Sox Withdrew Offer to Bay in July Because of MRI

[a700hitter]

Wouldn't think so' date=' 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.[/quote']Agreed.

 

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

 

Unless it's the complete truth. The complete truth is never a smear' date=' no matter how it reflects on the player/.[/quote']Disagree. Even the complete truth when presented out of context can prevent an unfair negative impression thus smearing the person. Stories about clubhouse behavior and personality issues and the impact that certain actions had upon a team are very difficult to prove as 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.

I have said the same three things over and over: 1. The Sox kept the information from the public for 6 months. 2. Only the Red Sox would have had a motive to release the information, and 3. the timing of the release of the information indicates that the Sox were using it to spin the story to their fans. That's where I've been going with it all along. What point are you trying to make. Who do you think leaked the information and why?

[a700hitter]

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.

If the information is independently observed by the press, but if the team gives the information to the press, that is "the attempt to destroy." The stories abount Nomar's conversations with management about wanting to get out of Boston were not observed by the press. That information was given to the press by the FO in "an attempt to destroy" his reputation with the fans. Not everyone had turned on Nomar at that time. That's 20-20 hindsight.

[Imperial59]

Even if Bay's agent was to file a law suit, it would have been pretty difficult to prove that the Sox doctors haven't made reasonably accurate judgments given the Sox past decisions on Nomar, Lowe, Pedro and Damon.

 

I'm sure Jacksonsian is going to make some weak arguemnt now about how the Sox would have been better had they re-signed Damon. But the fact remains that they wouldn't have had a spot for him with Drew, Ellsbury and Manny/Bay in the outfield, all of which have been much more productive than Damon (if you include offense AND defense).

[a700hitter]

Even if Bay's agent was to file a law suit' date=' it would have been pretty difficult ti prove that the Sox doctors have reasonably accurate judgement given the Sox past decisions on Nomar, Lowe, Pedro and Damon.[/quote']Even if the Sox won such a lawsuit, it would be expensive and detrimental to the the team on a PR level. It's just better to avoid such exposure to a suit. That's why they have lawyers-- not to win lawsuits, but to avoid them.

[Imperial59]

Even if the Sox won such a lawsuit' date=' it would be expensive and detrimental to the the team on a PR level. It's just better to avoid such exposure to a suit. That's why they have lawyers-- not to win lawsuits, but to avoid them.[/quote']

 

I agree that the Sox made the right business decision by protecting Bay's non-confidential MRI results until he signed with another team. I just disagree that they tend to run smear campaigns against FA's they don't resign. That's where we disagree.

[example1]

If the information is independently observed by the press' date=' but if the team gives the information to the press, that is "the attempt to destroy." The stories abount Nomar's conversations with management about wanting to get out of Boston were not observed by the press. That information was given to the press by the FO in [u']"an attempt to destroy" his reputation with the fans[/u]. Not everyone had turned on Nomar at that time. That's 20-20 hindsight.

 

So if Nomar (or anyone) is telling the press that he's shocked to be out of town and that he always told management that he wanted to stay, and that isn't true, then the Sox telling the truth is actually smearing? I see your logic, but I disagree with it.

 

 

We agree that the Bay situation wasn't a smear.

[jacksonianmarch]

I agree that the Sox made the right business decision by protecting Bay's non-confidential MRI results until he signed with another team. I just disagree that they tend to run smear campaigns against FA's they don't resign. That's where we disagree.

 

Unreal. I have gone through the list of players they have smeared and you still dont think they run smear campaigns? Really? Of course they dont, because they operate with sunshine and lollipops and win the WS every yr, right?

[Mr Crunchy]

MJ you know I think you suck old mens cocks with gusto but I cant argue with the truth.

Has there ever been an Old Timers Game at Fenway? You want to know why??

They cant field a team of men who want to come back here and this has been going on long before Theo and this crew of guys took over the team...From Dick O'Connell to Buddy Leroux to Hayward Sullivan to John Harrington to Duquette and now these guys the Redsox front office has usually been in a major slam fest with whoever left the club, recent titles have deflected a lot of attention away from this part of their history but I remember them slamming George Scott, Reggie Smith, Fisk, Burleson,""Malibu"" Freddy Lynn as Sully used to call him, I can go on...

They offered Bay 60/4 then they pulled it off the table fearing knee issues.

This breakup was somewhat harmonious considering the past men who left here with a bone up their ass.

[Dojji]

Disagree. Even the complete truth when presented out of context can prevent an unfair negative impression thus smearing the person. Stories about clubhouse behavior and personality issues and the impact that certain actions had upon a team are very difficult to prove as true.

