Sox Withdrew Offer to Bay in July Because of MRI

[Imperial59]

None of us knows with 100% certainty' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Again, that is YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. Multiple posters have given multiple alternative sources than the Red Sox. That you don't think any of the other possible sources of the story are "reasonable" is only your personal, subjective opinion. I think the majority of people who understand the situation would disagree that the Red Sox are the only reasonable possible source of Gammons' information.

 

You can repeat yourself 1,000 times about how it's your personal opinion that the Red Sox are the only reasonable source of the "leak". Just because you're consistent doesn't mean you're correct.

[example1]

None of us knows with 100% certainty' date=' 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? [b']Is it that you don't like the negative conotation of the term "leak"? [/b] 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.

 

This is actually my major contention. When I hear "leak" in a discussion in which the word "smear" and "always" is being used (not by you necessarily), I assume the "leak" is like an intentional attempt to release information meant to injure, based on a command or decision from on-high. I don't think so much of the "leak" that is water (s***-talking)slowly dripping out of a hanging bucket which manages to hold most of its water (the FO). In your context it is more benign.

 

I think either someone spoke off-message and gave Gammons only a small piece of the story, or that Bay spoke with Gammons and it didn't go as planned. Gammons' report was not Bay's part of the story, and it wasn't really the Red Sox part of the story.

 

The part I find hard to believe is that the Red Sox would intentionally release a shoddy, half-told story to Peter Gammons of all people. He doesn't mention anything that makes the Red Sox look good, and to me he sounds like he's defending Bay's camp more than the Red Sox camp.

 

In the Bradford interview he says that Bay's wife encouraged him "to get this off his chest" in the Bradford story. Honestly, getting that type of peace-of-mind is motive enough to leave doubts in my mind. For all I know, Bay could have told Gammons two frustrated sentences-worth when asked for a quote about the negotiations. That would explain both why Gammons could have told it wrong or incompletely and why Bay felt obliged to tell the story in full while defending much about the Red Sox.

[a700hitter]

Example, neither you nor anyone else has suggested a single plausible alternative where it wouldn't have been against the person's best interests to divulge the information. That's why I have been consistent. I am open to suggestion. Give me a theory and explain why it would not be against that person's interests to divulge the information. Come up with something convincing or at least plausible. Otherwise, let's move on.

[jacksonianmarch]

a700, you might as well drop it. He's like a defense lawyer. His client had the murder weapon on him, there was a photo of him entering the building prior to the murder and bloody clothes were found at his home, but it could have been another person!

 

Three parties had access to this info. The Mets make no sense in leaking it, since it would hurt them. Bay had no need to leak this, and he essentially issued a rebuttal after it came out. And then there are the Red Sox who get to shade the whole debachle in a rosy red light with this info. Add to that, the fact that Gammons was the one who broke it. Hell, he's pretty much a Red Sox FO schill but in the media. He's John Heyman to Scott Boras when it comes to the Red Sox.

[a700hitter]

Again' date=' that is YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. Multiple posters have given multiple alternative sources than the Red Sox. That you don't think any of the other possible sources of the story are "reasonable" is only your [b']personal, subjective opinion. [/b]I think the majority of people who understand the situation would disagree that the Red Sox are the only reasonable possible source of Gammons' information.

 

You can repeat yourself 1,000 times about how it's your personal opinion that the Red Sox are the only reasonable source of the "leak". Just because you're consistent doesn't mean you're correct.

No, it's a theory based on facts and logic. It's not subjective.

[a700hitter]

a700, you might as well drop it. He's like a defense lawyer. His client had the murder weapon on him, there was a photo of him entering the building prior to the murder and bloody clothes were found at his home, but it could have been another person!

 

Three parties had access to this info. The Mets make no sense in leaking it, since it would hurt them. Bay had no need to leak this, and he essentially issued a rebuttal after it came out. And then there are the Red Sox who get to shade the whole debachle in a rosy red light with this info. Add to that, the fact that Gammons was the one who broke it. Hell, he's pretty much a Red Sox FO schill but in the media. He's John Heyman to Scott Boras when it comes to the Red Sox.

Their thought process is fascinating.

[Mr Crunchy]

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.

