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

[Jay]

I've given up trying to figure out what Arte is thinking.

 

[tdawg87]

51 minutes ago, True Grich said:

My guess and this is pure speculation on my part (of course) is that Arte is fed up with losing. He might be thinking - I've let my baseball people do it all and all it got me was the worst season in recent memory. I let them replace Scioscia. I let them bring in a whole new pitching philosophy and I let them throw my money at Cahill, Allen and Harvey. I ended up with a crappy manager, crappy pitching coach, horrible pitching and on top of everything else - we lost Tyler.  He's had enough. He went out and got Joe Maddon. He went out and got Rendon.  I believe if he really wanted Cole, he would have found a way to sign him. He wanted Rendon more. I don't doubt for a single moment that Arte wants to win. He's obsessed with it. He's not content to continue just letting others spend his money. He's going to micromanage this process for better or worse. We know he's an emotional guy. We know he holds grudges. We know he's big on loyalty and a handshake deal should count.  He doesn't like to get pissed on and he's not going to take crap from anyone. I also believe he hates the Dodgers. He wants a bigger share of the LA market. I'm guessing (again) that the idea of helping the Dodgers out so that they could acquire Mookie Betts didn't sit well with him and the more he thought about it, the more he hated the idea. He's a competitive guy. He wants to win and he feels he needs to control more of the team's destiny at this point because the last several years hasn't given him what he wants.

That's my 22 cents worth.

Nice wall, Trump.

[kevinb]

4 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

You know.... A simple yeah, I let my desire to win get the best of me maybe would go a long ways towards at least making me believe he's given some thought to his actions.  It's his team, he's put up a lot of money, I know he can do whatever he wants but as a former MLB commissioner once said, "baseball is a public trust".

You lose the faith of the fans, you lose everything.

This was a loss.

 

Have you lost faith in Moreno? At the end of the day he still bought the Angels two starting pitchers and a top 3 third baseman in the league this offseason. 

[Inside Pitch]

1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

Have you lost faith in Moreno? At the end of the day he still bought the Angels two starting pitchers and a top 3 third baseman in the league this offseason. 

Do you ever actually read what you are responding to?   

You asked what he could do to alter how people feel about this situation..  I'm saying a simple "yeah, I may have stepped in it" would go a long ways.   It's possible for people to see both that he was willing to spend to improve the team then undermined his GM because well, Veruca Salt.

Spending money has never been an issue for Arte, avoiding stupid has.   This off-season he seems to have lived up to both his reputation as a spender and a meddler.

Pretty simple premise.

[Inside Pitch]

11 minutes ago, calscuf said:

Are you guys still defending your cheating wives?  
 

She did it and you didn’t deserve it, no matter how lazy or fat or emotionally distant you are.

"Sure she cheats on me but she cooks a tasty dinner, the house is well kept, and my laundry is always clean, and nicely folded -- Fansb

[Torridd]

3 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

We don't.

I've read this whole thread and find it very interesting. I just want to add that if/when Arte decided to pull out of the deal he probably went through Eppler. I assumed he didn't call them himself. Therefore, if Eppler extremely wanted the deal, (and why wouldn't he based on what we know about who we're gaining and losing) he would have told that to Moreno. Now, we don't know if Moreno would have listened to him, hopefully he would, but you have to wonder why Moreno would get so angry regarding a rather paltry deal in comparison to all the others that occur in MLB. If I told my GM that I wanted out of a deal and my GM asked me why and I told him it was taking too long, you'd figure the GM would assure him that it should be over soon. That should be enough for most owners especially since this was such a minor trade.If Moreno called the Dodgers himself, then that's completely running over his GM. I just can't see that, but even the other scenario is a bit maddening. Both scenarios are crazy. You really have to wonder if something else occurred because Arte's actions don't make sense.

[kevinb]

11 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Do you ever actually read what you are responding to?   

You asked what he could do to alter how people feel about this situation..  I'm saying a simple "yeah, I may have stepped in it" would go a long ways.   It's possible for people to see both that he was willing to spend to improve the team then undermined his GM because well, Veruca Salt.

Spending money has never been an issue for Arte, avoiding stupid has.   This off-season he seems to have lived up to both his reputation as a spender and a meddler.

Pretty simple premise.

Yes. I was responding to you saying “You lose the faith of the fans you lose everything” I was just curious your answer. 

[kevinb]

3 minutes ago, Torridd said:

I've read this whole thread and find it very interesting. I just want to add that if/when Arte decided to pull out of the deal he probably went through Eppler. I assumed he didn't call them himself. Therefore, if Eppler extremely wanted the deal, (and why wouldn't he based on what we know about who we're gaining and losing) he would have told that to Moreno. Now, we don't know if Moreno would have listened to him, hopefully he would, but you have to wonder why Moreno would get so angry regarding a rather paltry deal in comparison to all the others that occur in MLB. If I told my GM that I wanted out of a deal and my GM asked me why and I told him it was taking too long, you'd figure the GM would assure him that it should be over soon. That should be enough for most owners especially since this was such a minor trade.If Moreno called the Dodgers himself, then that's completely running over his GM. I just can't see that, but even the other scenario is a bit maddening. Both scenarios are crazy. You really have to wonder if something else occurred because Arte's actions don't make sense.

