Comments on: Marquee Is in the Eye of the Beholder http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html Blogging the San Diego Padres baseball club. Established 1997. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 07:54:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Tom Waits http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162628 Tom Waits Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:55:17 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162628 83: Not to keep going at you, but it says what the agreement was. $20,000 each from management’s proceeds, with the Red Sox making up the difference and paying some of the other team personnel making the trip.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-162628">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> 83: Not to keep going at you, but it says what the agreement was.

$20,000 each from management’s proceeds, with the Red Sox making up the difference and paying some of the other team personnel making the trip.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Phantom http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162627 Phantom Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:49:47 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162627 81: You're right, it says an agreement was reached yesterday. It doesn't say what the agreement was. This could be me splitting hairs, but I still think this whole thing was blown out of context by both the players and the media. There's no mention of what the "agreement" was. It could have been the players being told that the coaches weren't getting paid what they were and that they misunderstood. It could have been MLB just then agreeing to pay the coaches something. We don't know. Regardless, I'll say I was wrong.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-162627">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> 81: You’re right, it says an agreement was reached yesterday. It doesn’t say what the agreement was. This could be me splitting hairs, but I still think this whole thing was blown out of context by both the players and the media. There’s no mention of what the “agreement” was. It could have been the players being told that the coaches weren’t getting paid what they were and that they misunderstood. It could have been MLB just then agreeing to pay the coaches something. We don’t know.

Regardless, I’ll say I was wrong.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Tom Waits http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162624 Tom Waits Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:45:54 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162624 80, 81: And another one: http://tinyurl.com/394ekt Here's an excerpt: "Major League Baseball agreed to pay the managers, coaches and trainers on the trip $20,000 each from management's proceeds, a person familiar with the agreement said, speaking on condition of anonymity because details weren't announced. The Red Sox agreed to make up the difference to make the amount equal, and to pay some of the other team personnel making the trip, the person said." The Red Sox sure as heck didn't agree to "make up the difference" 5 months ago. 5 months ago they didn't know there was a difference to be made up. They're talking about the deal that was reached yesterday.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-162624">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> 80, 81: And another one:

http://tinyurl.com/394ekt

Here’s an excerpt:

“Major League Baseball agreed to pay the managers, coaches and trainers on the trip $20,000 each from management’s proceeds, a person familiar with the agreement said, speaking on condition of anonymity because details weren’t announced. The Red Sox agreed to make up the difference to make the amount equal, and to pay some of the other team personnel making the trip, the person said.”

The Red Sox sure as heck didn’t agree to “make up the difference” 5 months ago. 5 months ago they didn’t know there was a difference to be made up. They’re talking about the deal that was reached yesterday.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Tom Waits http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162623 Tom Waits Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:42:39 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162623 79: If you understood what ellipses were, why the overreaction? There's absolutely nothing that got cut that has anything to do with the agreement, but you acted like I was hiding something, like the information cut was somehow germane to whether the agreement being talked about was reached months ago or yesterday. If 99% of people are interpreting the article one way, it ain't that easy to interpret the other way. You gotta be trying. Here's another story that explicitly says an agreement was reached yesterday. http://www.projo.com/redsox/content/projo_20080319_japan.5f3f1b9.html<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-162623">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> 79: If you understood what ellipses were, why the overreaction? There’s absolutely nothing that got cut that has anything to do with the agreement, but you acted like I was hiding something, like the information cut was somehow germane to whether the agreement being talked about was reached months ago or yesterday.

If 99% of people are interpreting the article one way, it ain’t that easy to interpret the other way. You gotta be trying.

