Jump to content

A.J.K.

Inge "livid" over Cabrera position switch

Recommended Posts

Can this discussion go back to the Tigers' lineup choices and away from A.J.K.'s thread title?

This is hardly the worst thread title ever or even all that misleading. Talk about a thread-jacking.

THANK. YOU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chasfh, I think the fact that you have to base your faith in the article solely on Rosenthal's position as a professional writer is exactly what makes this article, let's say "unfinished." He should've left out Inge entirely except as it pertained to the position switch. If one is going to apply terms like "livid" and "infuriate," I think it should be born out of some visible and communicable reality. His source could be from the NL for all we know, and nothing about Inge's performance or demeanor yesterday gave me the impression he was anything Rosenthal implied.

Do you expect Inge to wear his unhappiness on his sleeve for all to see? That would be highly unprofessional, wouldn't it? Just because there's no visible manifestation of his extreme unhappiness does not mean it's not there.

Do you really believe that if some major league source, possibly Inge himself, said that he was terribly unhappy about the move, that Rosenthal should not say anything because the source won't go on record by name? If you honestly believe that, that's a rather naive view of how journalism does or should work.

My belief in the article's veracity is not binary -- meaning that either I believe everything he writes 100% or believe absolutely nothing. What I am saying is that I would bet that Rosenthal is not lying in this article, by dint of his professional responsibility for his own credibility and that of his employer. He's not a blogger who can say anything he damn well pleases -- there has to be at least some truth to what he's saying, even if he can't name the source.

Believe me, if writers were prevented from writing anything without naming sources, we would know nearly nothing about what goes on with a team during the season (or business or government or any number of institutions, for that matter) because no one would be speaking the real truth about anything, for fear of reprisal. Almost everything written about anything would be sanitized, politically-motivated pablum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*sigh*

Anything else I should have done differently today? I'm thinking maybe I should have gone with black socks instead of white.

You should have had a V-8!

:laugh: LMAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Livid, like skyrocket, is a favorite journalist's term. It makes Inge seem red faced furious about things. I would guess he might be irritated, or troubled, by the move, but that doesn't demand the same level of attention as describing someone as livid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's funny that the first game they played after the switch was announced Brandon was at 3B, Guillen was at 1B and Cabrera DH'd.

I mean, I know why, but it's still funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can this discussion go back to the Tigers' lineup choices and away from A.J.K.'s thread title?

This is hardly the worst thread title ever or even all that misleading. Talk about a thread-jacking.

No problem. Here's a couple things:

I think the .250 hitter Inge shouldn't start ahead of Guillen or Cabrera at 3B. Inge is a super-sub on this team. He'll get substantial playing time either way based on the way Leyland likes to rest people.

Personally, I hope Inge IS livid - it'll probably make him play better.

Saying a guy is livid because he doesn't get to play is a waste of space. Show me a happy bench warmer. Even the best of 'team players' would rather be playing than sitting the pine. It's not news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inge is playing a lot better this year now that he thinks he's been disrespected. Maybe this is all a ploy to keep Inge angry :cheeky:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's funny that the first game they played after the switch was announced Brandon was at 3B, Guillen was at 1B and Cabrera DH'd.

I mean, I know why, but it's still funny.

I never heard the reason for this. Can you fill me in? I didn't make any sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're sarcastic, right?

Sheffield didn't play yesterday.

I know Sheff didn't play. I was wondering more about Guillen at first over Cabrera the day after they announced the switch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should have FedEx'd me some Bell's beer overnight.

:happy: I've been meaning to stop by the brewery all week! This great weather is fantastic out in the beer garden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:happy: I've been meaning to stop by the brewery all week! This great weather is fantastic out in the beer garden.

I can't think of many things better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody is 'crucifying' you. I'm just pointing what you did. But since you invited us to do so (But go ahead and crucify me if you must) I'll expand.

You put the entire article in your original post, deliberately leaving out the title so you could ostensibly CHANGE it when you named the thread. Yes you did put the link in there, but many people will just read the article that you copied and pasted. So some people might believe the thread title was the actual title of the article - which it wasn't.

Look, you consciously decided to change that title and name the thread. You did it to make the article seem as though it was about Inge, and it puts him in a bad light. But when you read the article - Inge is a secondary subject at best, isn't quoted, and Rosenthal doesn't even name a source. One line (from a total of two sentences on Inge) from a 672 word article isn't "Exhibit A", it's the ONLY Exhibit. So here we have a whole thread on INGE BEING LIVID - and we have no evidence it's even remotely true or accurate.

Edgar Renteria is mentioned - according to your logic, I should post that article, edit out the title and start a thread titled "Renteria's range is below-average, Tigers need mobile third baseman."

Exhibit A: "Renteria, whose range to his right is below-average, increasing the need for a mobile third baseman."

