Pederson/Stripling deal is DEAD. MOVE ON.

[Jeff Fletcher]

11 minutes ago, Tank said:

Justin Turner has been on twitter telling reporters to stop making a mess of deals before they're completed and that nobody cares who breaks the story first. he's absolutely correct on this, too.

He also said that no should report on anything until it's official.

How do you guys feel about that one?

[jsnpritchett]

1 hour ago, Pancake Bear said:

“Joc, your numbers against lefties aren’t good, so we’re not going to play you much against them. It’ll help us win more games.”

”Ok, I want us to win more.”

~~~

”Joc can’t hit lefties. He’s just a platoon player.”

Point is that while, yes, he ultimately has no choice how he’s used, he was asked to be willing to accept not even having the opportunity to even try to hit against lefties.

Basically, he didn’t fight for an everyday role for himself because he’d been asked to be a team player and they held that against him. He should’ve seen that coming - at the end of the day, it is a business - but it’s still a lame way to treat a guy who has been a good teammate. 

[Docwaukee]

Just now, Jeff Fletcher said:

He also said that no should report on anything until it's official.

How do you guys feel about that one?

I think it's absurd.  

how often do reported deals end up like this?  

this is a one off.  

let's neuter the entire hot stove because something weird happened one time.  

[Duren, Duren]

This sums up things so far. Notice absolutely no reference to the Angels/Dodgers deal? Just the 'three team' situation. 

https://www.tsn.ca/report-minnesota-twins-still-involved-in-mookie-betts-trade-1.1440152

[rafibomb]

Rejigger

[Chuck]

@Jeff Fletcher is there any indication from the Angels that they've backed out of this deal? I know Heyman said something about Arte being pissed. 

I'm guessing they're just waiting for the three team deal to wrap up before they can fully announce the Angels part of the trade. 

Also, why aren't they calling this a 4-team trade since essentially the Dodgers don't make the Betts/Price deal unless they can offload Pederson's $$?

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, Chuckster70 said:

@Jeff Fletcher is there any indication from the Angels that they've backed out of this deal? I know Heyman said something about Arte being pissed. 

I'm guessing they're just waiting for the three team deal to wrap up before they can fully announce the Angels part of the trade. 

Also, why aren't they calling this a 4-team trade since essentially the Dodgers don't make the Betts/Price deal unless they can offload Pederson's $$?

I don’t believe this part is true Chuck.  They’ll be able to trade Pederson regardless if it’s to the Angels.  

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, Pancake Bear said:

“Joc, your numbers against lefties aren’t good, so we’re not going to play you much against them. It’ll help us win more games.”

”Ok, I want us to win more.”

~~~

”Joc can’t hit lefties. He’s just a platoon player.”

Point is that while, yes, he ultimately has no choice how he’s used, he was asked to be willing to accept not even having the opportunity to even try to hit against lefties.

Basically, he didn’t fight for an everyday role for himself because he’d been asked to be a team player and they held that against him. He should’ve seen that coming - at the end of the day, it is a business - but it’s still a lame way to treat a guy who has been a good teammate. 

if he didn't have a .572 career ops vs. lefties in 375 PA then they wouldn't be sitting him vs. lefties. 

he wouldn't have 126 ops+ over the last two years if he had been facing lefties the whole time and therefore likely wouldn't be making what he's set to make.  

[ettin]

2 hours ago, True Grich said:

I blame @Tank who probably took all the GM's to a vegan restaurant. 

@Tank pulls in to Del Taco: "May I have 31 heads of lettuce please?"

[Jeff Fletcher]

3 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

@Jeff Fletcher is there any indication from the Angels that they've backed out of this deal? I know Heyman said something about Arte being pissed. 

I'm guessing they're just waiting for the three team deal to wrap up before they can fully announce the Angels part of the trade. 

Also, why aren't they calling this a 4-team trade since essentially the Dodgers don't make the Betts/Price deal unless they can offload Pederson's $$?

There is no indication that the Angels have backed out. I can't imagine the motivation of either the Angels or Dodgers has changed enough to affect their deal, at least unless that trade gets really blown up and rebuilt from scratch.

This trade is related to the other one, but it's a separate trade, so it's not a 4-team deal. The difference is that the Twins and Red Sox don't have to have any discussions with the Angels. I imagine they've explored the idea of the Angels replacing the Twins as the third team, but until that happens, it's just 2 trades, a three-way (BOS-LAD-MIN) and a 2-team (LAD-LAA).

Also, it looks like now it's become 3 trades, a 2-way with LAD-MIN, a 2-way with LAD-BOS and a 2-way with LAD-LAA.

[Docwaukee]

3 minutes ago, ettin said:

@Tank pulls in to Del Taco: "May I have 31 heads of lettuce please?"

did your key writers leave permanently or are they on hiatus for other projects?  

asking for a friend.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I don’t believe this part is true Chuck.  They’ll be able to trade Pederson regardless if it’s to the Angels.  

I assume for the past several weeks that they've been working on Betts-Price, they've also been working on ways to unload Pederson, and the Angels deal was clearly the best they came up with. Although it's possible that, in the past 5 days, some other team came out and offered more for Pederson, it would be super shady of the Dodgers to back out on the Angels and trade Pederson to, say, the Indians now. I also suspect the Dodgers have been way too involved and busy trying to get the Betts part to happen for them to invest the time in reopening the Pederson part.

[Docwaukee]

9 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

There is no indication that the Angels have backed out. I can't imagine the motivation of either the Angels or Dodgers has changed enough to affect their deal, at least unless that trade gets really blown up and rebuilt from scratch.