Here’s another story that explicitly says an agreement was reached yesterday.

http://www.projo.com/redsox/co.....3f1b9.html

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Phantom http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162620 Phantom Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:33:49 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162620 I'm totally willing to admit I'm wrong if someone can show me an article that says the agreement was just met yesterday. Given what I have read, I don't feel that I am wrong in the way I've interpreted this.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-162620">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> I’m totally willing to admit I’m wrong if someone can show me an article that says the agreement was just met yesterday. Given what I have read, I don’t feel that I am wrong in the way I’ve interpreted this.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Phantom http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162618 Phantom Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:30:49 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162618 78: Look, I understand the ellipses. I would really appreciate it if you didn't have to assault my intellect just because we disagree. Based on the way that article is presented, a person could easily interpret it one of two ways. If the deal had been arranged only yesterday, I would think it would be more explicitly stated. The other quote that gives me pause about whether or not the agreement was reached yesterday is Lucchino's quote: “It was a misunderstanding of what agreement was reached between MLB and the MLBPA,” Red Sox president Larry Lucchino said. “We said we would step up and make sure a second pool was created and would seek contributions from all parties.”" And, unfortunately, most articles that inlcuded the Red Sox's initial reactions have all been changed to reflect the fact that their boycotting is finished. I do not explicitly remember what was said yesterday, but I thought I had read (and again, since apparently I can't comprehend things) some pretty inflammatory things from one side to the other.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-162618">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> 78: Look, I understand the ellipses. I would really appreciate it if you didn’t have to assault my intellect just because we disagree. Based on the way that article is presented, a person could easily interpret it one of two ways. If the deal had been arranged only yesterday, I would think it would be more explicitly stated. The other quote that gives me pause about whether or not the agreement was reached yesterday is Lucchino’s quote:

“It was a misunderstanding of what agreement was reached between MLB and the MLBPA,” Red Sox president Larry Lucchino said. “We said we would step up and make sure a second pool was created and would seek contributions from all parties.””

And, unfortunately, most articles that inlcuded the Red Sox’s initial reactions have all been changed to reflect the fact that their boycotting is finished. I do not explicitly remember what was said yesterday, but I thought I had read (and again, since apparently I can’t comprehend things) some pretty inflammatory things from one side to the other.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Tom Waits http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162614 Tom Waits Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:22:29 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162614 75: Oh, I don't doubt that you're struggling. Of course that's not an exact quote, there's a lot of detail in between. That's why the ellipses in the middle. That's what ellipses mean. It means something was cut out because it's irrelevant. But that's the flow of the facts. There's absolutely NOTHING in the intervening text that suggests there were was an earlier agreement to pay the coaches 20K. You point to one single thing in the text represented by my ellipses that suggests there was an earlier agreement to pay them 20K and the players tried to change the terms. Let's look in detail: "and the Red Sox took the field one hour late for a 4-3 loss to Toronto before a crowd of 7,868." Nope. "Across the country in Phoenix, Athletics players also considered a boycott. " Nope. "They didn’t take batting practice and held five team meetings before following Boston’s lead and deciding to play." Nope. "An Oakland split squad lost 6-1 to the Los Angeles Angels in front of 7,940 fans before leaving for Tokyo." Nope. "'The players just stepped up and they did what I think was right,” Boston bench coach Brad Mills said." Nope. 76: Character assassination is impugning a person's character. When did they do that? Did they call Bud Selig or Bob DuPuy a bad name? Even accuse him of being a cheat? I haven't seen a story like that. I've seen stories where the players said "This isn't what we were told would happen." If that's assassination, there would be a lot more dead characters around. Maybe I missed some stories.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-162614">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> 75: Oh, I don’t doubt that you’re struggling.

Of course that’s not an exact quote, there’s a lot of detail in between. That’s why the ellipses in the middle. That’s what ellipses mean. It means something was cut out because it’s irrelevant.

But that’s the flow of the facts. There’s absolutely NOTHING in the intervening text that suggests there were was an earlier agreement to pay the coaches 20K. You point to one single thing in the text represented by my ellipses that suggests there was an earlier agreement to pay them 20K and the players tried to change the terms. Let’s look in detail:

“and the Red Sox took the field one hour late for a 4-3 loss to Toronto before a crowd of 7,868.”

Nope.

“Across the country in Phoenix, Athletics players also considered a boycott. ”

Nope.

“They didn’t take batting practice and held five team meetings before following Boston’s lead and deciding to play.”

Nope.

“An Oakland split squad lost 6-1 to the Los Angeles Angels in front of 7,940 fans before leaving for Tokyo.”

Nope.