 

The complete truth includes context. In this case, the context was provided, since everything here was done in the context of a contract negotiation.

 

I have said the same three things over and over: 1. The Sox kept the information from the public for 6 months.

 

To protect Bay, yeah. The best way to use that info if the team wanted to, was to play public contract hardball, go public, scare away other suitors, and force Bay to downgrade his asking price. Instead, Theo made good use of the discipline he has cultivated within the FO that makes the Red Sox the most leak-proof FO in the game. Out of respect for a player who was in the process of signing with someone else.

 

2. Only the Red Sox would have had a motive to release the information

 

Actually true but only if Bay had not yet signed a contract. Once he'd signed a deal the motive goes out the window. As does their motive to withhold the info.

 

3. the timing of the release of the information indicates that the Sox were using it to spin the story to their fans. That's where I've been going with it all along. What point are you trying to make. Who do you think leaked the information and why?

 

I think that the media had been onto this information for awhile, but the Sox managed to keep it out of the actual reports through a combination of polite requests and threatening to withdraw some prized contacts if something came out in the media that embarrassed them unduly. Once Bay signed, there was no reason to leash the media.

[a700hitter]

The complete truth includes context. In this case' date=' the context was provided, since everything here was done in the context of a contract negotiation.[/quote']I was speaking in the abstract, not about the Bay situation. I stand by my statement that you can "smear" someone with a truthful statement. Those are usually the most effective smears, because smears based on false information can be subject to actions for defamation. Smears based on true information happens all the time.

 

To protect Bay' date=' yeah. The best way to use that info if the team wanted to, was to play public contract hardball, go public, scare away other suitors, and force Bay to downgrade his asking price. Instead, Theo made good use of the discipline he has cultivated within the FO that makes the Red Sox the most leak-proof FO in the game. Out of respect for a player who was in the process of signing with someone else.[/quote']False. It would have been fool-hardy to use it to scare away other suitors as that most assuredly would have resulted in litigation, because Bay insists his knees are fine and he has medical reports to back it up. The Red Sox were wise not to take that path. They might like Bay, but I doubt that they would have made it public if they didn't like Bay. It was the smart business move. It had nothing to do with being nice. They can cover it in a "nice" wrapper, but their counsel would have strongly recommended against any other course of action.

 

Actually true but only if Bay had not yet signed a contract. Once he'd signed a deal the motive goes out the window. As does their motive to withhold the info.

No, losing him is what created the motive to release the information. They were spinning the loss of bay to the fans. How could you not see that?

 

I think that the media had been onto this information for awhile' date=' but the Sox managed to keep it out of the actual reports through a combination of polite requests and threatening to withdraw some prized contacts if something came out in the media that embarrassed them unduly. Once Bay signed, there was no reason to leash the media.[/quote']How could the press know about this unless it was leaked... journalistic instinct? It was leaked. Wake up.

[Dojji]

the FO isn't the only group involved in any contract negotiation. even if it WAS leaked, there's no particular evidence it was the Sox FO that leaked it -- rather than, say, Bay's agent letting something slip after it was no longer important to conceal it, or even a source from the Commissioner's office which IIRC approves every deal.

[a700hitter]

the FO isn't the only group involved in any contract negotiation. even if it WAS leaked' date=' there's no particular evidence it was the Sox FO that leaked it -- rather than, say, Bay's agent letting something slip after it was no longer important to conceal it, or even a source from the Commissioner's office which IIRC approves every deal.[/quote']Again, you are ignoring motive, and you are arguing in a circle. This is a pretty clear cut case to figure out what went on here. The motive by the Bay team would be to have prevented this information from becoming public.

[Dojji]

I think you're ignoring motive too. what do the Sox even gain from having this info come out? With nothing gained, there's no motive.

[a700hitter]

I think you're ignoring motive too. what do the Sox even gain from having this info come out? With nothing gained' date=' there's no motive.[/quote']I've stated their motive over and over in this thread. You choose to ignore the obvious.

[Dojji]

So your contention is that they're willing to risk any prospective future FA signings and the goodwill of Bay's agent for the sake of spin control.

 

Sorry, a700, I'm looking for a motive, not an excuse.

[a700hitter]

So your contention is that they're willing to risk any prospective future FA signings and the goodwill of Bay's agent for the sake of spin control.

 

Sorry, a700, I'm looking for a motive, not an excuse.

They have maintianed goodwill with Bay's agent by holding the information until Bay signed his big contract with the Mets. It was so obviously PR spin for the fan base, and you have not presented a single plausible alternative source of or reason for the leak.

