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

[Jeremiah]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

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.

Perhaps, but so far the Angels come out of this looking pretty bad. It all sounds petty on Arte’s part right now. He made much of his money in advertising. I’m sure he’s keenly aware of the importance of public perception. I’m sure if there was a version that made the team look better, we’d have already heard it.

[AngelsFaninGA]

7 minutes ago, Jeremiah said:

Perhaps, but so far the Angels come out of this looking pretty bad. It all sounds petty on Arte’s part right now. He made much of his money in advertising. I’m sure he’s keenly aware of the importance of public perception. I’m sure if there was a version that made the team look better, we’d have already heard it.

Arte is the epitome of too blessed to be stressed. Has too much money to really care about the consequences of these things

[floplag]

20 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Well per Fletcher it looks like it was. But even if it was then I don’t know if I’d consider it a massive clusterfuck. Business deals fall through all the time for reasons. He’s still a great owner and every owner has their own things to them. 

Im sorry but equating this to a business deal is a fail for me.
I get it, thats what it is, but this was a deal that helped us, big, its like trading a stack of Tesla stock for coupons at the wiggly wiggly. 
This is the kind of mistake that gets people fired in business.

[stormngt]

2 hours 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.

Ok...it is easy to deduce what went down

1. Twins-Sox-Dogs shitshoe was taking too long

2. Dogs tell Angeks that Their trade has to wait until they get Betts either wise they cant make a trade.

3. Arte probably thinks the Angels-Dogs business should have nothing to do with Twins and Sox so he puts pressure to fi alize their deal.

4. Dogs reiterate the deal with angels is contingent to deal with Red sox.

5.  Angel's pull out of the trade.

6. Dogs make the trade to get Betts.  Then realizes their interest with Angel trade no longer makes so the don't  "revive " the trade.

Either way who gives a F*** if Arte pulled the deal or not.  The Dogs realized the deal no longer made sense 

Do you guys really think the Dogs were going to be happy with Regnifro as the best player of trade? They were going to ask for more.

[stormngt]

2 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

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. 

Which means they would have pulled out anyway and they can use Arte as an excuse.  Time to move on.

[kevinb]

7 minutes ago, floplag said:

Im sorry but equating this to a business deal is a fail for me.
I get it, thats what it is, but this was a deal that helped us, big, its like trading a stack of Tesla stock for coupons at the wiggly wiggly. 
This is the kind of mistake that gets people fired in business.

I mean I guess. But he owns the team at the end of the day he can do what he wants. He’s made some mistakes as an owner. I agree this is a mistake he made but he’s also made some successful maneuvering. I personally think the nice third baseman pick up this offseason was all him. I’ll take the good and the bad. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

5 hours ago, Kevinb said:

Nothing being reported suggests that the original deal wasn't still on the table before what is being reported that Arte nixed the deal. Why can't we just deal with what are the facts and what we know instead of playing make believe and defense.

Because I don't see what is being reported as "the facts". "Sources close to Moreno say" isn't necessarily factual. 

[kevinb]

4 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Which means they would have pulled out anyway and they can use Arte as an excuse.  Time to move on.

That’s not what he said. If u look more at what he’s said he’s basically said it lays at the feet of Arte. 

[kevinb]

Just now, Vegas Halo Fan said:

Because I don't see what is being reported as "the facts". "Sources close to Moreno say" isn't necessarily factual. 

Again read more of what Fletcher has said. Believe what you want but it’s basically now fact or as close as it can get to it now. 

[stormngt]

1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

That’s not what he said. If u look more at what he’s said he’s basically said it lays at the feet of Arte. 

The Dodgers realized our deal made no sense.  So you want me to believe they would not have changed the terms?  

 

[kevinb]

4 minutes ago, stormngt said:

The Dodgers realized our deal made no sense.  So you want me to believe they would not have changed the terms?  

 

That’s literally not what Fletcher said. So I’m on my phone and not gonna find what Fletcher said. But basically Fletcher was told by people who are in the know that Arte is the one who pulled out and it had nothing to do with the Dodgers renegotiating. This is an Arte thing. Oh well move on. But you’re probably not correct. 

[Duren, Duren]

In business you have to curb your ego sometimes and think of the greater good. You may hate the other person, but if the deal is to your advantage you swallow your pride temporarily. 

This holds true in sports management. On one level it's an exclusive old boys club, of high level competitive members. But they know they will have to deal with each other over time and try not to burn bridges. And doing a favor will buy good will for a reciprocal favor down the road.

When ownership overides management it creates internal tension that is not good for an organization going forward. It raises questions for other teams, unsure if any potential deal will be vetoed by a higher power. For the ultra elite players and their contracts it is understandable. But not for the normal transactions. 

Initially the Dodger/Angel side of the equation seemed structured as a normal baseball trade. Each side gaining what they wanted for their own different reasons. 

Now either Arte or the Dodgers broke off that fragile bond of trust. No doubt, both sides could give a rational justification. But ethically it was an act of bad faith if the original deal had progressed to being a firm agreement.

Despite changes with the other teams, a verbal promise should imply commitment to the agreement. If it was more a hypothetical arrangement than a solid promise then it's contingent on other variables. 

Ironic that the alleged arm issues of one of the more secondary players changed everything. 