Per Fletcher and the other reporters. Nothing else occurred. 

[ettin]

1 hour ago, Inside Pitch said:

Do you ever actually read what you are responding to?   

You asked what he could do to alter how people feel about this situation..  I'm saying a simple "yeah, I may have stepped in it" would go a long ways.   It's possible for people to see both that he was willing to spend to improve the team then undermined his GM because well, Veruca Salt.

Spending money has never been an issue for Arte, avoiding stupid has.   This off-season he seems to have lived up to both his reputation as a spender and a meddler.

Pretty simple premise.

We often talk about chains of command, periodically, on this site and I have to ask this question: Any trade or signing of significance must receive approval by ownership in virtually every MLB organization, so why is it that this time, we have determined that because we didn't consummate a deal that, in this particular instantiation, it is Moreno meddling versus making a decision that he did not feel comfortable with.

I know that there is a belief, perhaps rightly so, that Moreno meddles and/or interferes but I am asking the question how do you determine the difference here in this case? A story has been published by The Athletic stating Arte killed the deal (whatever that deal was we still don't know and probably will never know) but the fact is that we don't know the parameters of that deal and whether that deal changed from the original discussions to some other form that was dissatisfying to Arte? Heck maybe it didn't change and Arte killed it for some unknown reason (good or bad)?

My whole point has been we have very little knowledge of the situation (unless you or someone else on the site has insider knowledge which would not be surprising to me) and thus everything we are doing is speculation. Arte approves and occasionally disapproves of deals. In fact I am willing to bet there are past deals that were killed by Arte that we have no idea about.

I don't mean this as a criticism IP but an observation of the process and what little we know, other than a reputation of Moreno as a meddler (which he has earned either rightfully or unrightfully via past events like Wells, Pujols, et. al.).

[ettin]

4 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

Another good comment, and I get it, I don't really like the blame games much either.  But, I genuinely believe Arte looks bad here.   Just a bad look overall that feeds into the perception that he is a meddlesome owner -- something we had not seen as much of in recent years.

Okay this partially answers my question, didn't read that far.

[T.G.]

1 hour ago, Inside Pitch said:

Spending money has never been an issue for Arte, avoiding stupid has.   This off-season he seems to have lived up to both his reputation as a spender and a meddler.

And this is what makes so many fans crazy.

We have no control over who owns the team, but we sure as hell don't like it when the owner is being compared to Jerry Jones.

Arte gets very little credit for the things he does well and a ton of scorn for the things that go wrong. We've developed this view of him that isn't flattering. We want him to stop doing those things that we as fans find detrimental to the team. We have to hear about it from our friends, read about in the media and social media. It gets old. We get frustrated. We rant.

But this is who he is. It's hard to take the good with the bad. But the "good" is actually really, darn good. He spends money. He wants to win.  I'll take that and tolerate the other because I don't really have a choice.

[Jeff Fletcher]

6 hours ago, tennischmp said:

Well the only people that would tell you otherwise would be the Dodgers FO since the Angels didn’t seem to go far enough into the process to see. Now why would the Dodgers admit that they were going to alter the deal that was agreed upon and make themselves look bad if they don’t have to? Maybe the reason you haven’t heard otherwise is because the Dodgers don’t want to admit it and would rather blow it off on the Angels?

That’s true. It’s possible the Dodgers realized it was a bad deal and once Arte let them off the hook, they didn’t feel the need to jump back on. 

[dprep80]

6 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

That’s true. It’s possible the Dodgers realized it was a bad deal and once Arte let them off the hook, they didn’t feel the need to jump back on. 

Just to clarify, we don't know for sure that the offer was the same and all the Angels had to do was wait and/or say yes?

[ettin]

18 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

That’s true. It’s possible the Dodgers realized it was a bad deal and once Arte let them off the hook, they didn’t feel the need to jump back on. 

Hi Jeff, I have hesitated to speculate on any part of this story because it is not the right thing to do. All we have heard reported is that Arte killed a proposed deal on the table.

Do you have any additional insight/knowledge that you can share with us here about this situation? Was there an original deal that was changed that infuriated Arte? Did the players suggested shift? Was there a hot point that resulted in a change of attitude on either side? Did Moreno just get enraged by the delay and decided that it wasn't "good business practice" to keep the Angels waiting and he flew into a fit as some here believe he did?

I know you are probably getting a ton of questions about it I am just trying to understand if we have more facts than just Arte nixed a deal?

[tennischmp]

6 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

Well yeah now that Arte pulled out, they have no reason to make it.