This trade is related to the other one, but it's a separate trade, so it's not a 4-team deal. The difference is that the Twins and Red Sox don't have to have any discussions with the Angels. I imagine they've explored the idea of the Angels replacing the Twins as the third team, but until that happens, it's just 2 trades, a three-way (BOS-LAD-MIN) and a 2-team (LAD-LAA).

Also, it looks like now it's become 3 trades, a 2-way with LAD-MIN, a 2-way with LAD-BOS and a 2-way with LAD-LAA.

so one participant is deciding between a 3-way and 2-way vs. three 2-ways?  

I think @Tank dated a girl like that in high school.  

[Pancake Bear]

33 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

He also said that no should report on anything until it's official.

How do you guys feel about that one?

It’s unrealistic. Understand the players’ frustration, but as long as someone on teams will leak info, it’ll be reported and it’s silly to pretend otherwise. 

Turner is simply living in fantasy land. It sucks for the players involved, but typically deals never fall apart like this. It’s highly irregular. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

13 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

It’s unrealistic. Understand the players’ frustration, but as long as someone on teams will leak info, it’ll be reported and it’s silly to pretend otherwise. 

Turner is simply living in fantasy land. It sucks for the players involved, but typically deals never fall apart like this. It’s highly irregular. 

yeah, my thought on this is just that the reality is there are at least four different groups (players, GMs, reporters, fans) and all of them have different interests. Sometimes, their interests clash.

It happens all the time, with all four groups screwing the others in various ways.

[Pancake Bear]

2 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

yeah, my thought on this is just that the reality is there are at least four different groups (players, GMs, reporters, fans) and all of them have different interests. Sometimes, their interests clash.

It happens all the time, with all four groups screwing the others in various ways.

Yep. It’s just life. Turner knows that, I’m sure, he’s just venting, but it’s a naive outlook. 

[ukyah]

3 hours ago, John Taylor said:

If I'm Pederson I want out of the Dodgers org ASAP, they basically had traded him away anyway, and as a double F$#k you to Joc, argued down his arbitration based on saying he was a platoon player. So there isn't much incentive for Joc to want to play for the Doyyers this season. He doesn't seem like that kind of guy who would demand a trade, but he has every right to feel somewhat disrespected by them.

don't kill the messenger, but i think the dodgers are intentionally doing pederson a favor by trading him to the angels. there are a lot personal changes in his life linking him to LA, and i think they made a conscious effort to keep him in the area. i also think they are doing maeda a personal favor by shipping him to an organization that intends to use him strictly as a starter, which is his stated desire, and they have frequently commended him for his dedication to team needs.

sorry dodger haters.

[Lou]

6 minutes ago, ukyah said:

don't kill the messenger, but i think the dodgers are intentionally doing pederson a favor by trading him to the angels. there are a lot personal changes in his life linking him to LA, and i think they made a conscious effort to keep him in the area. i also think they are doing maeda a personal favor by shipping him to an organization that intends to use him strictly as a starter, which is his stated desire, and they have frequently commended him for his dedication to team needs.

sorry dodger haters.

Can you explain what you mean by "personal favor"? 

[Redondo]

1 hour ago, rafibomb said:

Rejigger

In this PC world in which we live that's kind of risky. Someone could call him out on it.

Even though it's used correctly.

re·jig·ger

verb: rejigger; 3rd person present: rejiggers; past tense: rejiggered; past participle: rejiggered; gerund or present participle: rejiggering; verb: re-jigger; 3rd person present: re-jiggers; past tense: re-jiggered; past participle: re-jiggered; gerund or present participle: re-jiggering

1. organize (something) differently; rearrange.

   "he rejiggers his stump speech ever so slightly to fit the crowd"

[ukyah]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

He also said that no should report on anything until it's official.

How do you guys feel about that one?

it's stupid and misplacing the blame. this is an awful trade to use as evidence of reporters trying to be first, which they do. no significant detail has been misreported during this process, and expecting the reporters to wait until the medicals are done is totally unrealistic. if the teams/players don't want it reported until medicals have been completed, then close your leaks and don't tell the reporters.

[Stradling]

Blame the front offices that have the leak and not the reporters for doing their job.  

[ukyah]

10 minutes ago, Lou said:

Can you explain what you mean by "personal favor"? 

i think obviously as an organization they are going to make their best deal when trading a player, but i think they made a conscious effort to get a deal from the angels that they like as much as any other that may or may not even exist, perhaps the angels were the first and only deal necessary.

somewhere in all this news, here or otherwise, i read about buying a house, baby, his brother, etc. and thought that seems like a team doing a player a favor and keeping him close to his home.

similarly, i've recently read some comments by the dodgers talking about maeda and how he quietly did everything they asked him to do, while preferring to start. i don't think those comments are made unless it's in their mind, which makes it a factor in their trade considerations. 

i know business is cold and calculated, but good soldiers get rewarded all the time.

[Taylor]

All I know is that if this deal falls through, someone here will blame Eppler.

[Glen]

20 minutes ago, Redondo said:

In this PC world in which we live that's kind of risky. Someone could call him out on it.

Even though it's used correctly.

re·jig·ger

verb: rejigger; 3rd person present: rejiggers; past tense: rejiggered; past participle: rejiggered; gerund or present participle: rejiggering; verb: re-jigger; 3rd person present: re-jiggers; past tense: re-jiggered; past participle: re-jiggered; gerund or present participle: re-jiggering

1. organize (something) differently; rearrange.

   "he rejiggers his stump speech ever so slightly to fit the crowd"

It's not risky at all, unless you have some reason to be worried. What's the problem?

[UndertheHalo]

I’m sorry if it’s caused some unease for the players involved but this has been great for baseball.  Trades and speculation about trades offer some of the best aspects of the baseball entertainment product.  This one has been especially spicy. 

Edited February 9, 2020 by UndertheHalo