 

I been watching you 2 battle over this and in this specific instance I think you make a valid point, if the sox wanted to smear Bay by leaking their worries about his knees they wouldve gained and Bay wouldve lost but over history we have seen some real f***ed up things come out of Yawkey Way as our friend 700 points out, they grease skids before most of the guys they let go or dont sign depart.

The redsox front office isnt leak proof, thats hysterically wrong and if we need to walk down Manny Ramirez lane to proove this then so be it.

This isnt solely on Theo, its on the entire mindset of every ownership group this club has had and thats a total of 3 owners since 1930...

700, ever think that Jean Yawkey was a hottie??

I wanted to ass rape her.... with a broken whiskey bottle.

a half gallon of Schenley's smashed over her head while the Whitesnake from Westwood, John Harrington, held her down muttering ""Are you ok mother, its for the best"".

The facts are facts and maybe you dont remember the days when 0 free agents would even consider signing here, especially the black guys(See Tim Raines Sr and old Ken Griffey) and after the way they treated Roger Moret(still catatonic in McClean hospital since 1976) the Latin kids had serious misgivings about coming her as well..

Do you remember watching Luis Tiant pitch for the Yankees?

Thats when my virginity was lost.

Luis Tiant was shown the door in an ungraceful manner and this for a guy who threw a 165pitch complete game in the 75 world series in game 6 after he won his 1st 2 starts.

he left quietly but the kids coming up saw the F/O dump on a guy who just threw his guts out for us, could keep a cigar lit in the shower and was absolutely adored by us fans, especially us youngsters....

Many kids my age got f***ed up pitching because they tried to imitate his windup,especially the vast amount of Puerto Rican kids I grew up with.

the man was simply above great in that 75 season and when he opened up game 1 by shuttting out one of the best teams ever in that Red club we actually had a shot to win that thing...Between Ed Armbrister and Bernie Carbo,Dewey Evans and Fisks game 6 heroics few remeber we had a 3-0 lead in game 7 of the 75 series only to have Bill Lee's eephis pitch to Tony Perez hit the moon and then Darrell Johnson thought it wise to remove Jim Willoughby for Burton in the 9th and Joe Morgans 115 foot blooper scored Rose from 2nd.... Yaz flied out to Geronimo to end that majestic classic and my grand father put his head in his hands for what seemed to be an hour,finally lit a cigarette and then shut the tv off and staggered to bed hand in hand with my sainted grandmother as I heard him cry himself to sleep that night calling out in rage to the angels and saints who let him down.

That said.....

when you slap people in the face with enuff Benjamins you could get Barry Bonds to play for the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and you can get Roger Clemens to pitch closer to his home in Texas for a contender by moving to last place Toronto for 8,000,000.00 per.

Money my friends changes attitudes, perception and can make people forget injustice, perceived or real, it dont matter, follow the money.

We got money, we'll get free agents as long as Scott Boras is in business and men play the game for cash.

[a700hitter]

This is actually my major contention. When I hear "leak" in a discussion in which the word "smear" and "always" is being used (not by you necessarily)' date=' I assume the "leak" is like an intentional attempt to release information meant to injure, based on a command or decision from on-high. I don't think so much of the "leak" that is water (s***-talking)slowly dripping out of a hanging bucket which manages to hold most of its water (the FO). In your context it is more benign.[/quote'] I thought that we already agreed that the Bay situation was not a smear, so you are coming back because you don't like the word "leak"? That's really your issue, because a leak can be intentional or unintentional. If you don't like the word leak, let's call it a "disclosure of information." That's 3 words and a lot more letters than the 1 word "leak", but if it makes you happy in your "the Red Sox FO are wonderful good people" world, fine. I wonder if Theo and Lucchino think each other is wonderful?

