Sox Withdrew Offer to Bay in July Because of MRI

[Dojji]

Eliminate the second baseman and go with a 4-3 defense instead of the traditional 3-4?

[Plumpamania]

Belicheck should listen to Manuel Ramirez about some defensive changes!

[example1]

No one said they made up the story about his MRI. In fact' date=' I acknowledged that the stories written about players after they leave are probably true, because I didn't think the FO would circulate lies. And no one said that the Sox did not make the right business decision in letting players walk. What I did say is that the FO uses the press as a public relations tool to sell their moves to the fans. The MRI was in July, and the results concerned the FO enough for them to back away from the deal, yet we didn't hear about this until January 2010 after Bay signed with the Mets. Do you think there is a reason for the timing of the release of this information? I do, and it has to do with public relations. [/quote']

 

The main source I'm seeing for this story is from Rob Bradford at WEEI, who was interviewed by Dale and Holley yesterday. According to him, his source is JASON BAY, and according to Bay the Sox were extremely concerned to NOT let the story come out because it would obviously impact any chance Bay had at signing elsewhere.

 

According to Bradford (and Bay) the deal was basically agreed to at 4/60m, then when the Sox got concerned about his knees they reduced it to 2 yrs guaranteed with 2 years contingent on the health of his knees, which the Sox also demanded he have operated on after the 09 season--even though Bay felt like his knees were fine. The Bay team got a second opinion and it said there was nothing wrong with his knees, then they got a mutual third opinion who agreed with the second opinion (no problem).

 

The Sox final offer to him was 3 years guaranteed, 1 year contingent on his health. No operation required. Bay preferred his NY deal. The Sox contacted Bay's rep immediately before pulling the trigger on Lackey and were told that the 3+1 was not enough so they went another direction.

 

I think it is quite probable that the Sox changed their mind about how much they wanted Bay when they learned that John Lackey would be interested in being on the team. Theo mentioned it in the press conference that it was not something they had put much thought into because they assumed he had no interest in being a Red Sox after competing with them for so long and hating Fenway Park. However, Lackey's team made it clear he was interested just about the time of the Winter Meetings and Bay was given a take it or leave it last shot, which he declined.

 

If Bay had signed with the Sox, this information never would have been made public.

 

This is just false. The terms of the deal would have been based on the health of his knees, just like Drew's was based on his shoulder and Lackey's 5th year option is based on a pre-existing elbow injury.

 

I don't know why the notion of teams using the press as a public relations tool should surprise anyone.

 

You're right, because I don't think it does surprise anyone. At the same time, I don't think that means that every pro-Red Sox/anti-ex-Sox player's health story must immediately be seen as Sox propaganda. In the instance above I'm hearing that Jason Bay is more than happy to talk about it himself.

 

If the press didn't help promote the game, major league baseball wouldn't have them around. Every major business feeds the press information that it wants it to have. I hope you don't think that sports writers are independent investigative journalists. They depend on the teams for information for their stories. It's a cozy relationship. It is because of this cozy (you scratch my back I'll scratch yours) relationship that the media looked completely the other way during the steroid era. Only a federal investigation and Congressional hearings fully brought it to light. The writers knew. It was right in front of their faces, but they never wrote or spoke about it. If they did, they got ostracized like the guy in Chicago who asked Sosa to test his urine.

 

You scoff at this by calling it a made up conspiracy or a smear campaign. The fact is that the media and MLB are partners in a way, because they both have a financial interest in the game being popular. If you don't question the January release of the July MRI info, then you are just looking the other way too. They might as well have called it an official Red Sox press release. Is this an evil or bad practice? No, it is a smart practice by a smart organization. They are spinning the story to put themselves in a favorable light with their customers. I recognize it for what it is, and it is not an attack on the FO. I, unlike others, expect them to act like businessmen, and good businessmen control the release of information about their business unless their is a law requiring that it be disclosed.

 

But now you've been shown to be wrong. Bay himself told Bradford that despite his frustration that the Sox asked him for surgery, he was very impressed that they didn't tell the press as this would have impacted his ability to sign elsewhere. Bay is the source of Bradford's information and he seems to know just about every detail.

 

Furthermore the story doesn't even paint the Sox in a good light. The knee issue that the Sox saw was not the same as what the other two opinions saw. Of course they have every right to believe whatever they want, but it does bring into question either their enthusiasm about having Bay back at all, or at least shows that once they had that info they were willing to draw a harder line for Bay given what the other available options were.

