McAdam: Rafael Devers Considered Asking For A Trade

Hard to believe almost everything you read, these days.

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

Hard to believe almost everything you read, these days.

That might be the only line I can believe.

You are hereby banned from ever running for office (especially a front one).

2 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

What exactly did the media get wrong here?  I'd like to see someone answer that.

They hyped a comment and missed the nuance of cultural translation.

CBS headline, today, "Devers Walks Back Refusal to DH." Is that factual, correct or a statement that truly captures the Devers position?

I honestly feel like Devers never held the belief that he was not going to do what the team believed was best. We often misidentify the context or actual feelings behind a translation, or how some cultures speak with a lot of bravado or sound absolutist or unwavering.

The last line of that first day's statement was largely ignored, "I made it clear, kind of what my desires were and whatever happens from here, I don’t know."

20 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I'm not really buying it.  It's not the media's job to apply those kind of nuances when the actual words imply the worst case scenario.  And as I said in the other thread, once Raffy realized his words were being misconstrued, if in fact they were, he had plenty of time to make a clarifying statement.

I think if anyone is blame in this situation it's the team.  If McAdam is right, they misled Raffy all along about the Arenado and Bregman rumors, and Raffy was blindsided when it actually happened.

And after all the talk about Bregman playing 2B, he has only played 3B in the spring games.

Plus McAdam seems to me like a pretty reasonable guy, not a muckraker. 

 

Think of any Red Sox big wig this century fans felt like they could trust at least a little. First, cross out anyone with a share in ownership... Now pivot to the front office.

There are two: Epstein and Dombrowski. Both were all-out and mostly public about their pursuits for top talent to improve the team. Theo spoke intelligently, but not so obnoxiously to cloud intentions. Dave was always decisive about upgrades he was determined to make, and not shy about divulging company secrets (lest they weaken his plan).

Yes, each apparently had the keys to the vault, but that doesn't necessarily make an executive honest to his constitue- I mean, the public.

25 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I'm not really buying it.  It's not the media's job to apply those kind of nuances when the actual words imply the worst case scenario.  And as I said in the other thread, once Raffy realized his words were being misconstrued, if in fact they were, he had plenty of time to make a clarifying statement.

I think if anyone is blame in this situation it's the team.  If McAdam is right, they misled Raffy all along about the Arenado and Bregman rumors, and Raffy was blindsided when it actually happened.

And after all the talk about Bregman playing 2B, he has only played 3B in the spring games.

Plus McAdam seems to me like a pretty reasonable guy, not a muckraker. 

 

Ok normally I agree but it’s hard to defend McAdam here.

The article, right down to the headline, was clearly written not to inform but to collect web hits.  Especially after reading the article.

The article is what was Devers was CONSIDERING, not doing.  It says he never asked for a trade.  So exactly how far did this consideration go? Did he tell ANYONE? Clearly not Boston.  Why didn’t he go through with this?

It’s purely useless information.  Might as well have an article about how Devers can’t decide between Coke and Pepsi.  And not tell us who he chose.

And still - even you have gone on to decide on assigning blame.  For what? Is this entire episode really worth the coverage it’s gotten?

Before we go defending the media’s role in these scandals and pretending their job isnt to imply nuance to create controversy out of noting, I have two words for you.

Chicken.

Beer.

21 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I'm not really buying it.  It's not the media's job to apply those kind of nuances when the actual words imply the worst case scenario.  And as I said in the other thread, once Raffy realized his words were being misconstrued, if in fact they were, he had plenty of time to make a clarifying statement.

I think if anyone is blame in this situation it's the team.  If McAdam is right, they misled Raffy all along about the Arenado and Bregman rumors, and Raffy was blindsided when it actually happened.

And after all the talk about Bregman playing 2B, he has only played 3B in the spring games.

Plus McAdam seems to me like a pretty reasonable guy, not a muckraker. 

 

When did Devers refuse to DH?

Why isn't it the media's job tom correctly present the truth and not "imply the worst case scenario," that just happens to be the best click bait, as always.

We are going to have to agree to disagree, here. Although I have never lined in the D.R., I did live in Mexico for 4 years, and understand there are cultural differences and nuances to translation- not to mention expressions that are near impossible to translate. I know what I heard in Spanish, and it sounded like a guy  that felt he was a third baseman and "whatever happens from here, I don't know."

The media grabbed the click bait tidbit and ran with it. Those who read the translation provided within the lense of their own understandings and culture steered themselves to the worst or the worst understandings. 

I see very little "blame" on the team, except that maybe they could have talked to Devers right after they knew they were signing Bregman. I don't think Devers said anything wrong, and there was no need to clarify anything. He felt he was the 3rdbaseman, but knew whatever happens, happens.

