It’s not about “impatience” if the original deal wasn’t on the table anymore.

[tdawg87]

5 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

From rosenthal.  I presume you saw it.  If not here ya go. 

 

Am I reading the same thing? It says Arte pulled the deal after getting impatient. It may have been able to be revived, but LA saw it as unnecessary at that point.

So Arte pulled the deal.

[UndertheHalo]

2 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Am I reading the same thing? It says Arte pulled the deal after getting impatient. It may have been able to be revived, but LA saw it as unnecessary at that point.

So Arte pulled the deal.

Why would an agreed upon deal need to be revived ? The Dodgers were no longer doing the original deal.  Come on dude.  This isn’t that complicated.  And who cares that Arte was “impatient” impatient that the Dodgers needed a renegotiation ? Fucking fair enough. 

[kevinb]

Just now, UndertheHalo said:

Why would an agreed upon deal need to be revived ? The Dodgers were no longer doing the original deal.  Come on dude.  This isn’t that complicated.  And who cares that Arte was “impatient” impatient that the Dodgers needed a renegotiation ? Fucking fair enough. 

You are just assuming. With zero reports to back that up. 

[eligrba]

4 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Am I reading the same thing? It says Arte pulled the deal after getting impatient. It may have been able to be revived, but LA saw it as unnecessary at that point.

So Arte pulled the deal.

Why would Arte pull the deal if the Dodgers determined the deal unnecessary?  Because the Dodgers probably wanted a different deal than what was agreed to.

[T.G.]

I'm waiting for the pictures of @UndertheHalo on Arte's yacht to surface. Who's got 'em?

[UndertheHalo]

If they’re keeping Joc, who’s roster situation they already need to figure out then they probably don’t want Rengifo.  So now we’re talking about a fundamentally different deal.  What’s more likely? That or that Arte Moreno literally stomped his feet and pulled the decided to take his ball and go home.  

[UndertheHalo]

1 minute ago, eligrba said:

Why would Arte pull the deal if the Dodgers determined the deal unnecessary?  Because the Dodgers probably wanted a different deal than what was agreed to.

These guys are going to make me lose my fucking mind. Are we not capable of slightly complex inference ? 

[UndertheHalo]

1 minute ago, True Grich said:

I'm waiting for the pictures of @UndertheHalo on Arte's yacht to surface. Who's got 'em?

Listen, all I do is connect the fuel pump.  I get good tips.  Don’t fuck with my shit. 

[eligrba]

1 minute ago, UndertheHalo said:

If they’re keeping Joc, who’s roster situation they already need to figure out then they probably don’t want Rengifo.  So now we’re talking about a fundamentally different deal.  What’s more likely? That or that Arte Moreno literally stomped his feet and pulled the decided to take his ball and go home.  

[UndertheHalo]

3 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

You are just assuming. With zero reports to back that up. 

Im not assuming anything.  You’re imagining that Arte is a 3 year old girl apparently because you don’t feel like thinking. 

[Duren, Duren]

It's bad karma dealing with a same city rival. Too much emotion and baggage that can endure a long time. This botched deal just intensifies the rivalry, and actually brings the front office personnel into the forefront.

And all the angst seems to be one hundred percent from Angel fans. I haven't found any Dodger regret at not snaring Rengilfo and whoever.

It was not necessarily a move the Dodgers needed the way it was structured. At the time it was a logistical convenience more than a lineup upgrade for them.

And think about it for the Angels.

It would have solidified their 2020 lineup. But not to a major degree.

Stripling is an average pitcher on an excellent team. Not the kind of pitcher unavailable elsewhere in a lower profile trade. The current pitching rotation has been upgraded from last year, and He would have blended in with them, not suddenly emerging as an ace. I think it reasonable to think that internal competition and possibly another acquisition could deliver what he would have. 

Right field isn't a position of weakness. Goodwin, Adell, LaStella should make a productive mix. Pederson likely was a one season rental and strictly a platoon player. Not that he couldn't help for one year, but other options will appear if the position become a a problem. 

The deal looked good because it was perceived as a steal. Gain more than giving up. It would have been great to outfox the Dodgers, but they obviously are always thinking outside all the boxes. 

[eligrba]

Just now, UndertheHalo said:

Im not assuming anything.  You’re imagining that Arte is a 3 year old girl apparently because you don’t feel like thinking. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

7 minutes ago, eligrba said:

Why would Arte pull the deal if the Dodgers determined the deal unnecessary?  Because the Dodgers probably wanted a different deal than what was agreed to.

The Dodgers original deal with the Angels served to specifically keep them under the luxury tax threshold and to alleviate the impending roster crunch. The new deal worked out with the Red Sox and Twins made it so that the deal with the Angels would no longer solve their roster crunch issues or keep them under the tax thus changing the impetus for the trade. They still do have a roster crunch to figure out but the need to move Stripling and Pederson specifically is gone because they don't represent enough cash to change the equation. 

[tdawg87]

15 minutes ago, eligrba said:

Why would Arte pull the deal if the Dodgers determined the deal unnecessary?  Because the Dodgers probably wanted a different deal than what was agreed to.

