a700hitter

I was holding back in the face of incredibly frustrating stupidity in this thread. So, what was it that you were arguing about? I believe that it was "probable source" --your language versus "plausible possibility"-- my language. Do you even know what you were arguing about? Maybe it was personal? Basically, you have wasted everyone's time, by arguing with me about something that you stated that you don't have any substantive difference of opinion about-- a "non-issue" as you called it. I'd say that you have made it personal. Why don't you stay true to your own words and stop posting about this, since you think it is a non-issue? ... or you can keep researching threads and quoting me in context and out of context. Carry on.

You are always spinning in circles, so how would you know the difference?

It's a boring and tedious read.

Your point? I'm not calling it a smear now, and I said that I shouldn't have used the term smear in relation to this incident.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

Their thought process is fascinating.

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

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.

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.

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.

Welcome.