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

[tdawg87]

Just now, Dtwncbad said:

Sorry you don’t get it.  And that is not sarcastic, just don’t feel like explaining.  Seems clear to me.

You don't have to explain it. Just show a link where that "detail" was provided.

[Dtwncbad]

7 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

So now he’s lying to. Just because you don’t want it to be true doesn’t mean it’s not true. 

Are you high?  Nobody said Fletcher lies.  Nobody.  I said he repeated what was reported elsewhere.

Seriously do you get this language thing or ?

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

Are you high?  Nobody said Fletcher lies.  Nobody.  I said he repeated what was reported elsewhere.

Seriously do you get this language thing or ?

Yes I’m messing with you. Relax. Lol

[Dtwncbad]

5 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

You don't have to explain it. Just show a link where that "detail" was provided.

Bowtie referencing how the Dodgers didn’t feel the Angel deal was still necessary after the change in the Betts deal.

This is not a small detail to ignore.

Somebody who cares about the truth should dig into this.

If their motivation changed, then logically their PRICE changed.  Given the scarcity of details, we all are forced to fill in the blanks with what seems to make sense.

And that detail still seems to suggest the real possibility that the Dodger price either officially changed or they were posturing for something different and it annoyed Arte.

 

[tdawg87]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Bowtie referencing how the Dodgers didn’t feel the Angel deal was still necessary after the change in the Betts deal.

This is not a small detail to ignore.

Somebody who cares about the truth should dig into this.

If their motivation changed, then logically their PRICE changed.  Given the scarcity of details, we all are forced to fill in the blanks with what seems to make sense.

And that detail still seems to suggest the real possibility that the Dodger price either officially changed or they were posturing for something different and it annoyed Arte.

 

Yeah maybe. I read it as they didn't feel like reopening negotiations was necessary after Arte pulled out. Plus Jeff said he thinks the deal would have been the same. 

No offense, but I'll take his word for it.

[case]

2 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

Where are you getting that it's the Dodgers that changed the terms? I haven't heard that.

Maybe that's true. But my point still stands that Eppler is the man to deal with it at that point. Maybe he did. But reports are saying it was Arte who pulled out. 

"The Dodgers could have given the Angels a chance to rethink their decision, but they viewed the previously agreed upon Angels deal as unnecessary after the trades with Boston and Minnesota changed, effectively killing the trade themselves. "

This is direct from The Athletic's story this morning about Arte pulling out of the trade.  It sounds like the Dodgers didn't like the pieces anymore after the other trades changed.

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, tdawg87 said:

Yeah maybe. I read it as they didn't feel like reopening negotiations was necessary after Arte pulled out. Plus Jeff said he thinks the deal would have been the same. 

No offense, but I'll take his word for it.

Hey that’s not a crazy way to read it. I read it as not necessarily in that order.  It actually doesn’t say one caused the other.  It’s a tweet.  Tweets are quick chatty stream of thoughts.

The sequence of sentences isn’t necessarily the timeline.  Just two details.

And Jeff said he hasn’t heard otherwise on if the deal was the same so he assumes.  Also not an unfair assumption in the absence of other info.

But that doesn’t mean it is irrational or crazy to read this and view these same details as the Dodgers getting cute and the Angels hanging up.

We don’t know.  Rosenthal reported what he heard.  Fletcher repeated his story as being reported and hasn’t heard “otherwise.”

Cool.  No problem.  But we are still talking about a tweet from guy who talked to an unnamed source that heard something.

We are fools if we somehow think this actually means it’s an accurate depiction of what actually happened.

 

[tdawg87]

1 minute ago, case said:

"The Dodgers could have given the Angels a chance to rethink their decision, but they viewed the previously agreed upon Angels deal as unnecessary after the trades with Boston and Minnesota changed, effectively killing the trade themselves. "

This is direct from The Athletic's story this morning about Arte pulling out of the trade.  It sounds like the Dodgers didn't like the pieces anymore after the other trades changed.

Hmm, I must have missed that part. 

Still, it's all in the wording. "Rethink their decision" refers to them pulling out of the trade. And again, they viewed it as "unnecessary" after the fact. It would seem, at least according to Jeff Fletcher, that the trade as-is still could have been made had the Angels not pulled out. 

[Dtwncbad]

Just now, tdawg87 said:

Hmm, I must have missed that part. 

Still, it's all in the wording. "Rethink their decision" refers to them pulling out of the trade. And again, they viewed it as "unnecessary" after the fact. It would seem, at least according to Jeff Fletcher, that the trade as-is still could have been made had the Angels not pulled out. 

Fletcher said he assumed the deal was the same because he had not heard otherwise.

He is not say he had any information to confirm that.

[Jeff Fletcher]

36 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

 

So what is with the detail (also reported by Rosenthal) that the Dodgers interest changed?

What does that mean?

We are going to just let that weird detail slide without examination so we can all enjoy the delicious Arte angle? 

 

As I read that, the Dodgers interest changed after Arte pulled the deal. 
 