So now the media reports he is "walking back his refusal to DH.," which is total  BS. I'm not sure why you feel the media did nothing wrong, but we are all free to have our own opinions. Devers never refused to DH. Find me those words or even a clear implying of those sentiments.

2 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Yes, I absolutely think this episode was worthy of coverage.  Devers is our highest-paid player, best hitter, and his contract runs until 2033.  If he's feeling blindsided and angry at the guys he works for, that matters.   

But is he?

We’re seeing articles about how he feels written by guys who don’t even talk to him.

Did Devers get mad when he was told about Bregman? Maybe.  Did anything else happen as a result? Doesn’t appear so…

7 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Yes, I absolutely think this episode was worthy of coverage.  Devers is our highest-paid player, best hitter, and his contract runs until 2033.  If he's feeling blindsided and angry at the guys he works for, that matters.   

Agreed, but not this AMOUNT of coverage and using words like "Refused to DH" in headlines. Talk about implying things.

2 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Yeah but that's the clickbait aspect which we should all expect.  

Expect  but not defend.

7 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

McAdam has sources in the org.  He's been covering the Sox a long time.  If he's hearing stuff it's kind of his job to report it, using some discretion, obviously, but as I say he seems like one of the reasonable ones.

He normally does.  And normally he is defensible.

Simple question - do you think Lackey threatened to retire rather than honoring his year at minimum wage?

The only thing I ever found in translation was in the Czech Republic, where no means yes.

(explains why in pubs and clubs there my K-rate was always higher than my OPS)

Just now, Bellhorn04 said:

I have no idea about Lackey.  But the fact they traded him does seem to make it plausible.  

Really?  They also traded Lester that same week. Certainly he wasn’t threatening by retirement too.

The Lackey thing was made up by Masarotti.  The week before, Ken Rosenthal (who never talked to Lackey) put in his Sporting News column that Lackey’s only leverage was to retire, but ultimately he felt Lackey and the Sox would agree on a two year extension.  Then Massarotti states in his article “According to Ken Rosenthal, Lackey has threatened to retire rather than play for league minimum.”  Huh? Not what Rosenthal said.

Also, Lackey did play for the league minimum that year for St. Louis.  The Sox traded him because Cherington was bad at midseason trades.

As for Devers, this whole thing has been a nothing story. “Devers thought about asking for a trade but didn’t”.  Is that really our new controversial headline?

8 minutes ago, notin said:

He normally does.  And normally he is defensible.

Simple question - do you think Lackey threatened to retire rather than honoring his year at minimum wage?

If I had to guess what he said, maybe he told the Sox he was considering retirement and prefered to be traded than return to the Sox, and that is what they did.

It's hard to know, exactly what was said.

There were some direct quotes from Lackey, as with Devers. Morre came out, later, as with Mookie.

IMO, Lackey wanted out. I don't think Devers ever did.

10 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

It's not my intent to defend all media.  

I figured nobody does that.

You defend the headline, "Devers Walks Back Refusal to DH." You never answered me on that.

5 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Lester's contract was expiring.  Lackey's had the year at minimum wage. 

And the team sucked and Cherington wasn’t good at trading.  You’d have a better argument if Cherington’s Lester/Cespedes trade wasn’t a complete flop.

(Relevant Yet Irrelevant Trivia:  Jon Lester was traded by Boston for Yoenis Cespedes.  Which current member of the Red Sox was Cespedes once traded for?)

Just now, Bellhorn04 said:

To me it does seem pretty obvious Raffy got blindsided here, that he didn't really think Bregman was coming to town.  And that's what led to all the issues.  And that's on the team, isn't it?

I'm not sure it's a good idea to talk to a player about a trade, before it happens, so there is that aspect. 

The reports, up to that time, were that teh Sox were interested in AB, but likely as a 2Bman. I'm not sure Devers was following these stories, or not.

Once we knew he was coming to Boston, I do think they had the responsibility and need to talk to Devers as soon as possible, and preferably face-to-face. Apparently, they did talk, but when, and for how long and how did the talks go, is unknown.

I don't blame Devers for saying he views himself as the 3Bman. I don't agree with him that he is a good 3Bman, but I understand most players think highly of themselves. That unwavering confidence in themselves is part of what made them great.

Devers sees himself as a 3Bman. There is nothing wrong with that and voicing that opinion. He made no statement or implication that he'd refuse to DH, yet that was headlined. I still can't see why you defend that blatant mischaracterization, at worst or reading into statements things that are not known to be true, at best.

5 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I don't see that one as a big deal.  YMMV.  It would probably have been fairer to say "reported refusal".

Who said he refused? I never saw those words or an implied refusal. Saying "I am the 3Bman" is not refusing to DH.