If they had no reason to do it after, what was their reason to make it before Arte pulled out? It was obvious their deal was conditioned on the Boston deal to dump salary to stay below the luxury tax and to get their roster to 40. Since none of those would now happen what would be the reason to complete the deal? To help the Angels out?

[T.G.]

2 minutes ago, ettin said:

Hi Jeff, I have hesitated to speculate on any part of this story because it is not the right thing to do. All we have heard reported is that Arte killed a proposed deal on the table.

Do you have video you can share? Would you be willing to wear a wire every time you interact with anyone from the Angels? Have you been on Arte's yacht?

I know you are probably getting a ton of questions about it I am just trying to understand if we have more facts than just Arte nixed a deal?

 

[Dtwncbad]

Most certainly the Angels were staying close to the Dodgers during the Dodgers adjustments to the Betts deal.

I still personally find it not very believable that the Dodgers didn’t ever indicate at all during that process (as the final adjustments to the Betts deal we’re developing and emerging) that their deal with the Angels wasn’t really necessary.

If the Dodgers gave any indication at all that their need or motivation for the Angel trade was changing, it 100% justifies the Angels pulling out basically saying there is no reason to be on hold when there is no guarantee we actually have the deal we discussed.

I believe the sources that say Arte pulled out.  It still seems a bit absurd to assume he pulled out without a valid reason. . .like there is no reason to keep hanging around on hold for a deal they have indicated isn’t actually set anymore.

 

[T.G.]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

It still seems a bit absurd to assume he pulled out without a valid reason. .

The day Lyle Lovett married Julia Roberts everything changed.  Anything became viable or feasible from that point on.

[tennischmp]

38 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

That’s true. It’s possible the Dodgers realized it was a bad deal and once Arte let them off the hook, they didn’t feel the need to jump back on. 

Is it also possible the Dodgers knew it was a bad deal even before Arte let them off the hook, and would have nixed or altered the deal after the Boston/Minnesota deals were complete but have no reason to admit it to you or any other reporters?

[kevinb]

4 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Most certainly the Angels were staying close to the Dodgers during the Dodgers adjustments to the Betts deal.

I still personally find it not very believable that the Dodgers didn’t ever indicate at all during that process (as the final adjustments to the Betts deal we’re developing and emerging) that their deal with the Angels wasn’t really necessary.

If the Dodgers gave any indication at all that their need or motivation for the Angel trade was changing, it 100% justifies the Angels pulling out basically saying there is no reason to be on hold when there is no guarantee we actually have the deal we discussed.

I believe the sources that say Arte pulled out.  It still seems a bit absurd to assume he pulled out without a valid reason. . .like there is no reason to keep hanging around on hold for a deal they have indicated isn’t actually set anymore.

 

Haven't we been over this like a million times. How many of these threads need to hit 100 pages?  

[Dtwncbad]

7 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Haven't we been over this like a million times. How many of these threads need to hit 100 pages?  

All pages in February will hit 100 pages.  It’s February.

[Dtwncbad]

9 minutes ago, True Grich said:

The day Lyle Lovett married Julia Roberts everything changed.  Anything became viable or feasible from that point on.

Except that also ended up fully explained.

Lovett is hung like a horse, and Roberts has a horse mouth.

If you stick with it looking for the truth, you usually find the rational answer.

[Jay]

22 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

It still seems a bit absurd to assume he pulled out without a valid reason.

[Dtwncbad]

Fully hypothetical question:

If the Angels announce a trade for a good starting pitcher in a week, will the media automatically assume this new trade was a recovery move from the failed deal with the Dodgers?

Or will they dig deeper to find out if something was developing while the Angels were stuck in purgatory with the Dodgers, to the point where It made sense to bail out of purgatory to pursue the new deal?

Again, totally hypothetical and I am not saying this is actually what happened.

I am just a mental slave to considering things that actually explain things and make sense rather than just blindly accept storylines that don’t quite add up.

My guess is the “Arte is a nut job” narrative is just too valuable for for the media to give up.  

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

Fully hypothetical question:

If the Angels announce a trade for a good starting pitcher in a week, will the media automatically assume this new trade was a recovery move from the failed deal with the Dodgers?

Or will they dig deeper to find out if something was developing while the Angels were stuck in purgatory with the Dodgers, to the point where It made sense to bail out of purgatory to pursue the new deal?

Again, totally hypothetical and I am not saying this is actually what happened.

I am just a mental slave to considering things that actually explain things and make sense rather than just blindly accept storylines that don’t quite add up.

My guess is the “Arte is a nut job” narrative is just too valuable for for the media to give up.  

It’s going to depend on the cost to acquire the player.  So lets say the Angels trade Rengifo for Chris Archer, it will be assumed this was because the Angels had to make a move after they screwed up.  If the Angels give up Marsh for Gray it will be that Eppler panicked or Arte forced his hand.  Now if the Angels trade Rengifo and get Archer there will be outrage.  Then if Archer pitches well this season the outrage will only last until Archer is bad again and Stripling has a good start.