Who do you most blame for *the trade* falling apart?

[stormngt]

53 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

You miss my point.  My point is there is literally NO actual evidence that Arte’s impatience or frustration killed the deal.

All we have is Rosenthal saying a “source” says so.

Sorry but I am not giving that any credibility when it doesn’t really make any sense.

Unless you just think Arte is nuts.  And I don’t think he is nuts. 

Rumor is often reported as fact here 

[ettin]

10 minutes ago, Glen said:

If I didn't know anything else about you and had only what you posted above to go on, I'd be 90% sure you're a psychopath.

Or that he just likes nipples.

[ettin]

6 minutes ago, calscuf said:

Strads a little short to be a stormtrooper.

That was a Luke-warm joke.

[Pancake Bear]

48 minutes ago, ettin said:

This is highly overreactive and contains a complete lack of insider knowledge of what actually occurred. The only thing we know, via reporting, is that Arte nixed the deal. For all we know, the Dodgers could have flipped around and said, "No we don't want Rengifo now, we want Marsh" and I'd be fully on-board with Moreno telling them to fuck off in that scenario.

Actually, no, it isn’t overreactive. What we know:

We learned today that the Angels pulled the deal on Sunday well before the other deal got finalized. 

It’s highly unlikely the Dodgers were renegotiating a settled deal at that time when a priority one deal was going through. Maybe they would have, but everything we know is the Angels cut out early. 

I said nothing last night. I waited till we knew more. Now we know better. F Arte. 

[Dtwncbad]

6 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

Actually, no, it isn’t overreactive. What we know:

We learned today that the Angels pulled the deal on Sunday well before the other deal got finalized. 

It’s highly unlikely the Dodgers were renegotiating a settled deal at that time when a priority one deal was going through. Maybe they would have, but everything we know is the Angels cut out early. 

I said nothing last night. I waited till we knew more. Now we know better. F Arte. 

Your dog’s ass is sore.  “Sources say” Arte Moreno broke into your house last night and raped your dog.

What else could it be?

[Lou]

28 minutes ago, ettin said:

That was a Luke-warm joke.

I take it back.

Weekend ettin is funny. 

[ettin]

18 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

Actually, no, it isn’t overreactive. What we know:

We learned today that the Angels pulled the deal on Sunday well before the other deal got finalized. 

It’s highly unlikely the Dodgers were renegotiating a settled deal at that time when a priority one deal was going through. Maybe they would have, but everything we know is the Angels cut out early. 

I said nothing last night. I waited till we knew more. Now we know better. F Arte. 

Yes it is overreactive, you are too emotional to see it.

Secondly, negotiation does not have to be a linear path, it can and often does happen concurrently with multiple teams, so your premise there is questionable (as you hinted in the second sentence).

All that we know is that it is being reported, through legitimate baseball writers, that Moreno was the one that killed a proposed deal on the table for team assets that may or may not have included some combination of Joc Pederson, Ross Stripling, Andy Pages, and Luis Rengifo, possibly more, possibly less.

NOTHING that has been reported corroborates your theory and reaction to it. Thus you are pouting and bad-mouthing Arte, about a proposed deal that was never confirmed as a completed transaction for players that were speculatively, perhaps correctly or perhaps incorrectly, reported on by baseball writers.

[VariousCrap]

I don't blame Eppler.

I do blame Arte if what is being reported is true.

[Pancake Bear]

5 minutes ago, ettin said:

Yes it is overreactive, you are too emotional to see it.

Secondly, negotiation does not have to be a linear path, it can and often does happen concurrently with multiple teams, so your premise there is questionable (as you hinted in the second sentence).

All that we know is that it is being reported, through legitimate baseball writers, that Moreno was the one that killed a proposed deal on the table for team assets that may or may not have included some combination of Joc Pederson, Ross Stripling, Andy Pages, and Luis Rengifo, possibly more, possibly less.

