From the LA Times.
Article headline: Dodgers won't be pursuing John Lackey
Article content:
[LA's team president] said that would rule out Lackey "unless there is an effective way to make that kind of deal."
In other words, the Dodgers won't try to sign John Lackey unless it makes sense for them, and unless they can get him at what they perceive to be a fair and decent deal.
So, the Dodgers won't do anything that they perceive as being "outlandish" and irresponsible.
This is a quote that says nothing. Nothing at all. It's a team president saying the team won't do something the team thinks is stupid. Mannion might as well have said "We can't get him, unless we can." And yet someone at the Times thought this was enough to support such a concrete, assertive headline.
This isn't a big issue on its own or anything. John Lackey almost certainly will not be going to LA. It's just symptomatic of what I hate most about this time of the year - people making far too much out of far too little. I get it. Rumors are fun. People like to talk about roster change. But this business of trying to make little things out to be bigger than they are really soaks my socks. Quit it. Quit it. Just quit it. It sucks. Be honest.
0 recs | 20 comments
Soaks your socks?
Goose - November 19, 2009
Wet socks are horrible
Jeff Sullivan - November 19, 2009
I do not disagree.
This is just the first time I’ve heard that phrase used that way and it caught me off guard.
Goose - November 19, 2009
I'm going to be quoted with a dash, the way Hedberg always wanted
Jeff Sullivan - November 19, 2009
This is just in: LL moderator/writer hates socks and people who wear them?
Slurvey - November 19, 2009
I love that particular expression.
royalcurve - November 19, 2009
This is exactly why I hate rumors, rumor threads, and anything rumor-related.
This is not a rumor. This is a bored sportswriter.
pdb - November 19, 2009
All in all I think the writer did a reasonable job
He (and the headline guy) just need to try harder to avoid making declarative statements where they don’t belong.
Jeff Sullivan - November 19, 2009
but but but
there’s no story here! Reporting that a team isn’t going to make a move is kinda like reporting that a plane didn’t crash today.
pdb - November 19, 2009
At its heart, it was a story about how the Dodgers aren't likely to have much money to spend this winter
Jeff Sullivan - November 19, 2009
Which is fine but I wish they'd leave it at that and leave out stupid shit like who they won't be able to spend money on
This just in: I won’t be buying a BMW 735csi tomorrow!
pdb - November 19, 2009
"I think I'll get a Snickers tomorrow if I have the money. But I rarely carry cash."
Jeff Sullivan spurns Snickers bar, refuses possibility of purchase
Jeff Sullivan - November 19, 2009
Make sure to carry cash then!
Dewey N - November 19, 2009
No cash? But you aren't married.
Sec 108 - November 20, 2009
He never said he didn't have money
he just doesn’t carry cash. I try to avoid carrying cash if at all possible. Makes going out to eat with coworkers annoying though since it complicates splitting the bill.
bluemax - November 20, 2009
I also did not say I have no money.
Sec 108 - November 20, 2009
The problem is they have to act like they have inside information so it makes it seem like they're actually providing something a person can't just look up on the internet
Most people could come to the conclusion on their own that the Dodgers can’t afford Lackey. But if they want to be employed for the baseball offseason they sorta need to act like they’re providing something on a weekly basis.
OlSalty - November 19, 2009
Pravda goes the straightforward route:
“Mariners remain mum on FA intentions:
With money coming off of books, GM won’t show his hand”
msb - November 20, 2009
To play devil's advocate
Isn’t there some value to the statement in the larger context of MLB GM’s? Yesterday Theo Epstein was quoted as saying “[Jason Bay] is a priority [for the Red Sox]”. Now, I think Epstein is a smart guy, and I doubt that he means “We will pay Jason Bay whatever it takes, regardless of our budget”, but I do think that says he’s going to be negotiating with Bay, willing to up the ante at least somewhat, even if not something he considers “outlandish”. I take the Dodgers statement quoted above to be essentially “I guess if he came by the office and offered his services for a reasonable price we wouldn’t say no”, and to say that he is not going to make a hard push for Lackey. Sure, the statement doesn’t exactly say that, but it’s not unreasonable to read between the lines, is it?
el generico - November 20, 2009
Not unreasonable but utterly pointless
pdb - November 20, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.