 

I think either someone spoke off-message and gave Gammons only a small piece of the story' date=' or that Bay spoke with Gammons and it didn't go as planned. Gammons' report was not Bay's part of the story, and it wasn't really the Red Sox part of the story.[/quote']Here's why this is not plausible. I think you will agree that the Red Sox organization is very professional and that they employ very talented knowledgeable people who know how to run a big business. Here's how confidential information is handled in a big business. Big money businesses have procedures for this. The group that gets the information is kept deliberately small. Only those people who absolutely need to know the information get the information. They are told that it is confidential. Since the group is small, if there is a leak it is easy to trace the source of the leak. Everyone knows if he leaks the information, he loses his job. Bay said that Theo expressed to him that it was important that the information be kept confidential, and it was kept confidential for 6 months. They run a tight ship, and that is admirable. Part of a Company's procedures for confidential information is that no one can comment on the matter until the confidentiality has been lifted. Confidentiality is lifted after the organization has made the matter public. They control the release of the information. They don't let their employees go off on their own to talk about it, before the organization discloses it. If they did they would be fired. Is it possible that some Red Sox FO guy let this slip to Gammons knowing that it could cost him is job? Yes. Is it likely? No, because they generally hire smart people. In any event, I think we agree that the information came from the Red Sox, so I don't know what you are disputing. Are you disputing whether a decision to release the information was made as opposed to someone just speaking "off-message"? I prefer to think that the Red Sox mentality that values the confidentiality of information was adhered to and that the information was intentionally disclosed as an organizational decision. I prefer to reject the notion that they would have someone indiscreet in the organization who would just mention this in conversation to Gammons despite the fact that it had been carefully guarded confidential information. If that's how it happened, the person should be fired.

 

In the Bradford interview he says that Bay's wife encouraged him "to get this off his chest" in the Bradford story. Honestly' date=' getting that type of peace-of-mind is motive enough to leave doubts in my mind. For all I know, Bay could have told Gammons two frustrated sentences-worth when asked for a quote about the negotiations. That would explain both why Gammons could have told it wrong or incompletely and why Bay felt obliged to tell the story in full while defending much about the Red Sox.[/quote']I mentioned this before. At the very beginning of the Bradford interview, Bradford stated that he felt that the biggest motivator for Bay to discuss the issue was to respond to the Gammons' report. Why would he respond to the Gammons report if he gave him the information? And if he gave Gammons the information and Gammons got it wrong, why wouldn't he say that he gave Gammons the information? it's information about him, so there are no confidentiality concerns. If he was the source of the Gammon's information there would be no reason not to identify himself as such when setting the record straight. It would add credibility to his comments. Also, don't you see how this disclosure by Bay would have had the potential to hurt the Mets? Do you think Bay is so careless and thoughtless as to leak information to put the Mets in a bad light immediately after signing a contract? I don't. Your "Bay might have disclosed the information" is not at all plausible. It severely strains credulity. There's only one theory that makes sense.

[a700hitter]

I been watching you 2 battle over this and in this specific instance I think you make a valid point, if the sox wanted to smear Bay by leaking their worries about his knees they wouldve gained and Bay wouldve lost but over history we have seen some real f***ed up things come out of Yawkey Way as our friend 700 points out, they grease skids before most of the guys they let go or dont sign depart.

The redsox front office isnt leak proof, thats hysterically wrong and if we need to walk down Manny Ramirez lane to proove this then so be it.

This isnt solely on Theo, its on the entire mindset of every ownership group this club has had and thats a total of 3 owners since 1930...

700, ever think that Jean Yawkey was a hottie??

I wanted to ass rape her.... with a broken whiskey bottle.

a half gallon of Schenley's smashed over her head while the Whitesnake from Westwood, John Harrington, held her down muttering ""Are you ok mother, its for the best"".

The facts are facts and maybe you dont remember the days when 0 free agents would even consider signing here, especially the black guys(See Tim Raines Sr and old Ken Griffey) and after the way they treated Roger Moret(still catatonic in McClean hospital since 1976) the Latin kids had serious misgivings about coming her as well..

Do you remember watching Luis Tiant pitch for the Yankees?

Thats when my virginity was lost.

Luis Tiant was shown the door in an ungraceful manner and this for a guy who threw a 165pitch complete game in the 75 world series in game 6 after he won his 1st 2 starts.

he left quietly but the kids coming up saw the F/O dump on a guy who just threw his guts out for us, could keep a cigar lit in the shower and was absolutely adored by us fans, especially us youngsters....