[Dojji]

You haven't even presented plausible evidence it was a leak by the Sox FO. Your whole argument is based on the FO supplying the information to the press and frankly, all you've presented to support that is a fairly feeble motive. Like they wouldn't have been able to justify the Bay non-signing simply by pointing to Lackey. Sorry, doesn't make sense.

[a700hitter]

Many many fans feel that we could still use a big bat even after the acquisition of Lackey. Bay was a big bat that walked. There's your motive. You have presented nothing plausible with regard to an alternative source of the leak or the reason for the timing of the leak. You just chose not to believe the obvious. Were you on the O.J. Jury with Example.

[a700hitter]

You haven't even presented plausible evidence it was a leak by the Sox FO. Your whole argument is based on the FO supplying the information to the press and frankly' date=' all you've presented to support that is a fairly feeble motive. Like they wouldn't have been able to justify the Bay non-signing simply by pointing to Lackey. Sorry, doesn't make sense.[/quote']Okay, let's assume that the Red Sox did not leak it. Here are the other possibilities:

 

1. The Mets leaked information they didn't have, and if they did have the information, they chose to ignore it in the contract. That would make them look pretty stupid to their fans. The Mets are not the best organization, but why would they deliberately leak information about their new FA having knee troubles that they ignored. I guess they are just stupid.

 

2. Bay leaked the information. Within days of signing the big contract with the Mets, he decides to rub the Mets face in this negative medical report about his knees. If the Mets didn't know about the report, they would be mad at Bay for not telling them, plus it makes them look stupid for not carving out an injury contingency in the contract. If the Mets already knew the information, it still makes the Mets look stupid for not taking an injury contingency in the contract. So, you must be concluding that Bay is stupid and/or careless about his relationship with his new team.

 

3. The Doctor's leaked it. They would be subject to ethical and criminal violations putting their own licenses at risk.

 

4. The report jumped out of someone's desk drawer and faxed itself to Gammons.

 

Do you have another plausible explanation? If it wasn't the Red Sox, the other parties must have been stupid and reckless. If the Red Sox did it after he signed, they exposed themselves to no legal liability and they explained to their fans why they didn't sign him. Crazy s***... right? It's more likely that some other party was stupid or reckless. Maybe the Sox released it by mistake. Maybe they gave the report to the lunch kid thinking it was their lunch order. Do you prefer that the Red Sox mistakenly leaked it after having carefully guarded it for 6 months? That would be a bit incompetent. You'd prefer that to a scenario where they used it to spin media relations. It was just a big ooops after 6 months? Ridiculous.

[Imperial59]

Unreal. I have gone through the list of players they have smeared and you still dont think they run smear campaigns? Really? Of course they dont' date=' because they operate with sunshine and lollipops and win the WS every yr, right?[/quote']

 

You just named players, you never demonstrated that the Red Sox said anything inaccurate about them with the purpose to damage their reputation.

[Imperial59]

Okay, let's assume that the Red Sox did not leak it. Here are the other possibilities:

 

1. The Mets leaked information they didn't have, and if they did have the information, they chose to ignore it in the contract. That would make them look pretty stupid to their fans. The Mets are not the best organization, but why would they deliberately leak information about their new FA having knee troubles that they ignored. I guess they are just stupid.

 

2. Bay leaked the information. Within days of signing the big contract with the Mets, he decides to rub the Mets face in this negative medical report about his knees. If the Mets didn't know about the report, they would be mad at Bay for not telling them, plus it makes them look stupid for not carving out an injury contingency in the contract. If the Mets already knew the information, it still makes the Mets look stupid for not taking an injury contingency in the contract. So, you must be concluding that Bay is stupid and/or careless about his relationship with his new team.

 

3. The Doctor's leaked it. They would be subject to ethical and criminal violations putting their own licenses at risk.

 

4. The report jumped out of someone's desk drawer and faxed itself to Gammons.

 

Do you have another plausible explanation? If it wasn't the Red Sox, the other parties must have been stupid and reckless. If the Red Sox did it after he signed, they exposed themselves to no legal liability and they explained to their fans why they didn't sign him. Crazy s***... right? It's more likely that some other party was stupid or reckless. Maybe the Sox released it by mistake. Maybe they gave the report to the lunch kid thinking it was their lunch order. Do you prefer that the Red Sox mistakenly leaked it after having carefully guarded it for 6 months? That would be a bit incompetent. You'd prefer that to a scenario where they used it to spin media relations. It was just a big ooops after 6 months? Ridiculous.

 

Gammons probably got the information from someone on the Red Sox. It wasn't privileged medical information, so they had no reason to not tell him. But there are plenty of other places he could have reasonably gotten the information. I'd be surprised if the Mets weren't away of the MRI and the opinion of Boston's doctors.