Sorry, the more I think about it the more I think the one out here doing the crucifying was you - and it was Inge you were trying to nail to the cross.

Nice job... I agree 100%. The thread title was changed to stir up controversy.

And for that matter, it succeeded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we're still stuck in the stone ages where if a "national" guy says it then there must be some merit to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't think of many things better.

Is Chicago still Bells-less? I don't know what's up with that. Some sort of distributor war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice job... I agree 100%. The thread title was changed to stir up controversy.

And for that matter, it succeeded

I thought the thread title was appropriate. Nothing else in the article was interesting whatsoever. I never considered Inge's reaction after the move. if the thread was not titled as such, I wouldn't have clicked on it. Just because there is no quote, doesn't mean that he hadn't told anyone he is pissed (or livid).

I think most people have to ability to read an article and make their own judgments without being overly influenced by a pithy thread title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know Sheff didn't play. I was wondering more about Guillen at first over Cabrera the day after they announced the switch.

yeah... why not DH Guillen, and play Cabs at 1st?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought the thread title was appropriate. Nothing else in the article was interesting whatsoever. I never considered Inge's reaction after the move. if the thread was not titled as such, I wouldn't have clicked on it. Just because there is no quote, doesn't mean that he hadn't told anyone he is pissed (or livid).

I think most people have to ability to read an article and make their own judgments without being overly influenced by a pithy thread title.

true. I often find, however, that an article's title is the quickest way to see an author's (or editor's or poster's) bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is Chicago still Bells-less? I don't know what's up with that. Some sort of distributor war?

There are a few beers available under a different trade name. Bell's disagreement with it's current distributor has prevented it from selling Bell's brands. But Bell's believes that it does not prevent them from selling new brands under a different trade name. I have a six pack of Kalamazoo Royal Amber Ale in my fridge right now. Kalamazoo Porter is available on tap just around the corner. It's not as good as having them all, obviously, but it's better than nothing. I'm still waiting for Kalamazoo unfiltered wheat considering it's spring time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you expect Inge to wear his unhappiness on his sleeve for all to see? That would be highly unprofessional, wouldn't it? Just because there's no visible manifestation of his extreme unhappiness does not mean it's not there.

Do you really believe that if some major league source, possibly Inge himself, said that he was terribly unhappy about the move, that Rosenthal should not say anything because the source won't go on record by name? If you honestly believe that, that's a rather naive view of how journalism does or should work.

My belief in the article's veracity is not binary -- meaning that either I believe everything he writes 100% or believe absolutely nothing. What I am saying is that I would bet that Rosenthal is not lying in this article, by dint of his professional responsibility for his own credibility and that of his employer. He's not a blogger who can say anything he damn well pleases -- there has to be at least some truth to what he's saying, even if he can't name the source.

Believe me, if writers were prevented from writing anything without naming sources, we would know nearly nothing about what goes on with a team during the season (or business or government or any number of institutions, for that matter) because no one would be speaking the real truth about anything, for fear of reprisal. Almost everything written about anything would be sanitized, politically-motivated pablum.

Here is the problem.

Tonight, Inge is going to get asked, 'Are you livid?"

Inge will say, "No, not at all...next question please." Guaranteed.

Rosenthal should known by quoting unnamed sources and using 'unfiltered' wording like 'livid' (and with him being a 'national' reporter) the story will get back to Brandon...and Brandon regardless of validity will shoot it down.

It may be factual, but you know being a reporter yourself, it was ill-advised. They'll both be backed into a corner, and one lying...and they will both end up looking bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to dictionary.com, the sixth definition for livid is:

deathly pale; pallid; ashen

So maybe this unnamed source was actually referring to Inge being terrified of getting cut from the team, or something like that.

I mean, sure, livid is typically used to describe anger and rage, but I think it's a bit presumptuous of us to assume that this unnamed source was intending the most common definition of the word.

:wink::grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know Sheff didn't play. I was wondering more about Guillen at first over Cabrera the day after they announced the switch.

Maybe it was done because putting Guillen at dh and Inge at third the day after the announcement would make it look like Inge was the new 3B or that Leyland didn't trust Guillen at third. This way it just makes it look like he was giving Cabrera a rest. I don't know. I'm just trying to think like Leyland here and that's something I haven't figured out how to do yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the problem.

Tonight, Inge is going to get asked, 'Are you livid?"

Inge will say, "No, not at all...next question please." Guaranteed.

Rosenthal should known by quoting unnamed sources and using 'unfiltered' wording like 'livid' (and with him being a 'national' reporter) the story will get back to Brandon...and Brandon regardless of validity will shoot it down.

It may be factual, but you know being a reporter yourself, it was ill-advised. They'll both be backed into a corner, and one lying...and they will both end up looking bad.

Now onto analyzing the mind of Ken Rosenthal. Nice. Personally, I would've found a Flight of the Conchords .jpg better but that's just my taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...