Many kids my age got f***ed up pitching because they tried to imitate his windup,especially the vast amount of Puerto Rican kids I grew up with.

the man was simply above great in that 75 season and when he opened up game 1 by shuttting out one of the best teams ever in that Red club we actually had a shot to win that thing...Between Ed Armbrister and Bernie Carbo,Dewey Evans and Fisks game 6 heroics few remeber we had a 3-0 lead in game 7 of the 75 series only to have Bill Lee's eephis pitch to Tony Perez hit the moon and then Darrell Johnson thought it wise to remove Jim Willoughby for Burton in the 9th and Joe Morgans 115 foot blooper scored Rose from 2nd.... Yaz flied out to Geronimo to end that majestic classic and my grand father put his head in his hands for what seemed to be an hour,finally lit a cigarette and then shut the tv off and staggered to bed hand in hand with my sainted grandmother as I heard him cry himself to sleep that night calling out in rage to the angels and saints who let him down.

That said.....

when you slap people in the face with enuff Benjamins you could get Barry Bonds to play for the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and you can get Roger Clemens to pitch closer to his home in Texas for a contender by moving to last place Toronto for 8,000,000.00 per.

Money my friends changes attitudes, perception and can make people forget injustice, perceived or real, it dont matter, follow the money.

We got money, we'll get free agents as long as Scott Boras is in business and men play the game for cash.

Crunchy, I remember it all too well. I think what some people don't understand is that although this is a much more competent and professional ownership group than the dysfunctional family ownership that you and I have witnessed. it is still a business. Protecting the franchise is paramount. If someone's feeling gets in the way of them doing what is best for the franchise, well... that's just business. It's their responsibility to act in the interests of the franchise at all times. What they did and didn't do had nothing ... zero about whether or not they personally like Jason Bay. If doing right by Bay is in the best interests of the team, they will do what is best for Bay, but if Bay's interests conflict with the teams, they do what is in the interest of the team. After they decided that they didn't want him, it was in their best interests not to prevent him from getting a market value contract elsewhere. After he was gone, it was in their best interest to explain why they let him walk. Period. End of story.

[example1]

I thought that we already agreed that the Bay situation was not a smear, so you are coming back because you don't like the word "leak"? That's really your issue, because a leak can be intentional or unintentional. If you don't like the word leak, let's call it a "disclosure of information." That's 3 words and a lot more letters than the 1 word "leak", but if it makes you happy in your "the Red Sox FO are wonderful good people" world, fine. I wonder if Theo and Lucchino think each other is wonderful?

 

Here's why this is not plausible. I think you will agree that the Red Sox organization is very professional and that they employ very talented knowledgeable people who know how to run a big business. Here's how confidential information is handled in a big business. Big money businesses have procedures for this. The group that gets the information is kept deliberately small. Only those people who absolutely need to know the information get the information. They are told that it is confidential. Since the group is small, if there is a leak it is easy to trace the source of the leak. Everyone knows if he leaks the information, he loses his job. Bay said that Theo expressed to him that it was important that the information be kept confidential, and it was kept confidential for 6 months. They run a tight ship, and that is admirable. Part of a Company's procedures for confidential information is that no one can comment on the matter until the confidentiality has been lifted. Confidentiality is lifted after the organization has made the matter public. They control the release of the information. They don't let their employees go off on their own to talk about it, before the organization discloses it. If they did they would be fired. Is it possible that some Red Sox FO guy let this slip to Gammons knowing that it could cost him is job? Yes. Is it likely? No, because they generally hire smart people. In any event, I think we agree that the information came from the Red Sox, so I don't know what you are disputing. Are you disputing whether a decision to release the information was made as opposed to someone just speaking "off-message"? I prefer to think that the Red Sox mentality that values the confidentiality of information was adhered to and that the information was intentionally disclosed as an organizational decision. I prefer to reject the notion that they would have someone indiscreet in the organization who would just mention this in conversation to Gammons despite the fact that it had been carefully guarded confidential information. If that's how it happened, the person should be fired.

 

I mentioned this before. At the very beginning of the Bradford interview, Bradford stated that he felt that the biggest motivator for Bay to discuss the issue was to respond to the Gammons' report. Why would he respond to the Gammons report if he gave him the information? And if he gave Gammons the information and Gammons got it wrong, why wouldn't he say that he gave Gammons the information? it's information about him, so there are no confidentiality concerns. If he was the source of the Gammon's information there would be no reason not to identify himself as such when setting the record straight. It would add credibility to his comments. Also, don't you see how this disclosure by Bay would have had the potential to hurt the Mets? Do you think Bay is so careless and thoughtless as to leak information to put the Mets in a bad light immediately after signing a contract? I don't. Your "Bay might have disclosed the information" is not at all plausible. It severely strains credulity. There's only one theory that makes sense.