 

I agree with you that teams release info to the media. They have done this numerous times. HOwever, that doesn't mean that everything the media writes that is disparaging of a player is released in some covert way by the team to 'smear' or 'promote' particular players. As in this case, sometimes the information is released by the player and his representitives.

 

IMO the Sox don't need to do a lot to justify this move. I would have traded Jason Bay for John Lackey and Mike Cameron, no question. Add in the fact that they get draft picks out of it and that they will be going into the 2010 draft with a fair amount of top picks and I think overall it seems like a sound strategy. That's not Theo telling me to write that, it seems like common sense.

[a700hitter]

The main source I'm seeing for this story is from Rob Bradford at WEEI' date=' who was interviewed by Dale and Holley yesterday. According to him, his source is JASON BAY, and according to Bay the Sox were extremely concerned to NOT let the story come out because it would obviously impact any chance Bay had at signing elsewhere. [/quote']Ask yourself this question. If the Sox could keep this story under wraps for six months (July-January), why did it come out now? Was it the relentless work of the investigative reporters who followed Bay to the Doctors? No, they waited until he signed and then released it. They released it to explain to the fan base why they let him walk.

 

 

You're right' date=' because I don't think it does surprise anyone. At the same time, I don't think that means that every pro-Red Sox/anti-ex-Sox player's health story must immediately be seen as Sox propaganda. In the instance above I'm hearing that Jason Bay is more than happy to talk about it himself.[/quote']No one said that every health story about a player is propaganda. However, when a popular and productive player walks, you can set your watch to it-- the stories about one or more of the following start to appear: health, clubhouse, or personality issues. It's the spin machine. It's part of their job.

 

But now you've been shown to be wrong. Bay himself told Bradford that despite his frustration that the Sox asked him for surgery, he was very impressed that they didn't tell the press as this would have impacted his ability to sign elsewhere. Bay is the source of Bradford's information and he seems to know just about every detail.

 

Furthermore the story doesn't even paint the Sox in a good light. The knee issue that the Sox saw was not the same as what the other two opinions saw. Of course they have every right to believe whatever they want, but it does bring into question either their enthusiasm about having Bay back at all, or at least shows that once they had that info they were willing to draw a harder line for Bay given what the other available options were.

Bay may have been impressed that the Red Sox didn't release the information, but i am sure that his attorney was not impressed. If they had released a medical report with which Bay disagreed when Bay had independent doctors opinions disagreeing with the Sox findings and it damaged his ability to get a market value contract, the Red Sox would have been facing some very serious claims for damages. It was in their best interests to keep the information under wraps. As you pointed out in the bold above, they had no real enthusiasm to bring him back. Their medical opinion was at odds with the other medical opinion. They believed their medical opinion. The last thing they would have wanted was to ruin his market value, have him sign elsewhere for a reduced amount and then get sued for damages. There was nothing altruistic about keeping the information under wraps for six months. It was in their best interests. If they were being noble or altruistic, they would have filed that medical report away and moved on, but they didn't. They made it public. Why? Answer that question. They were not forced to disclose it.

 

I agree with you that teams release info to the media. They have done this numerous times. However' date=' that doesn't mean that everything the media writes that is disparaging of a player is released in some covert way by the team to 'smear' or 'promote' particular players. As in this case, sometimes the information is released by the player and his representitives.[/quote']The writers don't sit around a say let me think of an article to smear a guy that the FO dislikes or write a puff piece on a guy that the FO likes. It doesn't work that way and no one is suggesting that it is what happens. However, as I pointed out the press and the team have a big common interest-- the popularity of the team and baseball. I think that such a fundamental common interest colors the stream of information and what is reported in the press. You are free to disagree. I haven't been proved wrong about anything. The timing of the release of the health story leads one to question why it wasn't release in July. The answer to the question based on the additional information is that they were concerned that it would hurt his market value. Which leads to the final question, if they didn't release it in July then why release it now? There was no legal obligation to release it. The answer is obvious. It was not in Bay's best interest to release it. The timing of the release made it a neutral event for him. It wasn't in the Mets best interests, because their fans are now wondering whether they signed damaged good. There is only one party that could have derived any benefit from releasing the story. That too is obvious. Good job by the FO. I applaud them. They played it the right way. For some reason, you don't want to give them credit for the shrewdness of their actions. You seem to want to attribute it to them just being good guys. Do you think they got so successful by being good guys when it comes to managing a $150+ million payroll? I give credit where credit is due.

