Sox Withdrew Offer to Bay in July Because of MRI

[jacksonianmarch]

What would they be charged with? Realeasing factual' date=' non-privileged information? Being mean?[/quote']

 

You dont work do you? Its the exact same reason why employers dont give any negative feedback as references for future employment.

[a700hitter]

What would they be charged with? Realeasing factual' date=' non-privileged information? Being mean?[/quote']Two doctors disagreed with the red Sox finding. His agent would have sued for damaging his marketability. The gravamen of the action likely would have been based in defamation with measurable consequential damages.

I've been a lawyer for 25+ years. I know when and why lawyers sue. I didn't say that Bay would win the lawsuit, but his agent clearly would have sued. The Red Sox knew that and they made a prudent business decision to closely guard the information. It wasn't just a favor to Bay. This is big business. There are few pure favors.

[Imperial59]

You dont work do you? Its the exact same reason why employers dont give any negative feedback as references for future employment.

 

I'll give you points for creativity, I've never heard that line from a troll yet.

 

"I think your opinion is absurd. You must not have a job."

[Imperial59]

I didn't say that Bay would win the lawsuit' date=' but his agent clearly would have sued.[/quote']

 

I don't know why we're debating. You're already 100% convinced that the Red Sox leaked the information and that Bay's agent would have sued if they had leaked it earlier. There's really no point in discussing it further with you.

[a700hitter]

The ONLY reason to even hold a witch hunt over this is disappointment that Jason Bay is no longer a Boston Red Sox' date=' and that issue was decided WELL before anything was released to the public. In fact the info was likely held back specifically to AVOID interfering with Bay's hunt for a contract, DESPITE the possibility that revealing it may have helped deter other suitors and bring Bay's price down. Which when you think of it, is a case or "erring on the side of classy" which I wish more teams emulated.[/quote']There's no witch hunt. I think the Sox made the right business decision to release the information when they did. I have stated this in several posts in this thread. I applaud them for the professional manner in which they guarded the information to limit their exposure to legal liability. I also give them credit for using it to spin their story at a time when releasing the information could hurt them. I give them credit for this, and I have stated that in several posts in this thread that I give them credit for the way they handled this. So, what witch hunt are you talking about? Why do you want to deny them credit for doing the right thing for the Red Sox. Why do you and others insist that this is just the result of some unwitting happenstance? Give them the credit they deserve.

[a700hitter]

I don't know why we're debating. You're already 100% convinced that the Red Sox leaked the information and that Bay's agent would have sued if they had leaked it earlier. There's really no point in discussing it further with you.

So, why do you keep arguing about the issue? There is no other plausible explanation, and as you have pointed out earlier, teams release this info all the time. The Red Sox did it the right way. If they had released it earlier they could have had a problem.

[jacksonianmarch]

I'll give you points for creativity, I've never heard that line from a troll yet.

 

"I think your opinion is absurd. You must not have a job."

 

No, its more:

 

"You dont have a basic understanding of the working world, so you mustnt be old enough to have a job."

[Spudboy]

@a a700

 

Just remember what Huck said.

[a700hitter]

@a a700

 

Just remember what Huck said.

... and for some reason I keep trying. The line is definitely applicable to me too.

[Imperial59]

No, its more:

 

"You dont have a basic understanding of the working world, so you mustnt be old enough to have a job."

 

Professors, employers, supervisors, etc. have every right to give out factual information about their employees, whether it's negative or not.

 

I may not be a high and mighty nurse like you but I have a decent enough job which pays the rent, is personally fulfilling and contributes to the betterment of society. I really can't complain.

[Imperial59]

So' date=' why do you keep arguing about the issue? There is no other plausible explanation, and as you have pointed out earlier, teams release this info all the time. [b']The Red Sox did it the right way[/b]. If they had released it earlier they could have had a problem.

 

I was debating because it sounded like you thought they have a policy of running smear campaigns against FA's they let go. I think we broth pretty much agree that they handled the Bay situation the right way.