 

I addressed virtually every one of these points in my last post.

 

Gammons' disclosure was shoddy at best. If the Red Sox are so well run why would they have him go on NESN only to have Heidi say that the Sox only offered 2 years and that ended the discussion? Why wouldn't Gammons bring up their final 3 year offer, or any of the specifics of the deal. It sounds more like someone gave Gammons limited information and he went with it.

 

Given how quickly Bay opened his mouth two days later when asked by Bradford, it seems just as plausible to me that Bay himself was the source of the information and then went back to clear up his own disclosure. Your faith in your own thought processes and ability to fill in gaps that you acknowledge you don't know is pretty sad, hoenstly.

 

As far as Bay not wanting to damage the Mets, how is it damaging to the Mets if their doctors found nothing wrong. He has 3 doctors saying there's no issue, one saying there is an issue. I think he's got a pretty firm leg to stand on and that his disclosure only looks bad for the Red Sox. That's why he had to 'get it off his chest'.

[a700hitter]

I addressed virtually every one of these points in my last post.

 

Gammons' disclosure was shoddy at best. If the Red Sox are so well run why would they have him go on NESN only to have Heidi say that the Sox only offered 2 years and that ended the discussion? Why wouldn't Gammons bring up their final 3 year offer, or any of the specifics of the deal. It sounds more like someone gave Gammons limited information and he went with it.

Who gave it to him? A Red Sox official who would have risked his job disclosing confidential information that he had no business to disclose, or some one else? Is you theory seriously that it was Bay?

 

Given how quickly Bay opened his mouth two days later when asked by Bradford' date=' it seems just as plausible to me that Bay himself was the source of the information and then went back to clear up his own disclosure. Your faith in your own thought processes and ability to fill in gaps that you acknowledge you don't know is pretty sad, hoenstly.[/quote'] Bay, being the source of the story, but not identifying himself as the source is laughable. I question your thought processes. I didn't fill in any gaps. I just ruled out the other possibilities by assuming that the other parties with the information would not release information that could only be detrimental to themselves. Self-interest usually determines the actions of people.

 

As far as Bay not wanting to damage the Mets' date=' how is it damaging to the Mets if their doctors found nothing wrong. He has 3 doctors saying there's no issue, one saying there is an issue. I think he's got a pretty firm leg to stand on and that his disclosure only looks bad for the Red Sox. That's why he had to 'get it off his chest'.[/quote']The day the story broke I had two Mets fan friends ask me if he had problems with his knees while he was with the Sox. It got the Mets fans concerned. If he tweaks his knee this year and misses time, the NY press will be all over Minaya, and he doesn't have a lot of slack left. He really can't afford to look like he missed something. You have blinders on if you don't see that the Mets would not want the story to go public.

 

Why would Bay have anything "to get off his chest" if the story had not been made public by someone else. Under your theory, he leaked the story which then caused him to have to "get it off his chest"? Can you see the ridiculousness of that argument? If he had kept his mouth shut and not made the disclosure (your theory), there would be no record to set straight, nothing to "get off his chest." But by all means, stick to this absolutely ridiculous theory that is unsupportable by any facts, reason or logic. And Nicole Simpson was killed as part of a drug hit and the cops framed OJ.

 

What point are you trying to make? Under my theory, the Red Sox handled this situation in a completely professional and appropriate manner and in the best interests of the organization. Under all of your theories, someone acted inappropriately or stupidly. Why do you refuse to give the Red Sox credit for doing a good job here? I feel like I am in Bizarro world defending the FO to you. Is it because you will go to any lengths to try to prove me wrong, that you have come up with these ridiculous theories such as Bay unnecessarily leaking information about himself to the detriment of his new employer and then felt compelled to set the record straight? It really is laughable. You should have stopped when we were in agreement that there was no smear.