[example1]

Ask yourself this question. If the Sox could keep this story under wraps for six months (July-January), why did it come out now? Was it the relentless work of the investigative reporters who followed Bay to the Doctors? No, they waited until he signed and then released it. They released it to explain to the fan base why they let him walk.

 

This question summarizes the whole argument. I haven't seen anything suggesting that Gammons' sources were in the FO. Have you?

 

As far as I can tell, Jason Bay is talking about it now very openly and the FO is taking their usual stance of not discussing negotiations. Unless I see someone saying "a source in the FO told me..." I'm going to assume it is coming from Bay and his camp and that it simply coincides with increased questions about why he didn't go to the Red Sox... you know, now that he's not going back to Boston for sure. For the past 6 months that has been up in the air, now it isn't, and so what all parties are willing to talk about has changed.

[SoxSport]

Sounds like they wanted to make a Drew type deal with Bay--which included injury safeguards. And Bay didn't want that. They are careful about long term contracts if there is an injury history. And they have been right about Vaughn, Nomar, Damon, Pedro--and even Clemens if you add in the juice factor. The media gave them a tough time on some of these guys, but not Bay. Damon has hit well in Yankee Stadium, where a decent AAA left handed hitter would look good. But he didn't last in CF--the Red Sox concern. Not at his price.

[a700hitter]

This question summarizes the whole argument. I haven't seen anything suggesting that Gammons' sources were in the FO. Have you?

 

As far as I can tell, Jason Bay is talking about it now very openly and the FO is taking their usual stance of not discussing negotiations. Unless I see someone saying "a source in the FO told me..." I'm going to assume it is coming from Bay and his camp and that it simply coincides with increased questions about why he didn't go to the Red Sox... you know, now that he's not going back to Boston for sure. For the past 6 months that has been up in the air, now it isn't, and so what all parties are willing to talk about has changed.

We know the Doctor didn't release the information. That would be a serious and criminal ethical breach. The Mets have no interest in this being made public, because it could only result in negative scrutiny as they didn't carve out an escape clause for his knee condition. So, you think Bay is just so chatty that he couldn't contain himself and divulged this at the risk of embarrassing his new employer, who didn't protect themselves from this condition? I don't think so. Bay doesn't strike me as a guy that divulges a lot of information about himself. He also doesn't strike me as a person who would go out of his way to embarrass his employer. Bay has been responding to the story that Gammons broke. Gammons has quite a few inside sources. When you look the other way despite the stark evidence to the contrary is when you cross the line and become a total apologist for the FO. Of course this information came from the Red Sox FO. All of the other parties involved had a motive to not have it become public information. The Red Sox are the only party that had a motive to make it public. You have your head in the sand. Again, I give the Sox credit here. I also give the Doctor, the Mets and Bay credit for not being stupid enough to disclose information that could not benefit them or the Mets. You seem to think Bay is a dope who will unwittingly embarrass his employer within days after signing a $60+ million deal. I don't think he is that dumb.

[example1]

You're right. I have my head in the sand and you have presented irrefutable facts about how things went down.

 

What did you think of the Bradford interiew, BTW? He spoke personally with Bay, and wrote the full article. Did you download it? Or do you know the facts already?

[a700hitter]

You're right. I have my head in the sand and you have presented irrefutable facts about how things went down.

 

What did you think of the Bradford interiew, BTW? He spoke personally with Bay, and wrote the full article. Did you download it? Or do you know the facts already?

Yes, I listened to the interview and read the article. Bay was clearly responding to the Gammons story. On the WEEI interview, Bradford clearly states up front that he felt that one of the reasons why Bay wanted to talk was because of the Gammons' story. Bay clearly wasn't the first party to divulge the information of the MRI. His interview with Bradford was Bay's response. The Doctors couldn't release the information. The Mets had no motive for this story to come out. The Mets had a motive for it not to be released. That leaves only one party that could have released the information-- the Red Sox, and the Red Sox were the only party that had a motive for the story to become public.