NOTHING that has been reported corroborates your theory and reaction to it. Thus you are pouting and bad-mouthing Arte, about a proposed deal that was never confirmed as a completed transaction for players that were speculatively, perhaps correctly or perhaps incorrectly, reported on by baseball writers.

No, you’re ignoring the obvious and only likely answer for whatever reason. Ockham’s Razor. 

Unlike you, I won’t speculate as to your motives. I did in fact wait to respond, blowing up your narrative that I’m simply “emotional” and “pouting”. I waited till facts came in and drew conclusions based on that. 

[kevinb]

12 minutes ago, ettin said:

Yes it is overreactive, you are too emotional to see it.

Secondly, negotiation does not have to be a linear path, it can and often does happen concurrently with multiple teams, so your premise there is questionable (as you hinted in the second sentence).

All that we know is that it is being reported, through legitimate baseball writers, that Moreno was the one that killed a proposed deal on the table for team assets that may or may not have included some combination of Joc Pederson, Ross Stripling, Andy Pages, and Luis Rengifo, possibly more, possibly less.

NOTHING that has been reported corroborates your theory and reaction to it. Thus you are pouting and bad-mouthing Arte, about a proposed deal that was never confirmed as a completed transaction for players that were speculatively, perhaps correctly or perhaps incorrectly, reported on by baseball writers.

So the reports are false? 

[ettin]

1 minute ago, Pancake Bear said:

No, you’re ignoring the obvious and only likely answer for whatever reason. Ockham’s Razor. 

Unlike you, I won’t speculate as to your motives. I did in fact wait to respond, blowing up your narrative that I’m simply “emotional” and “pouting”. I waited till facts came in and drew conclusions based on that. 

It's Occam's Razor by the way and I beginning to think you don't understand what it means.

Live your life PB, but when you're in front of a jury and they decide to forego the factual evidence in front of them because they went with their gut feeling, you'll probably understand this conversation a little to late. I hope that is not the case friend.

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, VariousCrap said:

I don't blame Eppler.

I do blame Arte if what is being reported is true.

How many people work for the Angels and ultimately work for Arte?

Given that substantial number, what are the chances somebody in that organization doesn’t like Arte?  Um, I will go with 100%.

Could that someone who doesn’t like Arte maybe act as an unnamed “source” to reporters to give them content to make Arte look bad?

Wow this is really far-fetched stuff right?

Human nature.
 

[ettin]

Just now, Kevinb said:

So the reports are false? 

No I encourage everyone here to stop "Being John Malkovich" inside of Moreno's head with no first-hand knowledge or direct evidence of what happened and actually use their reading comprehension skills to understand that all that has been reported is that Arte Moreno was the one who killed a proposed deal between the Dodgers and the Angels for a set of players that were not 100% confirmed and for a deal that had not yet been fully consummated.

[failos]

4 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

So the reports are false? 

No, but the reports don't paint the full picture.

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, ettin said:

No I encourage everyone here to stop "Being John Malkovich" inside of Moreno's head with no first-hand knowledge or direct evidence of what happened and actually use their reading comprehension skills to understand that all that has been reported is that Arte Moreno was the one who killed a proposed deal between the Dodgers and the Angels for a set of players that were not 100% confirmed and for a deal that had not yet been fully consummated.

I’m not trying to dig deeper into why he did what he did. I’m just asking about what we know that’s being reported. The rest of it is made up

message board stuff that no one will actually know. But what’s being reported from reliable sources is that Moreno is the one that killed the deal. I’m just asking if you believe the reports or not?

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, failos said:

No, but the reports don't paint the full picture.

You nor I don’t know the full picture. All we know is what’s being reported. The rest is make believe. 

[kevinb]

5 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

How many people work for the Angels and ultimately work for Arte?

Given that substantial number, what are the chances somebody in that organization doesn’t like Arte?  Um, I will go with 100%.

Could that someone who doesn’t like Arte maybe act as an unnamed “source” to reporters to give them content to make Arte look bad?

Wow this is really far-fetched stuff right?

Human nature.
 