Maybe they realized it was a terrible deal for them and Arte gave them an excuse to get out of it. 

[tdawg87]

3 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Fletcher said he assumed the deal was the same because he had not heard otherwise.

He is not say he had any information to confirm that.

I mean, whatever. 

Like I said I'll take his word for it. He's our only real source for things like this. If you want more then that's your choice.

[Jeff Fletcher]

9 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Hey that’s not a crazy way to read it. I read it as not necessarily in that order.  It actually doesn’t say one caused the other.  It’s a tweet.  Tweets are quick chatty stream of thoughts.

The sequence of sentences isn’t necessarily the timeline.  Just two details.

And Jeff said he hasn’t heard otherwise on if the deal was the same so he assumes.  Also not an unfair assumption in the absence of other info.

But that doesn’t mean it is irrational or crazy to read this and view these same details as the Dodgers getting cute and the Angels hanging up.

We don’t know.  Rosenthal reported what he heard.  Fletcher repeated his story as being reported and hasn’t heard “otherwise.”

Cool.  No problem.  But we are still talking about a tweet from guy who talked to an unnamed source that heard something.

We are fools if we somehow think this actually means it’s an accurate depiction of what actually happened.

 

You are looking at it from a very logical perspective. If any of that is true, the Angels should probably find a way to get that part of story public. I was all ears today, expecting to hear that. I didn’t. 
 

Also, you should definitely read the story and not just the tweet. 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Jeff Fletcher

[Jeff Fletcher]

36 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

But also not unreasonable at all.  You do repeat other stories you hear without adding your own personal validation of those stories.

I try to only do that if it’s been reported by multiple people or I have some independent confirmation of it. 

[UndertheHalo]

Goddamnit Arte. 

[Dtwncbad]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

You are looking at it from a very logical perspective. If any of that is true, the Angels should probably find a way to get that part of story public. I was all ears today, expecting to hear that. I didn’t. 
 

Also, you should definitely read the story and not just the tweet. 

I appreciate your participation in this.

It would be a long story that would end up boring, but one huge life lesson for me has been to be very careful not to buy into the juicy storyline that seems less logical than the boring more rational story that is less titillating.

I don’t know what happened and I suspect Rosenthal is reporting what he heard in good faith.

But until we have something better than a tweet from a guy that heard something from an unnamed source.  . . I personally gotta keep my mind open to settle for the pathetically boring, in exciting rational possibility that the Dodgers interest changed and what was a deal became unresolved and annoying. . . Enough that the Angels waved it off.

Sometimes the boring story is true folks.  I just don’t think we know based on how this has been reported (so far).

 

[popo85]

Jeff any chance Angels try and acquire a SP prior to opening day?

[T.G.]

Next line of questions from AW...

Was Arte smiling when he pulled the offer?

Did he have his fingers crossed?

Did he use the phrase "neener, neener?"

 

[Dtwncbad]

20 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

You are looking at it from a very logical perspective. If any of that is true, the Angels should probably find a way to get that part of story public. I was all ears today, expecting to hear that. I didn’t. 
 

Also, you should definitely read the story and not just the tweet. 

But if the Angels went out of their way to throw the Dodgers under the bus for changing their price on them, Yes it would save a little face for Arte but it would impair their relationship with the Dodgers as a trade channel going forward.

A wise man might tell them to not correct the story to maintain a better trade channel in the future.

[tdawg87]

18 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Goddamnit Arte. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

23 minutes ago, popo85 said:

Jeff any chance Angels try and acquire a SP prior to opening day?

I'm sure they'll keep trying.

[Jeff Fletcher]

26 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I appreciate your participation in this.

It would be a long story that would end up boring, but one huge life lesson for me has been to be very careful not to buy into the juicy storyline that seems less logical than the boring more rational story that is less titillating.

I don’t know what happened and I suspect Rosenthal is reporting what he heard in good faith.

But until we have something better than a tweet from a guy that heard something from an unnamed source.  . . I personally gotta keep my mind open to settle for the pathetically boring, in exciting rational possibility that the Dodgers interest changed and what was a deal became unresolved and annoying. . . Enough that the Angels waved it off.

Sometimes the boring story is true folks.  I just don’t think we know based on how this has been reported (so far).

 

I thought exactly like you about 8 hours ago, and then I talked to someone who definitely knows exactly what happened. And now I don't think that way any more.

I don't know what else I can tell you.

[kevinb]

2 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I thought exactly like you about 8 hours ago, and then I talked to someone who definitely knows exactly what happened. And now I don't think that way any more.

I don't know what else I can tell you.

And there we have it. Interesting. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

This is a real bad look for Arte. It sounds like the Dodgers would’ve been open to continuing on with the agreed upon trade as a gesture of good faith despite it no longer being as important to them. 

[Dtwncbad]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I thought exactly like you about 8 hours ago, and then I talked to someone who definitely knows exactly what happened. And now I don't think that way any more.

I don't know what else I can tell you.

Yes you do. 

[tdawg87]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Yes you do.