[example1]

Yes' date=' I listened to the interview and read the article. Bay was clearly responding to the Gammons story. On the WEEI interview, Bradford clearly states up front that he felt that one of the reasons why Bay wanted to talk was because of the Gammons' story. Bay clearly wasn't the first party to divulge the information of the MRI. His interview with Bradford was Bay's response. The Doctors couldn't release the information. The Mets had no motive for this story to come out. The Mets had a motive for it not to be released. That leaves only one party that could have released the information-- the Red Sox, and the Red Sox were the only party that had a motive for the story to become public.[/quote']

 

I grow tired of the conspiracy theory talk. Howeer I'll give one response.

 

I agree with you that this FO is savvy enough to know when it can tell the media certain things that will paint them in a favorable light. What I don't buy is that this is an example of that dynamic. A brief Gammons comment that leaves more questions than answers is a pathetic attempt at message control. Even if I assume that they can use the media for nefarious purposes, I assume that they do it a lot better than that.

 

One theory I could buy is that someone from the FO talked to gammons and conveyed something "off message" that was not specifically part of a master media-manipulation plan. Perhaps some FO aide or assistant to the vice president of something. At the same time, I could see Gammon's source being some loose affiliate of Bay's who knew about the story and thought it was interesting and shady. Bay personally doesn't have motive to release it, but neithe rdoes Theo. Many people below both of them could tell an interesting story without intent to manipulate anything, simply telling a story.

 

What I can't buy is that the brief Gammons comment was thought up and implemented as some larger plan by the FO to make themselves look better. The narrative that Bay's health was questionable over the longterm was already well-established long before they even signed Lackey. He was widely assumed to be a DH in waiting. Discussion about MRIs and such serve no purpose for the Red Sox, other than to encourage Bay to open his mouth and make them look bad. There's no strategy there and frankly I still fail to see any motive.

[a700hitter]

I grow tired of the conspiracy theory talk. However I'll give one response.

 

I agree with you that this FO is savvy enough to know when it can tell the media certain things that will paint them in a favorable light. What I don't buy is that this is an example of that dynamic. A brief Gammons comment that leaves more questions than answers is a pathetic attempt at message control. Even if I assume that they can use the media for nefarious purposes, I assume that they do it a lot better than that.

 

One theory I could buy is that someone from the FO talked to gammons and conveyed something "off message" that was not specifically part of a master media-manipulation plan. Perhaps some FO aide or assistant to the vice president of something. At the same time, I could see Gammon's source being some loose affiliate of Bay's who knew about the story and thought it was interesting and shady. Bay personally doesn't have motive to release it, but neithe rdoes Theo. Many people below both of them could tell an interesting story without intent to manipulate anything, simply telling a story.

 

What I can't buy is that the brief Gammons comment was thought up and implemented as some larger plan by the FO to make themselves look better. The narrative that Bay's health was questionable over the longterm was already well-established long before they even signed Lackey. He was widely assumed to be a DH in waiting. Discussion about MRIs and such serve no purpose for the Red Sox, other than to encourage Bay to open his mouth and make them look bad. There's no strategy there and frankly I still fail to see any motive.

You are the one concocting this "master plan" or "conspiracy" theory. I am saying that this use of the press is just business as usual. There's no conspiracy. It's like you disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing, because you cannot bear to admit that, despite all of the evidence, I am correct in my assertions that: 1. this news was kept under wraps for 6 months, 2. the release of this information could only have come from one source-- the Red Sox, and 3. the only party that would have had a motive to release the information is the Red Sox. There is nothing to refute any of this.

 

You still have not answered the question why they would chose this time to release it. Saying that it was just "a brief comment" by Gammons does not negate the fact that his source for the brief comment was almost certainly the FO, which still leaves us with the question why the FO divulged this information now, when they were able to keep it private for 6 months. I don't know why you bring up Theo. No one else has, and as far as I know, he is not the only person working in the FO. He is not the head of their media relations, so I don't know how he enters this conversation other than your cultish Theo thing.

 

BTW: The Sox are not happy with Bay's response to their leaked information, but they are afraid to go he-said, she-said, because they are concerned about possible liability for violating Bay's HIPPA privacy rights. From today's Boston Globe:

 

The Sox will likely not be able to come back and challenge Bay on his story because of the HIPPA Act, which prohibits them from disclosing medical information. But judging by some of the things I’ve heard on Yawkey Way the last couple of days, they seem to think Bay’s story is a little fuzzy in some areas. Quite frankly, they don’t want to engage in a he said/he said scenario with a player who has moved on and said is very “happy’’ and has “no regrets.’’ Evidently, he has a few.