[a700hitter]

I'm not sure what college you graduated from or where you work' date=' but both professors and jobs have every right to give out factual information about their employees, whether it's negative or not.[/quote']That's right, but it's not always easy to prove the facts, and if you can't you can be held liable for your actions. Businesses don't give out the negative information, because they don't want the hassle and the expense of having to establish the facts in court.

[Imperial59]

That's right' date=' but it's not always easy to prove the facts, and if you can't you can be held liable for your actions. Businesses don't give out the negative information, because they don't want the hassle and the expense of having to establish the facts in court.[/quote']

 

Perhaps the Sox would have had a minor risk in releasing Bays' medical information before he signed with another team. Perhaps they were just doing him a favor after he was a productive, stand up citizen for the Red Sox. Either way, I don't see much of a smear campaign at work here.

 

Well before any information was known about Bay's MRI's, the majority of Red Sox fans (and most baseball fans for that matter) agreed that it probably wasn't a smart idea to lock him up for the years and money that the Mets did. The MRI report probably didn't change many people's minds.

[a700hitter]

I was debating because it sounded like you thought they have a policy of running smear campaigns against FA's they let go. I think we broth pretty much agree that they handled the Bay situation the right way.

If you read the thread, it was the posters who were arguing with me that used terms like "smear campaign", "conspsiracy" and a "witch hunt". I have made no such assertion.

[a700hitter]

Perhaps the Sox would have had a minor risk in releasing Bays' medical information before he signed with another team. Perhaps they were just doing him a favor after he was a productive, stand up citizen for the Red Sox. Either way, I don't see much of a smear campaign at work here.

 

Well before any information was known about Bay's MRI's, the majority of Red Sox fans (and most baseball fans for that matter) agreed that it probably wasn't a smart idea to lock him up for the years and money that the Mets did. The MRI report probably didn't change many people's minds.

There was no attempt to "smear" him, but the Red Sox knew if the information leaked, that bay and the Red Sox would have a problem. IF they were my client, I would have advised them to do exactly what they did, and I am sure that they regularly get legal counsel on these matters. They didn't just luck into handling this with meticulous care.

[Imperial59]

If you read the thread' date=' it was the posters who were arguing with me that used terms like "smear campaign", "conspsiracy" and a "witch hunt". I have made no such assertion.[/quote']

 

No, you very clearly used the term smear campaign to describe how the Sox handle free agents that they let go. That's why I took issue with what you were saying.

 

Whether the story is accurate about his knees is irrelevant. It is the FO way of getting the fans to accept their moves. They smear thhe guys that leave with some sort of CYA story every time. Bay seemed to be running very well all of last season. He played almost every day. The only injury he had was to his calf. Does he have a condition in his knee? Probably. He hurt it a couple of years ago. Drew's injury history was not enough to keep the Sox from signing him for 5 years and big bucks. He has a bad shoulder and a bad back.

[a700hitter]

No' date=' you very clearly used the term smear campaign to describe how the Sox handle free agents that they let go. That's why I took issue with what you were saying.[/quote']My bad, using that word in this instance. They have smeared others but not Bay. They always spin, sometimes it does rise to the level of smearing like with Nomar.

[example1]

A lab tech? Wow' date=' I missed that one. [b']Find me a lab tech who can read subtle MRI findings.[/b] I dare you

 

Okay, I dare you to find me proof that the Red Sox released the MRI. I dare you.

[Spudboy]

I can't wait for spring training.

 

Then there will be actual baseball to talk about.

[Imperial59]

My bad' date=' using that word in this instance. They have smeared others but not Bay. They always spin, sometimes it does rise to the level of smearing like with Nomar.[/quote']

 

Fair enough, if you don't think they smeared Bay. I would take issue with you thinking that they smeared Nomar considering how injury prone he was and what a disaster of a contract it would have been if he accepted the Sox offer, plus the fact that the Sox probably wouldn't have won the World Series in 2004 had they kept him. But that's a different story

[Imperial59]

I can't wait for spring training.

