Lozano's Had Enough (Press Beat-down!)

[Jeff Fletcher]

4 hours ago, Blarg said:

I don't blame Lozano in the least and these writers do need to STFU because they are tampering with the market. These negotiations are not for public consumption before the deal is officially announced and it does not matter what source these guys have. 

Well you just eliminated 99 percent of what’s reported and talked about over the winter. 

Does that also mean none of you want to know what the Angels are planning?

[Docwaukee]

7 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Well you just eliminated 99 percent of what’s reported and talked about over the winter. 

Does that also mean none of you want to know what the Angels are planning?

he doesn't speak for the rest of us.  he's just yelling at a cloud.  

[Blarg]

21 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Well you just eliminated 99 percent of what’s reported and talked about over the winter. 

Does that also mean none of you want to know what the Angels are planning?

Hah, like Eppler is going say anything?

My point is there is speculation then there is saying a deal is in place for x dollars before the club or agent is ready to talk about it. This lack of discrecency is an ethical problem that it seems the media just doesn't seem to value anymore. 

Stealing private conversations through third parties is unethical. Giving more of a forum to those people that want to go down that road is just as unethical. Lozano has a valid complaint. 

[arch stanton]

It's especially egregious since we know Lozano would never ever do that if it was to his benefit

Edited January 17, 2019 by arch stanton

[Lou]

Lozano could eliminate all speculation and tell us what offers Machado has received at this point. 

[Jay]

12 hours ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

Holy shit, that picture doesn't help my opinion of him.

That picture says more about Nats fans than it does about Machado. 

[Jay]

9 hours ago, Lou said:

Lozano could eliminate all speculation and tell us what offers Machado has received at this point. 

Yeah, Lozano didn't actually deny there is an offer from CWS he just said something about the reporting is wrong. Who knows where the 7/175 came from but I see no reason to make it up. I do however see why Lozano would complain about it.

On the other hand, rumors of a low offer coild work in Manny's favor because it could cause other teams to join the bidding. 

[zenmaster]

Maybe the chisox offered 7/176 and he's upset about the incorrect number of 175 being reported?

[Jeff Fletcher]

9 hours ago, Blarg said:

Hah, like Eppler is going say anything?

My point is there is speculation then there is saying a deal is in place for x dollars before the club or agent is ready to talk about it. This lack of discrecency is an ethical problem that it seems the media just doesn't seem to value anymore. 

Stealing private conversations through third parties is unethical. Giving more of a forum to those people that want to go down that road is just as unethical. Lozano has a valid complaint. 

Sources talk in order to benefit themselves, usually. That’s just a fact. Knowing that, a reporter has the obligation to try to determine if he can trust that the source isn’t lying or misinformed. 

I have reported things that I knew I was told in order to benefit the person who told me, but as long as I still believed it was true and of interest to the fans, I still reported it.  

If you learn something you believe to be true, you can’t withhold it just to protect the interests of one party. (At least when it comes to baseball, not rape or child abuse or national security or other serious issues.)

In this case, I’d like to give the sources and the reporters the benefit of the doubt and think it was a misunderstanding rather than a blatant lie by the source or a reliance on a questionable source by the writers. Maybe 7/175 was the first offer, and there was some misunderstanding about the latest offer. 

[m0nkey]

12 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

In this case, I’d like to give the sources and the reporters the benefit of the doubt and think it was a misunderstanding rather than a blatant lie by the source or a reliance on a questionable source by the writers. Maybe 7/175 was the first offer, and there was some misunderstanding about the latest offer. 

Even if one of the reporters is Bob Nightengale?