 

Bay turned the public relations table on them a bit with his response, and now their hands are tied a bit.

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2010/01/24/protection_has_become_part_of_the_package/

[Spudboy]

What conspiracy?

 

I see this all as the normal machinations of a company trying to keep it's customers pacified. They set a value on Bay and would not budge. Probably for good reasons (knees, shoulder).

 

The Sox made a solid offer last summer which was rejected. They made another (lesser offer) just before signing Lackey. It did not work out. Now they are forced to promote a "Run Prevention" roster and philosophy which may not work out. If that happens, fans will be screaming "They should have signed Bay 'cause they can't score runs". "Leaking" this story is most likely an effort to cover their asses in the event the offense is inadequate. It's just spin control, that's all.

 

I think it's very unlikely that the actual source of this story will ever be known. But I see no reason not to believe that someone in the Sox organization said something to someone after Bay was gone.

[jacksonianmarch]

It is absolutely amazing that some people could actively deny that the sox spin machine exists. Absolutely amazing. The Sox violated Bay's rights, I hope they get hit with a violation

[Spudboy]

It is absolutely amazing that some people could actively deny that the sox spin machine exists. Absolutely amazing. The Sox violated Bay's rights' date=' I hope they get hit with a violation[/quote']

 

Where is the evidence that Bay's rights were violated?

[a700hitter]

Where is the evidence that Bay's rights were violated?

The results of the team doctor's exam is likely not privileged. They no doubt had Bay sign privacy waivers. However, the other medical reports would be privileged, and the Red Sox will be careful not to dispute or discuss those reports so as not to violate Bay's rights.

[Spudboy]

Anyone saying that Bay's rights were violated is speculating at best.

 

There are no known facts to support this supposition.

 

Lol.

[a700hitter]

Anyone saying that Bay's rights were violated is speculating at best.

 

There are no known facts to support this supposition.

 

Lol.

Only a trolling Yankee fan would make such an assertion.

[Imperial59]

It is absolutely amazing that some people could actively deny that the sox spin machine exists. Absolutely amazing. The Sox violated Bay's rights' date=' I hope they get hit with a violation[/quote']

 

How did they violate his rights? What part of the CBA did they violate or what precedent can you name for a team ever getting a violation for doing something like this?

 

I think you're starting to get childish about this.

[jacksonianmarch]

HIPAA.

[Spudboy]

HIPAA.

 

Great.

 

How have the Sox violated HIPPAA and what specific evidence substantiates this claim?

[jacksonianmarch]

They're safe regardless because the source will never be revealed. But we know that the source is the FO and they essentially divulged results from an MRI on a player that was no longer under contract with them. Hence, the waiver doesnt apply any more to the Sox.

[Spudboy]

Boy, that sure is damning evidence.

[Imperial59]

They're safe regardless because the source will never be revealed. But we know that the source is the FO and they essentially divulged results from an MRI on a player that was no longer under contract with them. Hence' date=' the waiver doesnt apply any more to the Sox.[/quote']

 

So in other words, the Red Sox didn't violate any rules but you're too proud to admit it?

[jacksonianmarch]

They broke the rules, but nobody will be held accountable for it

[Spudboy]

They broke the rules' date=' but nobody will be held accountable for it[/quote']

 

This is conjecture.

[jacksonianmarch]

Who would have made that comment then? Who? Bay didnt, he refuted it. The Mets didnt, why would they bash their new acquisition. The Red Sox leaked that.

[Spudboy]

Leaked what?

 

What WAS SAID?

 

And WHO said it?

[jacksonianmarch]

The results of his MRI were leaked.

[a700hitter]

They broke the rules' date=' but nobody will be held accountable for it[/quote']They didn't break the rules. The report by the Red Sox doctors wasn't privileged, because it was at their request and for review by the team. Bay, no doubt signed waivers, with regard to the Sox MRI. They were free to leak it. However, Bay got his own Docs that contradicted the Red Sox docs. Those reports were not privileged. If the Red Sox discuss those they will commit a violation. I said this several post back.

 

Edit: To clarify, they were free to leak the Sox MRI under HIPPA, but they could have exposed themselves to liability for damages if he signed a below market contract as a result.

[Imperial59]

The results of his MRI were leaked.

 

Leaked? They weren't a secret, Bay openly admits that the Red Sox seem to believe his MRI's show some damage. Who's to say Bay wasn't the source who told Gammons what happened?