[a700hitter]

Gammons probably got the information from someone on the Red Sox. It wasn't privileged medical information' date=' so they had no reason to not tell him. But there are plenty of other places he could have reasonably gotten the information. I'd be surprised if the Mets weren't away of the MRI and the opinion of Boston's doctors.[/quote']I'm sure the Mets had the information, but they would have been stupid to disclose it.

 

As for "plenty of other places he could have gotten the information", please name some.

[Imperial59]

I'm sure the Mets had the information, but they would have been stupid to disclose it.

 

As for "plenty of other places he could have gotten the information", please name some.

 

The Mets, Jason Bay, Bay's agent to name a few. When it comes down to it though, does it really matter where the information came from? It was non-privileged medical information that's not at all damaging to his marketability or his reputation.

[a700hitter]

The Mets' date=' Jason Bay, Bay's agent to name a few. When it comes down to it though, does it really matter where the information came from? It was non-privileged medical information that's not at all damaging to his marketability or his reputation.[/quote']I already pointed out that it would be stupid, negligent and reckless for those parties to leak the information. We've already discussed those. Is there any other party that could have known this information who would not have been stupid, negligent or in violation of the law in releasing it? The point is that it is obvious the Red Sox released it. Anyone else who might have had the information would have been stupidly acting against their better interests. You must be the third O.J. Juror in this thread.

[Dojji]

I already pointed out that it would be stupid' date=' negligent and reckless for those parties to leak the information. [/quote']

 

While at the same time presuming the Sox released that information and calling them stupid, negligent and reckless for doing so. Yes, we heard you.

[a700hitter]

While at the same time presuming the Sox released that information and calling them stupid' date=' negligent and reckless for doing so. Yes, we heard you.[/quote']No, I think they released it intentionally, and it was a good media relations move on their part. I don't think they are stupid at all. You clearly didn't understand me.

[Imperial59]

I already pointed out that it would be stupid' date=' negligent and reckless for those parties to leak the information. We've already discussed those.[/quote']

 

That's just your personal opinion though. Just because you think that doesn't make you right and force everyone else to stop discussing it.

[a700hitter]

That's just your personal opinion though. Just because you think that doesn't make you right and force everyone else to stop discussing it.

But no one has given any other plausible possibility. Every other post stating maybe it was this person or that person post doesn't hold up under any logical analysis' date=' because those people would just be flat out stupid to have leaked the information. That's the thing with leaks. People such as agents, teams and even players generally aren't stupid, so they don't leak information that can hurt them or their image. In business, people don't leak information to the press unless it is for their benefit. I give them credit for not being stupid and I give the Red Sox FO credit for being smart in releasing this information. Who is it that you think might have leaked the information, and please tell me how leaking the information would have benefited them, or at least tell me why it wouldn't have been stupid for them to have leaked the information? You come up with nothing remotely reasonable, but you whine like a child that just because I say something that doesn't make it true. It isn't true because I say it is true. It's [b']most likely [/b] true, because it is the only scenario that makes any logical business sense. You are free to disagree, but you have not presented any other plausible circumstances to make me reconsider my theory. If you come up with some plausible scenario, I'll be the first to admit that it could be a possibility.

[Imperial59]

But no one has given any other plausible possibility. Every other post stating maybe it was this person or that person post doesn't hold up under any logical analysis' date=' because those people would just be flat out stupid to have leaked the information.[/quote']

 

Again, that's your personal opinion. Just because you REALLY believe something, doesn't make it any more true. We're discussing a rather subjective matter here which none of us have any factual information about.

 

I think the Sox were probably the source of Gammon's information as I've said a few times now, but none of us actually know. It's certainly possible that Gammons got the information from someone else.

[a700hitter]

Again, that's your personal opinion. Just because you REALLY believe something, doesn't make it any more true. We're discussing a rather subjective matter here which none of us have any factual information about.

 

I think the Sox were probably the source of Gammon's information as I've said a few times now, but none of us actually know. It's certainly possible that Gammons got the information from someone else.

None of us knows with 100% certainty, but the suspicion is very very strong, especially since not a single alternative has been proposed that is reasonable or plausible. I keep giving you the opportunity to present a plausible alternative, but you haven't, so stop beating the dead horse. We know that it was most likely that the Red Sox disclosed it, so what are you arguing about? Is it that you don't like the negative conotation of the term "leak"? I don't get what you are trying to prove, when even you think it was likely that it came from the Red Sox? Am I 100% certain about my theory? No, but I am very much convinced that I am right.