[Imperial59]

a700, you might as well drop it. He's like a defense lawyer. His client had the murder weapon on him, there was a photo of him entering the building prior to the murder and bloody clothes were found at his home, but it could have been another person!

 

Three parties had access to this info. The Mets make no sense in leaking it, since it would hurt them. Bay had no need to leak this, and he essentially issued a rebuttal after it came out. And then there are the Red Sox who get to shade the whole debachle in a rosy red light with this info. Add to that, the fact that Gammons was the one who broke it. Hell, he's pretty much a Red Sox FO schill but in the media. He's John Heyman to Scott Boras when it comes to the Red Sox.

 

 

I've already stated that I think the Red Sox were the most likely ones to supply the information to Gammons. I just don't see how it's smearing Bay. The Red Sox didn't make up the MRI results. They didn't make up the fact that they offered Bay incentive laden contracts to protect them against a major injury and Bay turned them down. And there's a good chance similar information would come out if he signed or not. Information about Drew's shoulder came out after he signed with the Red Sox.

 

How is this any different than when Cashman listed Matsui's knees as a main reason for why he didn't resign Matsui? I didn't see you take issue with that.

 

http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091215&content_id=7812950&vkey=news_nyy&fext=.jsp&c_id=nyy

 

I guess it's only a smear campaign when the big, bad evil Red Sox do it. :dunno:

[Spudboy]

So about 177 post "discussing" a non-issue.

 

Lol.

 

Here's a question. What happens if the 2010 Sox offense is inadequate and fails to score enough runs?

 

How will the fan base and media respond?

 

Is it likely that they will be complaining that the Sox did not sign a "Big Bat"? Will anyone question the fact that Bay was not resigned? How will the Sox respond to this criticism?

 

Easy, they can remind everyone that Bay had two lousy knees and a bad shoulder.

 

Asses covered.

[Imperial59]

So about 177 post "discussing" a non-issue.

 

Lol.

 

Here's a question. What happens if the 2010 Sox offense is inadequate and fails to score enough runs?

 

How will the fan base and media respond?

 

Is it likely that they will be complaining that the Sox did not sign a "Big Bat"? Will anyone question the fact that Bay was not resigned? How will the Sox respond to this criticism?

 

Easy, they can remind everyone that Bay had two lousy knees and a bad shoulder.

 

Asses covered.

 

You're right, the discussion is really kind of silly. You know you're getting close to spring training when the hottest topic is whether or not the Red Sox smeared Jason Bay by claiming they didn't sign him because of his knees.

[a700hitter]

 

I've already stated that I think the Red Sox were the most likely ones to supply the information to Gammons. I just don't see how it's smearing Bay.

So, then why do you keep arguing with me? I've agreed that it was not a smear on Bay. Do you just like to disagree with yourself?

[Dojji]

Well, that and the Mets beat their reported best offer anyhow.

[Dojji]

So' date=' then why do you keep arguing with me? I've agreed that it was not a smear on Bay. Do you just like to disagree with yourself?[/quote']

 

You're presuming things in the absence of evidence. Don't be too surprised when people pick at that on principle.

[Imperial59]

So' date=' then why do you keep arguing with me? I've agreed that it was not a smear on Bay. Do you just like to disagree with yourself?[/quote']

 

Relax, I was responding to the poster that I had quoted in the post, not you.

 

I don't really feel the need to discuss this much further. I think the Red Sox were smart to be cautious about Bay given his injuries and explaining that they didn't sign him in large part due to his knees is common practice. The Yankees did it with Matsui and no one batted an eye.

 

If ever there was a non-issue, this would be it.

[a700hitter]

You're presuming things in the absence of evidence. Don't be too surprised when people pick at that on principle.

I presumed that the parties involved operated in accordance with their own self interests. That, coupled with the fact that the information was kept confidential by the Sox for 6 months and disclosed only after Bay signed with the Mets resulted in my theory that the Sox released the information. Determining the interests of the parties will usually tell you how they will behave, i.e. who had motive to disclose or not to disclose. Not only were the Red Sox the only party to have a motive to disclose, but the other parties had motives not to disclose. It was not a presumption unsupported by evidence. It's called critical thinking and deductive reasoning. It is based on the evidence at hand. You should try it sometime. People might take your opinions more seriously.

