Jump to content

IdahoBert

2019-2020 OFFSEASON DISCUSSION THREAD

Recommended Posts


19 minutes ago, Shelton said:

What the ****. 

Yeah, it was low hanging fruit. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, at least I’m not so far up my own *** that I think NPR is part of the conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy was accused of hitting a woman and therefore should never be able to work again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Buddha said:

The guy was accused of hitting a woman and therefore should never be able to work again. 

exactly. This is another emerging issue with digital media now - the past never becomes part of a past that is dimmer. Nothing ever recedes into the background noise of a past that is dying the way it used to,  and we haven't figured out any rules for how it's supposed to work. On the criminal side the theory is you do your restitution or your time and at the end you are 'rehabilitated' (at least in the State's eyes) and you should be free to "resume life". But what are the rules for today's cultural sins? We don't have a social priesthood who can assign a penance and grant absolution like the RCC assigned Rosarys and Hail Marys. Even Oprah probably can't offer absolution worth the candle....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not following that line of thinking.  The story now is that this reporter was wearing a DV wristband. She would tweet out DV hotline numbers when he came in to pitch. He didn’t like that and complained.  Then at the end of the night he sees her with some other reporters and starts saying these things, unprovoked.   And they wrote about it. 
 

what exactly did he do right and they do wrong?  Why did he feel the need to do that?  
 

should she have not had the wristband? Or tweet the hotline numbers?  Or write the story?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was upset about it and yelled something.  Someone was offended.  He apologized.

End of story.  Move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Buddha said:

He was upset about it and yelled something.  Someone was offended.  He apologized.

End of story.  Move on.

Upset about what?  They weren’t talking about him or writing stories about him at that point.  He’s the one who made it an issue by bringing it up yet you feel the need to go after the women in this situation as if they did something wrong

youve been Lindsey Grahamed. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

exactly. This is another emerging issue with digital media now - the past never becomes part of a past that is dimmer. Nothing ever recedes into the background noise of a past that is dying the way it used to,  and we haven't figured out any rules for how it's supposed to work. On the criminal side the theory is you do your restitution or your time and at the end you are 'rehabilitated' (at least in the State's eyes) and you should be free to "resume life". But what are the rules for today's cultural sins? We don't have a social priesthood who can assign a penance and grant absolution like the RCC assigned Rosarys and Hail Marys. Even Oprah probably can't offer absolution worth the candle....

Send him to "therapy."  Or "sensitivity training."

That's how we absolve our sins nowadays, with consultants from Korn Ferry teaching us how not to be mean to people, or somebody with a PhD in psychology showing us how to be more "empathetic."

Hail diversity and inclusion, full of grace...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Oblong said:

Upset about what?  They weren’t talking about him or writing stories about him at that point.  He’s the one who made it an issue by bringing it up yet you feel the need to go after the women in this situation as if they did something wrong

youve been Lindsey Grahamed. 
 

 

Lindsey Grahamed?  What's that supposed to mean?

He apologized, that should be the end of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn’t apologize until tonight. A half assed one. 
 

the story wasn’t Osuna. It was this guy acting like a jackass and the Astros calling the reporters liars.  This on top of them violating the CBA with the Verlander thing. They have a PR problem.  
 

in this case the Astros acted just like the RCC.  They lied about it and only when confronted with more proof said “oops...” 

you don’t get to act like a jerk, deny it, then half admit to something, then say “move on”.  That’s chicken ****.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Oblong said:

He didn’t apologize until tonight. A half assed one. 
 

the story wasn’t Osuna. It was this guy acting like a jackass and the Astros calling the reporters liars.  This on top of them violating the CBA with the Verlander thing. They have a PR problem.  
 

in this case the Astros acted just like the RCC.  They lied about it and only when confronted with more proof said “oops...” 

you don’t get to act like a jerk, deny it, then half admit to something, then say “move on”.  That’s chicken ****.  

So how does that mean I've been Lindsey Grahamed?  I don't get it.

I made my statement about Osuna even if this particular part of the story wasn't about him.  If the Astros dude feels a little peeved that these reporters decided to tweet stuff about domestic violence every time Osuna pitched, I have no problem with that either.  I might be a little bit peeved about that too.  

Actually, you DO get to "act like a jerk, deny it, then half admit to something" apologize and then move on.  That's how the world should work, IMO.  You apologize and move on.  I guess I don't know how genuine your apology must appear before it is accepted as true.

I don't need him to get fired.  I don't need him to fake genuflect and pray forgiveness if someone was offended.  Say your piece and move on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I don't think it plausible at all, FWIW.

I agree. I am a statistician though, so there is always some kind of non-zero probability. I will say less than one tenth of one percent plausible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Buddha said:

The guy was accused of hitting a woman and therefore should never be able to work again. 

 strawman nonsense

if the bro did not feel a need to stick it to some broad who was critical of the trade, then this would not be a story 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CMRivdog said:

After a bit of research on Wikipedia, the Evansville franchise was purchased by Larry Schmittou and moved to Nashville. This was in 1984. Basically subpar seasons and low attendance caused Nashville to terminate their relationship.

I guess Toledo was available then.

Yes, true.  Detroit wanted to move operations closer.  Minnesota went from Toledo to Portland, but that was after its contract ran out and Detroit moved its AAA affiliation to Toledo.