So now we’ve gone to a whole new level of conspiracy. Someone in the organization who is apart of the trade negotiations. Dislikes Arte and is now a mole inside the organization? I mean I guess anything’s possible. But it just sounds like a made up

thing to protect an

owner on a message board. Like I’ve said before. The deals done it’s over who cares. But let’s stop with the made up make believe scenarios and just go with what’s being reported by reliable sources. 

[T.G.]

I found the mole...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pancake Bear]

12 minutes ago, ettin said:

It's Occam's Razor by the way and I beginning to think you don't understand what it means.

Live your life PB, but when you're in front of a jury and they decide to forego the factual evidence in front of them because they went with their gut feeling, you'll probably understand this conversation a little to late. I hope that is not the case friend.

“The idea is attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham”

Swing and a miss, Robert. 

You’ve done nothing in this conversation but be condescending and insulting because I drew legitimate conclusions from the evidence. Your assessment of me has been insulting without cause. I’ve said nothing similar about you. (FWIW, I don’t give a crap what you call me or think about me. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy.)

You do you, though. 
 

 

Also, F Arte. 

[ettin]

11 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

“The idea is attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham”

Swing and a miss, Robert. 

You’ve done nothing in this conversation but be condescending and insulting because I drew legitimate conclusions from the evidence. Your assessment of me has been insulting without cause. I’ve said nothing similar about you. (FWIW, I don’t give a crap what you call me or think about me. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy.)

You do you, though. 
 

 

Also, F Arte. 

Again you completely missed the point. Good luck buddy.

[ettin]

24 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

I’m not trying to dig deeper into why he did what he did. I’m just asking about what we know that’s being reported. The rest of it is made up

message board stuff that no one will actually know. But what’s being reported from reliable sources is that Moreno is the one that killed the deal. I’m just asking if you believe the reports or not?

Was my statement in the last message not clear? All we know is that Moreno has been reported to be the one that nixed the deal, whatever the deal actually was.

[Claude]

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, ettin said:

Was my statement in the last message not clear? All we know is that Moreno has been reported to be the one that nixed the deal, whatever the deal actually was.

We know from sources what the deal was it was Rengifo plus 2 not top prospects for Joc, Stripling and one of their prospects can't remember the name. Defend Arte or don't defend Arte. We know what is being reported to us by legitimate people. If they are wrong, or don't have the whole facts then it is what it is and take everything with a grain of salt. But as of now it looks like Arte nixed this deal Sunday. 

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, Kevinb said:

So now we’ve gone to a whole new level of conspiracy. Someone in the organization who is apart of the trade negotiations. Dislikes Arte and is now a mole inside the organization? I mean I guess anything’s possible. But it just sounds like a made up

thing to protect an

owner on a message board. Like I’ve said before. The deals done it’s over who cares. But let’s stop with the made up make believe scenarios and just go with what’s being reported by reliable sources. 

Dude, the “report” was an unnamed source that says Arte killed the deal out of frustration.

That story is one of:

1). Made up (by the source) and not true

2). A spin of something said by a reliable source

3). An accurate assessment of what happened

You choose to believe #3 and discount the possibility of #1 or #2.

All I did was explain how simple human nature COULD produce #1 or #2.

You can believe what you want to believe.  That’s up to you.  But don’t expect me to ignore the very real world rational possibilities of #1 or #2.

[kevinb]

50 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Dude, the “report” was an unnamed source that says Arte killed the deal out of frustration.

That story is one of:

1). Made up (by the source) and not true

2). A spin of something said by a reliable source

3). An accurate assessment of what happened

You choose to believe #3 and discount the possibility of #1 or #2.

All I did was explain how simple human nature COULD produce #1 or #2.

You can believe what you want to believe.  That’s up to you.  But don’t expect me to ignore the very real world rational possibilities of #1 or #2.

There are real possibilities 1 and 2 are correct but I’d rather put “more” weight on what’s being reported than to think everything is fake news. And believe whatever story you’ve concocted l.