[a700hitter]

Relax' date=' I was responding to the poster that I had quoted in the post, not you.[/quote']But in that response you said you thought the information came from the Sox, and in a few other posts you expressed the same belief, but yet you have been arguing with me against that conclusion for pages.

[Imperial59]

But in that response you said you thought the information came from the Sox' date=' and in a few other posts you expressed the same belief, but yet you have been arguing with me against that conclusion for pages.[/quote']

 

I never argued that the Red Sox were the probable source of the information. I was arguing your assertion that they were the only possible source of the information.

[a700hitter]

I never argued that the Red Sox were the probable source of the information. I was arguing your assertion that they were the only possible source of the information.

I never said that it was the "only possible source." I said that it was the only plausible possibility. I stand by that assertion. You've wasted a lot of time if you've been arguing "probable source" --your language versus "plausible possibility"-- my language.

[Spudboy]

:lol::lol:

[Imperial59]

I never said that it was the "only possible source." I said that it was the only plausible possibility. I stand by that assertion. You've wasted a lot of time if you've been arguing "probable source" --your language versus "plausible possibility"-- my language.

 

Like I said, I don't really feel the need to discuss it further because it doesn't matter.

[a700hitter]

Like I said' date=' I don't really feel the need to discuss it further because it doesn't matter.[/quote']

[a700hitter]

Like I said' date=' I don't really feel the need to discuss it further because it doesn't matter.[/quote'] I am starting to warm to the theory that Bay unwittingly smeared himself compelling him to respond to his own smear.

[BSN07]

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' date=' and you have not presented a single plausible alternative source of or reason for the leak.[/quote']

 

Reporter: Why didn't you re-sign Bay?

Theo/FO: He wouldn't except the 2 year deal with options we offered him.

Reporter: Why would you only offer him a two year deal?

Theo: Because we had some MRI's taken of his knees, and we felt the findings had enough concern not to offer him anymore years guaranteed.

Reporter: Why come out with it now?

Theo: Because you asked... And during negotiations it was an issue between ourselves and Bay. We didn't feel the need to be a bunch of cock smokers and run to the press with the info and blackball Bay on the FA market. Now that the negotiations are over and Bay is no longer any of our concern, we didn't feel the need to keep the info private, but instead share it with anyone who was wondering why Bay wasn't offered more years.

 

 

 

 

Please stop being "tinfoil hat guy"...

[a700hitter]

Reporter: Why didn't you re-sign Bay?

Theo/FO: He wouldn't except the 2 year deal with options we offered him.

Reporter: Why would you only offer him a two year deal?

Theo: Because we had some MRI's taken of his knees, and we felt the findings had enough concern not to offer him anymore years guaranteed.

Reporter: Why come out with it now?

Theo: Because you asked, and during negotiations it was an issue between ourselves and Bay. We didn't feel the need to be a bunch of cock smokers and run to the press with the info and blackball Bay on the FA market. Now that the negotiations are over and Bay is no longer any of our concern, we didn't feel the need to keep the info private, but instead share it with anyone who was wondering why Bay wasn't offered more years.

 

 

 

 

Please stop being "tinfoil hat guy"...

That certainly would have been a non-smeary way to do it. Yet, Gammons didn't attribute the statement to any specific FO person. The question is bound to come up at a Press Conference down the road. My prediction is that the Red Sox FO will refuse to comment on the MRI's at a Press Conference.

[Imperial59]

And around and around we go...

 

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.

 

So' date=' then why do you keep arguing with me? I've agreed that it was not a smear on Bay. Do you just like to disagree with yourself?[/quote']

 

I am starting to warm to the theory that Bay unwittingly smeared himself compelling him to respond to his own smear.

 

That certainly would have been a non-smeary way to do it. Yet' date=' Gammons didn't attribute the statement to any specific FO person.[/quote']

[BSN07]

That certainly would have been a non-smeary way to do it. Yet' date=' Gammons didn't attribute the statement to any specific FO person. The question is bound to come up at a Press Conference down the road. My prediction is that the Red Sox FO will refuse to comment on the MRI's at a Press Conference.[/quote']

 

Then why the discussion about it possibly being a smear campaign? Was this a "late January, nothing better to discuss" conversation?