But how Detroit moved out of Toledo to begin with is what mystifies me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tiger337 said:

I agree. I am a statistician though, so there is always some kind of non-zero probability. I will say less than one tenth of one percent plausible.  

Here's the thing, if the reporters were that worried about how the hypothetical true story would sully the World Series, they either would have just simply killed the story or waited until after the Series to report it.

The idea that they colluded with the Astros management -> the assistant GM agreed to be the fall guy is simply way too convoluted (and far too much risk to blow up in their faces) relative to the other options.  I don't even know who thinks like that anyway.

But it seems like chas might be indicating his comment was sarcasm?  Not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RatkoVarda said:

 strawman nonsense

if the bro did not feel a need to stick it to some broad who was critical of the trade, then this would not be a story 

 

Pretty much.  He acted immaturely and it bit him in the ***.

I don't know if that should cause him to lose his job, but if it does, I think it has to do a lot more with the public nature of the industry, which he certainly knew of when he took the job, than PC crap run amuck.

Rightly or wrongly, when in a role that exposes one / one's organization to the public, there are higher standards expected for how one comports oneself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how we're supposed to "move on" less than 24 hours after the story broke... as if this had been dragged through the media for weeks and weeks...

I bet if Taubman and the Astros, when contacted originally, had said something like "Yeah, I acted like a jerk, sorry, I was probably 2/3 drunk, was excited, emotional, and I overracted.  I apologize." the story would have been a lot different.

But they were incapable of doing that because of their ego. They get called out on that, exposed, then want to quickly change the subject.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you guys take this Astros assistant GM discussion to Facebook, where it belongs?  We just want to talk baseball, homies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Pretty much.  He acted immaturely and it bit him in the ***.

I don't know if that should cause him to lose his job, but if it does, I think it has to do a lot more with the public nature of the industry, which he certainly knew of when he took the job, than PC crap run amuck.

Rightly or wrongly, when in a role that exposes one / one's organization to the public, there are higher standards expected for how one comports oneself. 

so here is the question which strikes me more and more the more I think about this: What did Taubman actually do? He yelled to a reporter that he was glad the team signed Osuna. There is a fair interpretation here that this is sin that is strictly in the eye of a particularly biased beholder. In what way did he create any tort, threat, verbal assault, or injury? By his crudity? Ridiculous - they are sports reporters right?  Do those words actually insult or threaten the hearer in any way at all? They are about Taubman and his feelings about signing Osuna. They have no direct implication to the listener at all. Are we at the point where anything less than being "sweetums" to people 24/7 is going to be career ending?  Sure you can make assumptions and draw inferences any way you like about what the past history of the parties may or may not indicate the communication may have signified to the parties - but the objective reality is that to an unbiased objective hearer  - say a jury of 12 people dropped at random into the situation, where do you find an actionable cause? That he used bad language in an environment where that it is endemic? That he may be a fan of one of his own players who may have issues? There's a scoop - not. 

I go back to the fact that I don't think what he did made any sense, but that is whole different argument that there was even anything to apologize for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

so here is the question which strikes me more and more the more I think about this: What did Taubman actually do? He yelled to a reporter that he was glad the team signed Osuna. There is a fair interpretation here that this is sin that is strictly in the eye of a particularly biased beholder. In what way did he create any tort, threat, verbal assault, or injury? By his crudity? Ridiculous - they are sports reporters right?  Do those words actually insult or threaten the hearer in any way at all? They are about Taubman and his feelings about signing Osuna. They have no direct implication to the listener at all. Are we at the point where anything less than being "sweetums" to people 24/7 is going to be career ending?  Sure you can make assumptions and draw inferences any way you like about what the past history of the parties may or may not indicate the communication may have signified to the parties - but the objective reality is that to an unbiased objective hearer  - say a jury of 12 people dropped at random into the situation, where do you find the actionable cause? That he used bad language in an environment were that is rife? That he may be a fan of one of his own players who may have issues? There's a scoop - not.

I go back to the fact that I don't think what he did made any sense, but that is whole different argument that there was even anything to apologize for.

now youve been lindsay grahmed too!  whatever that means.

a woman felt bad so he must be fired.  i mean, she's a WOMAN, and therefore must be protected and sheltered from any type of behavior that might cause her some offense.  poor lil woman.  ask our favorite tigers twitter reporter emily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if it were John Rocker, post SI racism comments, and a black or gay reporter questioned it, then this kind of thing happened where the assistant GM openly taunted the reporter about it?  

Would we be saying "get over it"?  Doubt it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't there, so appropriate sized grain of salt and all of that...

...it reads to me he was being a jackass, and it sounds like unprovoked one at that.

We can parse out the words and ask what the line is, and those are fine, fair and good questions to ask.  But the guy, by the accounts I have read, made sure this reporter knew in no uncertain terms that he supported acquiring Osuna, and the express purpose of that was to let her know he thought her cause, as it were, was horses**t.

That's why he did it, and he did it in a fit of pique. 

Honest question - do you guys think that characterization is fair?  Let me know if you disagree.

 

Moving forward, should he be fired?  I personally don't think so.

But I am not in that universe and maybe that is the understood penalty for being a d**k publically given his role in the org.  Ultimately it is the Astros decision to make and I don't care enough to guess or speculate at what they will do or why they will do it.

 

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...