the speculation about Despres. That's probably fair to him.

Anyhow, enough about this specific case, let's continue with my post and show how it pertains to you, since you apparently forgot what you wrote.

1) Lovejoy's skating vs Despres skating/foot speed. You brought this up on Monday as your first defense for the trade. I would challenge you to find anyone to say that Despres is not only a better skater than Lovejoy, but his skating is one of his strengths.

The Penguins' own Mike Lange talks about it here: http://www.pensburgh.com/2015/2/9/7999641/talking-to-myself-looking-back-and-ahead

February 7, Pens Week

Mike Lange asked Simon Despres if he'd been the fastest skater every place he'd been since he was a kid. Despres answered, "I never thought of myself as fast in a straight line. When I start wheeling behind the net, crossing over, that's where I get my speed." Lange said, "I watched you today though. You got a pretty good first jump. You're first couple of strides, you get going pretty good." Despres continued, "I worked on it, with Marianne [Watkins], one of the power skaters in Pittsburgh. I worked a lot on it. I learn quick so I try to use everything they taught me. They gave us a lot of tools in the last 6 years, Pittsburgh, whether it's power skating or other stuff." Lange asked, "Do you notice a difference?" Despres replied, "Oh yeah."

Some pretty interesting stuff from Despres. Bylsma definitely deserves criticism for how he handled 47, but at the same time, it wasn't like Despres was a legit top 4 guy who was being held back solely because of the coach. I think a lot of people forget Despres is still a young guy at 23 and still has some developing to do.

2) Despres contract status. Your 2nd defense of the trade mentioned Despres' contract status. The rule for RFA/UFA is thus: 7 years of service OR 27 years of age. You'll note that when Despres' contract ends, he'll have met neither of those requirements.

As backup, you can look at capgeek (via an archived page) or nhl numbers, or any one of another sites out there (except for spotrac, which does not track such things with any accuracy) to confirm what i'm telling you

3) You're right, i don't think you mentioned Ben Lovejoy's quotability. Score one for the good guys!

4) I think it's okay to paint with a wide brush on this one. You did write a Despres article back towards the beginning of the year, so is that half marks? I dunno. But you also didn't ask about him after the boarding and bloodied face, etc... so... One point to Nideak. This judging, man... probably a fourth-grade level conspiracy.

5) You were very sarcastic to anyone questioning the trade. Sorry. If you don't like being called on it, don't do it.

So let's see, there were 6 points overall. You weren't relevant to one of them.

So, according to my archaic math, that's 5/6 which is 83.33%. Now, you can double check me, I'm so angry and desperate to yell at someone, I don't know if I can operate this calculator accurately.

So 17% has nothing to do with you. Slightly less than the 90% you were pushing.

I understand there are concepts like reader fatigue that make it hard for anyone - let alone someone as busy as you, whose work is nothing but words - to stay focused on one writing for too long, so I will try to keep this short.

Let me just conclude by saying to you, relevant to you, that my point was about you. Was about your writing. There was an inconsistency between what you wrote in your article and what you put in this thread. My post to you noted those inconsistencies. You chose, instead of either acknowledging my point or explaining it, to attack my emotional and mental well-being. That's your choice.

I don't feel the need to do that. Why? Because honestly, I have no interest in your emotional or mental well-being. It doesn't mean anything to me.

What does meaning something to me is the Pittsburgh Penguins. And what would have me upset, if I were upset, is the utter inability, as a fan, to get intelligent, thought-provoking coverage of the team.

Now, you might think that's what you provide, but I can tell you, as someone who is both educated in writing and in hockey, that you'd be wrong. The next time you have an original, relevant, intelligent hockey thought will be the first.

I don't know why Simon Despres was traded. The only thing I learned by reading your articles is neither do you.

/r/penguins Thread Link - dkonpittsburghsports.com