 

Then there will be actual baseball to talk about.

 

Hallelujah! I think we're all getting restless.

[example1]

My bad' date=' using that word in this instance. They have smeared others but not Bay. They always spin, sometimes it does rise to the level of smearing like with Nomar.[/quote']

 

Is the distinction between smearing and spinning the amount to which it makes the other player look bad? If that's the case then I can agree with you.

 

Of course, if what they are saying that makes the other player look bad is true then the word smear has a negative connotation that I think a number of people disagree with you about.

[Dojji]

Nomar earned his reputation as a sulker by being unwilling or unable to contain his emotions on the field and in the dugout. The Sox didn't smear him, he made HIMSELF look bad, and then he, HIMSELF, reaped the reward for that. All the Sox did was not renew a player who was trending downward and spending a lot of time on the DL. That and he hadn't been Real Nomar for about 3-4 years prior to that.

 

Great player, bad risk.

[example1]

Two doctors disagreed with the red Sox finding. His agent would have sued for damaging his marketability. The gravamen of the action likely would have been based in defamation with measurable consequential damages.

I've been a lawyer for 25+ years. I know when and why lawyers sue. I didn't say that Bay would win the lawsuit, but his agent clearly would have sued. The Red Sox knew that and they made a prudent business decision to closely guard the information. It wasn't just a favor to Bay. This is big business. There are few pure favors.

 

Is there any precedent in major league baseball of this type of suit paying off?

 

If all three doctors had agreed, would there be a problem, given that the Mets undoubtedly would have seen the same thing, and thus lowered their offers?

 

What proof would there be to say that Bay would have made 'X' if the tea hadn't said 'Y'? Seems flimsy to me, but I'm not a lawyer.

[Imperial59]

Nomar earned his reputation as a sulker by being unwilling or unable to contain his emotions on the field and in the dugout. The Sox didn't smear him, he made HIMSELF look bad, and then he, HIMSELF, reaped the reward for that. All the Sox did was not renew a player who was trending downward and spending a lot of time on the DL. That and he hadn't been Real Nomar for about 3-4 years prior to that.

 

Great player, bad risk.

 

I don't agree with everything you said, but the Sox didn't run a smear campaign against Nomar before he was traded. It was national TV announcers who started the controversy about him being the only member of the team sitting on the bench during important games. And the Red Sox would have been idiots to sign him to a deal in 2004. He only played 81 games that year and he played less than 70 games in 3 of his next 5 years.

 

I don't want this to become a huge controversy, but given his decline and his injury history, I wouldn't be surprised if he was a product of steroids in the early 2,000's.

[a700hitter]

Is the distinction between smearing and spinning the amount to which it makes the other player look bad? If that's the case then I can agree with you.

 

Of course, if what they are saying that makes the other player look bad is true then the word smear has a negative connotation that I think a number of people disagree with you about.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but we may not know for 4 years whether the Red Sox Docs were right. If he plays 4 years and only loses a normal amount of mobility related to age, the Red Sox Docs were probably wrong. Would that make it a retroactive smear? And if they were right, would that make it not a smear? Whether something is a smear would be determined by whether it puts the player in a bad light. Stories about injuries don't put the player in a bad light, but stories about the player's behavior in the clubhouse or in his personal life would reflect negatively on him (i.e. a smear) whether or not it is true.

