re: Baylor not holding back

[bird <birdw@xxxxxxx>]

> From : lapdoggy < lapdoggy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> After reading that puff piece interview from Wallace the other day I
> thought it would be appropriate to post an interview with a GM who's
> got the balls to say what he feels. Wallace and Baylor couldn't be any
> more opposite.
While the Wallace piece was (predictably) full of some wacky 
Wallacisms, a few non-answers, and a question half-ignored here and 
there, what is the actual benefit of an "honest" GM?  A GM "with 
balls"?  Because, based on the standings, I don't see what Baylor 
brings to the table.  (That he can work with The Donald is either a 
major failing or a major virtue, I'm not sure which.)

What will it benefit any of us to have Wallace come out with "honesty" 
or the "truth"?  If he lost the snake-oil aspect, how would that change 
the shaky track record?

I've long since stopped worrying about what Chris Wallace has to say.  
Spin is separate from actual basketball production.

Bird