Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

a700hitter

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    70,231

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Profiles

Boston Red Sox Videos

2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking

Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker

News

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by a700hitter

  1. a700hitter
  2. a700hitter
  3. 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.
  4. a700hitter
    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.
  5. a700hitter
  6. a700hitter
  7. a700hitter
    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?
  8. a700hitter
  9. a700hitter
  10. a700hitter
    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.
  11. a700hitter
    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?
  12. a700hitter
    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.
  13. a700hitter
    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.
  14. a700hitter
  15. a700hitter
    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.
  16. a700hitter
    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.
  17. a700hitter
  18. a700hitter
    ... and for some reason I keep trying. The line is definitely applicable to me too.
  19. a700hitter
    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.
  20. a700hitter
  21. a700hitter
  22. a700hitter
    Someone had to give the story to Gammons. That was the leak. It didn't come to him out of thin air.
  23. a700hitter
    As I pointed out in prior posts, they had to be careful not to make the info public. If they did and teams backed away from Bay, they could have been facing a huge lawsuit. Yes, they did Bay a favor, but it was also in the Red Sox best interests. I never asserted that the Sox were trying to damage Bay with this information. I asserted that after he signed and it couldn't have a negative effect on Bay it was leaked. IMO it was leaked as an explanation to the fans why they didn't re-sign him. It was the Red Sox putting their spin on the story. It happens all the time-- business as usual. I don't know why this would surprise anyone.
  24. a700hitter
  25. a700hitter
×
×
  • Create New...