[Imperial59]

I'm not quite sure what you mean' date=' but we may not know for 4 years whether the Red Sox Docs were right. If he plays 4 years and only loses a normal amount of mobility related to age, the Red Sox Docs were probably wrong. Would that make it a retroactive smear? And if they were right, would that make it not a smear? Whether something is a smear would be determined by whether it puts the player in a bad light. Stories about injuries don't put the player in a bad light, but stories about the player's behavior in the clubhouse or in his personal life would reflect negatively on him (i.e. a smear) whether or not it is true.[/quote']

 

Hindsight is 20/20. You can't judge Bay's 2009 MRI by how he performed in 2014. An MRI can at best suggest a player's ability to stay healthy, it's not a fortune teller. You can only judge Bay's 2009 MRI by what most doctors would say about his 2009 MRI. And I doubt the Sox would have let him walk without thoroughly examining his medical information.

[Dojji]

I'm not quite sure what you mean' date=' but we may not know for 4 years whether the Red Sox Docs were right. If he plays 4 years and only loses a normal amount of mobility related to age, the Red Sox Docs were probably wrong. Would that make it a retroactive smear?[/quote']

 

Wouldn't think so, since all that was really said was that they were concerned about his knees and readjusted their offer. Wouldn't be a smear if they were wrong -- just them erring perhaps a bit too much on the side of caution in a risk analysis.

 

And if they were right, would that make it not a smear?

 

since I don't believe it's a smear in any light, and since I believe the Sox went out of their way to smear Bay as little as possible, gonna say no here.

 

Whether something is a smear would be determined by whether it puts the player in a bad light

 

Unless it's the complete truth. The complete truth is never a smear, no matter how it reflects on the player/.

 

Stories about injuries don't put the player in a bad light, but stories about the player's behavior in the clubhouse or in his personal life would reflect negatively on him (i.e. a smear) whether or not it is true.

 

And since neither of those apply to the Bay case (dude all we're talking about here is maybe a risk analysis that encouraged the Sox to reduce their offer -- they still WANTED BAY) I'm not sure where you're going with that.

[a700hitter]

Is there any precedent in major league baseball of this type of suit paying off?

 

If all three doctors had agreed, would there be a problem, given that the Mets undoubtedly would have seen the same thing, and thus lowered their offers?

 

What proof would there be to say that Bay would have made 'X' if the tea hadn't said 'Y'? Seems flimsy to me, but I'm not a lawyer.

I didn't say that they would win if they sued, and most teams know enough not to disparage their players in a way that would hurt them in negotiating with other teams. If all three doctors had agreed, it would have been unlikely that Bay would have challenged the report of the Red Sox docs. It obviously was a problem for the Red Sox, because the other docs disagreed. The burden would have been on them to prove that the concerns of the Sox doc were reasonable. Who knows how that would come out, but why would the Sox want that exposure to liability. What would be the evidence of damages? They would probably start with Holliday's contract and argue that they should have gotten something closer to that. Good legal counsel keeps it's clients from getting sued, even if they are right.

[example1]

Stories about injuries don't put the player in a bad light' date=' but stories about the player's behavior in the clubhouse or in his personal life would reflect negatively on him (i.e. a smear) whether or not it is true.[/quote']

 

That's what I was asking about.

 

So for you the distinction between smear and spin is the light thrown on the player, whether it is true or not.

 

I don't think of that as smearing. To me smearing is basically needlessly overemphasizing the negative traits of somene to hurt their value... or something like that.

 

I found this definition:

 

3.To stain or attempt to destroy the reputation of.

 

To me, if a player is pouting on the bench while demanding lots of money, or is pushing club staff to the ground, or refusing to play when they are supposed to, like Doj said, that player is essentially smearing themselves. It's merely the truth coming out. If Manny hadn't done that stuff and that info came out then I would see that as closer to a smear. :dunno:

 

If for you smearing is nothing but corroborating already known negative information about someone (whether true or not) then I suppose they do smear people sometimes. That's just not how I usually use the term and not how I've understood it to be used.

 

If I act like a schmuck to everyone I meet and develop a reputation for being a schmuck, I wouldn't say that others are smearing my reputation by discussing my schmuckish behavior. It's a good reason not to be a schmuck in the first place.

 

 

 

Anyway, isn't there baseball to be discussed or something?