If the Dodgers wanted a different deal than what was reported, then why is ARTE the one pulling out of the deal? He is NOT the GM. Why even have a GM if you're just gonna step on toes and do the deals yourself?

Also, I'm still not seeing anything that says the Dodgers suddenly said the deal with the Angels was unnecessary. That's only AFTER the fact that ARTE pulled out of it. They feel that going back to that deal is unnecessary? I wonder why that would be.

[eligrba]

2 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

The Dodgers original deal with the Angels served to specifically keep them under the luxury tax threshold and to alleviate the impending roster crunch. The new deal worked out with the Red Sox and Twins made it so that the deal with the Angels would no longer solve their roster crunch issues or keep them under the tax thus changing the impetus for the trade. They still do have a roster crunch to figure out but the need to move Stripling and Pederson specifically is gone because they don't represent enough cash to change the equation. 

The Dodgers payroll issue didn't change with the reworked deal.  It was reported that the Pederson's arbitration results would have no impact on the deal.....looks like it did.

[T.G.]

Edited February 10, 2020 by True Grich

[eligrba]

1 minute ago, tdawg87 said:

If the Dodgers wanted a different deal than what was reported, then why is ARTE the one pulling out of the deal? He is NOT the GM. Why even have a GM if you're just gonna step on toes and do the deals yourself?

Also, I'm still not seeing anything that says the Dodgers suddenly said the deal with the Angels was unnecessary. That's only AFTER the fact that ARTE pulled out of it. They feel that going back to that deal is unnecessary? I wonder why that would be.

I am guessing it was related to restructuring an already agreed deal.  I am a relic and still believe a handshake matters when making deals.  How an organization regards professional agreements should be determined by the owner, not the GM.  He did Eppler a favor for future deals. 

[Erstad Grit]

Yes this trade was a cluster F, but look at the twins.  Their owner didn't go public with frustration.  They were patient and flexible.  Gave away an extra player but they still got  Maeda. Arte probably is that guy who constantly sends food back.  Do that enough and eventually it gets spit on.  

[Jeremiah]

Peterson’s plus Stripling’s contracts are pretty close to the $10 mil that LAD are over the CBT.

[tdawg87]

5 minutes ago, eligrba said:

I am guessing it was related to restructuring an already agreed deal.  I am a relic and still believe a handshake matters when making deals.  How an organization regards professional agreements should be determined by the owner, not the GM.  He did Eppler a favor for future deals. 

That sounds fine for Free Agent deals, where the owner is more involved and is the one signing the checks.

But this was a trade. Eppler is a grown ass man. He doesn't need Papa Arte to step in and handle the "protocol". 

You guys can "infer" whatever you want and jerk yourselves off with how intelligent you are, but all the facts we have right now show Arte getting impatient and pulling out of the deal when he isn't the GM. 

I'm sure there are more details and I'll be happy to change my opinion should those details come to light. But as it stands, Arte looks like he stepped on the GM's toes, and then "took his ball and went home".

Edited February 10, 2020 by tdawg87

[eligrba]

1 minute ago, tdawg87 said:

That sounds fine for Free Agent deals, where the owner is more involved and us the one signing the checks.

But this was a trade. Eppler is a grown ass man. He doesn't need Papa Arte to step in and handle the "protocol". 

You guys can "infer" whatever you want and jerk yourselves off with how intelligent you are, but all the facts we have right now show Arte getting impatient and pulling out of the deal when he isn't the GM. 

I'm sure there are more details and I'll be happy to change my opinion should those details come to light. But as it stands, Arte looks like he stepped on the GM's toes, and then "took his ball and went home".

[m0nkey]

Fletcher's also running with the story that Arte pulled the deal

[Dtwncbad]

The Dodgers/Red Sox/Twins deal clearly changed.

Gee it is so, so hard to imagine that the change in that deal changed the Dodgers need to make the deal with the Angels.  Oh wait, we don’t have to imagine that, the same source that reported the hissy fit (Rosenthal) also reports the Dodgers interest changed!

It was reported 28 different ways that the Angel deal was contingent on the original Betts trade (the one that changed) going down.

But sure, it only makes sense that the Angel deal was cancelled by a hissy fit from Arte.

How about the Dodgers saying something like, “Sorry for the long wait.  We finally got the other deal done with some adjustments.  The thing is, the way we ended up doing the Betts deal kinda changes our urgent need to do this deal with you guys.  Let’s talk about an adjustment in our deal to figure this out?”

Angels: “I don’t think so.  Arte isn’t down with giving you more now just because your deal with another team changed and your need for this deal changed. Forget it.”

Deal dies and Reporters report Arte had a fit and cancelled the deal and also report that the Dodgers interest changed.

And some fans only hear half of that and ignore the other half when the only logical analysis is Arte’s “cancellation” of the deal was a result of the other team’s “interest” and “motivation” changing (as in, let’s talk about making a change in this trade too).

 

[tdawg87]

1 minute ago, m0nkey said:

Fletcher's also running with the story that Arte pulled the deal

Yeah but

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, m0nkey said:

Fletcher's also running with the story that Arte pulled the deal

@Jeff Fletcher were you able to confirm or are you using Rosenthal’s tweet as the source?