“‘The players just stepped up and they did what I think was right,” Boston bench coach Brad Mills said.”

Nope.

76: Character assassination is impugning a person’s character. When did they do that? Did they call Bud Selig or Bob DuPuy a bad name? Even accuse him of being a cheat? I haven’t seen a story like that. I’ve seen stories where the players said “This isn’t what we were told would happen.” If that’s assassination, there would be a lot more dead characters around. Maybe I missed some stories.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Phantom http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162611 Phantom Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:12:38 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162611 76: And it's bad journalism.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-162611">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> 76: And it’s bad journalism.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Phantom http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162609 Phantom Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:12:16 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162609 74: Where did I get "huge character assisnation"? How about when the article was listed in the headline at CNN? Again, this story would have never got this sort of play without the Red Sox. The Red Sox boycotted. Reporters asked them why. The players gave their side of the story. Reporters printed it wihtout bothering to check with MLB. A normal person then logs onto a media source, reads the story that only quotes players, and assumes that this is the truth. In reality, this might well be only one side of the story. But since the other party wasn't consulted, this side of the story gets endlessly repeated as fact. That's character assassination.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-162609">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> 74: Where did I get “huge character assisnation”? How about when the article was listed in the headline at CNN? Again, this story would have never got this sort of play without the Red Sox.

The Red Sox boycotted. Reporters asked them why. The players gave their side of the story. Reporters printed it wihtout bothering to check with MLB. A normal person then logs onto a media source, reads the story that only quotes players, and assumes that this is the truth. In reality, this might well be only one side of the story. But since the other party wasn’t consulted, this side of the story gets endlessly repeated as fact. That’s character assassination.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Phantom http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162606 Phantom Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:09:43 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/03/marquee-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.html#comment-162606 73: I'd just like to point out that the quote you cited did not appear in the article like that. It appeared like this: A couple of hours later, all was resolved, and the Red Sox took the field one hour late for a 4-3 loss to Toronto before a crowd of 7,868. Across the country in Phoenix, Athletics players also considered a boycott. They didn't take batting practice and held five team meetings before following Boston's lead and deciding to play. An Oakland split squad lost 6-1 to the Los Angeles Angels in front of 7,940 fans before leaving for Tokyo. "The players just stepped up and they did what I think was right," Boston bench coach Brad Mills said. Major League Baseball agreed to pay the managers, coaches and trainers on the trip $20,000 each from management's proceeds, a person familiar with the agreement said, speaking on condition of anonymity because details weren't announced. The Red Sox agreed to make up the difference to make the amount equal, and to pay some of the other team personnel making the trip, the person said." "A couple hours later, it was all resolved" is not immediately followed by the deal. The deal isn't mentioned for several paragraphs. I really am struggling to understand how my comprehension of this article is way off. If the paragraph was printed as you suggested, then I could totally see that I'm completely misinterpreting this. But it's not printed that way. It's not even close.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-162606">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> 73: I’d just like to point out that the quote you cited did not appear in the article like that. It appeared like this:

A couple of hours later, all was resolved, and the Red Sox took the field one hour late for a 4-3 loss to Toronto before a crowd of 7,868.

Across the country in Phoenix, Athletics players also considered a boycott. They didn’t take batting practice and held five team meetings before following Boston’s lead and deciding to play. An Oakland split squad lost 6-1 to the Los Angeles Angels in front of 7,940 fans before leaving for Tokyo.

“The players just stepped up and they did what I think was right,” Boston bench coach Brad Mills said.

Major League Baseball agreed to pay the managers, coaches and trainers on the trip $20,000 each from management’s proceeds, a person familiar with the agreement said, speaking on condition of anonymity because details weren’t announced. The Red Sox agreed to make up the difference to make the amount equal, and to pay some of the other team personnel making the trip, the person said.”

“A couple hours later, it was all resolved” is not immediately followed by the deal. The deal isn’t mentioned for several paragraphs. I really am struggling to understand how my comprehension of this article is way off. If the paragraph was printed as you suggested, then I could totally see that I’m completely misinterpreting this. But it’s not printed that way. It’s not even close.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]>