This fiasco really makes Angels/Dodgers co-operation highly problematic going forward. It could get petty on lots of local levels too. Especially with their inter league games. But that does in fact intensify the rivalry.

But it seems every ounce of angst is coming from Angel fans. To Dodger fans this is a minor blip on their radar. They have their shiny new big name acquisitions and Pederson and Stripling are merely secondary roster players who will be moved elsewhere or slotted into depth roles. 

A week or two from now when spring training gets underway  this aborted deal won't even be remembered on their side.

The Angels lost who they never had, but how it happened will linger for a long time. Especially if Stripling and Pederson do well wherever they play. 

 

[floplag]

11 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

I mean I guess. But he owns the team at the end of the day he can do what he wants. He’s made some mistakes as an owner. I agree this is a mistake he made but he’s also made some successful maneuvering. I personally think the nice third baseman pick up this offseason was all him. I’ll take the good and the bad. 

all true, but its kinda hard to stomach this one as childish as it seems for the loss of benefit the team would have gained. 

[stormngt]

5 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

That’s literally not what Fletcher said. So I’m on my phone and not gonna find what Fletcher said. But basically Fletcher was told by people who are in the know that Arte is the one who pulled out and it had nothing to do with the Dodgers renegotiating. This is an Arte thing. Oh well move on. But you’re probably not correct. 

I am going by all the quotes that the "deal could have been revived" but the Dodger realized the deal no longer made sense .

Fletcher said Arte pulled out of the deal and the Dodgers felt it no longer made sense.

We can blame Arte.  He pulled out if the deal.  However the mete fact that it no longer made sense means the deal was either changing or not happened. 

[kevinb]

2 minutes ago, stormngt said:

I am going by all the quotes that the "deal could have been revived" but the Dodger realized the deal no longer made sense .

Fletcher said Arte pulled out of the deal and the Dodgers felt it no longer made sense.

We can blame Arte.  He pulled out if the deal.  However the mete fact that it no longer made sense means the deal was either changing or not happened. 

One has nothing to do with the other. Dodgers would have still made the deal if Arte didn’t react the way he did and cancel. 

[kevinb]

6 minutes ago, floplag said:

all true, but its kinda hard to stomach this one as childish as it seems for the loss of benefit the team would have gained. 

Oh for sure hard to stomach. Definitely get the sense Arte reacted impatiently and got emotional about the deal. I’ve been in multiple negotiations where people just get emotional about weird crap. It’s part of it. We have to think these people are robots and only work from a numbers game but it’s still a business and sometimes we get in our own way. It’s a bummer but it’s over now and time for spring trading to start and get to work. 

[Tank]

I hope we can get another 9 or 10 pages out of this thread.

[ADHB]

8 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

One has nothing to do with the other. Dodgers would have still made the deal if Arte didn’t react the way he did and cancel. 

They can say whatever they want now that making the trade wasn’t going to happen. No one will ever know if the Dodgers would have tried to change the terms or not (I’m guessing yes) because Arte left the table before that situation arose.

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 hours ago, True Grich said:

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?"

 

Since he pulled out, I assume he was saying "wiener wiener"

[stormngt]

10 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

One has nothing to do with the other. Dodgers would have still made the deal if Arte didn’t react the way he did and cancel. 

And anyone with minimal level of education would know the deal was not going to be the same terms.  And since we do not know what those terms ate I say move on!

[ten ocho recon scout]

7 minutes ago, calscuf said:

Some of you guys would defend your spouses if they cheated on you.

If you knew me, youd know why she did. 

You cant throw a tic tac in a ballpark frank bun over and over and say "size doesnt matter" forever.

[kevinb]

5 minutes ago, ADHB said:

They can say whatever they want now that making the trade wasn’t going to happen. No one will ever know if the Dodgers would have tried to change the terms or not (I’m guessing yes) because Arte left the table before that situation arose.

Guessing is fun. I guess I’ll guess to. And say no they wouldn’t. Good argument

[kevinb]

3 minutes ago, stormngt said:

And anyone with minimal level of education would know the deal was not going to be the same terms.  And since we do not know what those terms ate I say move on!

You’re defending nothing. Fletcher has already stated the deal wasn’t going to be pulled. Arte is the one that flipped and pulled. I’ve moved on I don’t care. I’m merely arguing with you because you refuse to admit defeat. You’ve lost. All the arguments have been made your argument had been made and it had been rebuked. It’s over. Time for spring training. 

[UndertheHalo]

I still find it incredibly difficult to believe that all there is to this is that Arte got butt hurt about waiting and nuked the deal and that was that.  But this is what Fletcher and Ardaya are specifically reporting.  So it is what it is.  The Angels really need to explain themselves.  They probably won’t but they should.  

[kevinb]

Just now, UndertheHalo said:

I still find it incredibly difficult to believe that all there is to this is that Arte got butt hurt about waiting and nuked the deal and that was that.  But this is what Fletcher and Ardaya are specifically reporting.  So it is what it is.  The Angels really need to explain themselves.  They probably won’t but they should.  

I mean what else can they say? They aren’t really gonna say we got irritated it took so long. Eppler already made his comment and he’s not going to throw his boss under the bus. I guess they can try to spin it. But it’s already been over 24 hours, anything they say isn’t going to go over very well. Might as well not say anything more, pitchers and catcher report. There will be other news that happens that buries this momentarily.