Non-Transactions
by Jay on May 16, 2008 12:41 AM EDT
in Events
Email
PrintDid not trade LHP Aaron Laffey to Anyone for Anything
Did not acquire 3B Garret Atkins from the Colorado Rockies for LHP Aaron Laffey or Anyone Else
Did not discuss trading LHP Aaron Laffey at any point this season
Did not even get quoted off-the-record about trading LHP Aaron Laffey
Did not trade LHP Aaron Laffey
Would be crazy to trade LHP Aaron Laffey
Will badly need LHP Aaron Laffey next season when Sabathia and Byrd are gone
Will not be trading LHP Aaron Laffey
I hope this clears things up.
Why is this even a story?
This started with Buster Olney, who wrote this on his blog last week:
Down the road, one possible move that might make some sense (and to be clear, this is pure speculation): If Colorado eventually turns the page on 2008, the Indians and the Rockies could match up well in a deal built around Garrett Atkins. The Rockies have a third baseman waiting in the wings, in Ian Stewart -- although he is not faring well so far -- and the Indians, as they look for ways to improve their offense, are flexible at first and third base.
Note that Olney:
- Makes very clear that this is pure speculation
- Never mentions Aaron Laffey
So how did Olney's idle speculation which has nothing to do with Aaron Laffey somehow morph into a persistent mumbling that Aaron Laffey might get traded?
Well, the non-news site MLB Trade Rumors picked up on the Olney "story" — that is, the "story" that Olney had engaged in "pure speculation" about something — and yes, that's right, people, that's not a story, and in fact, it's not even a rumor. Nevertheless, no scrap is too slight to bear repeating on MLB Trade Rumors, so they dutifully reported the non-story and non-rumor of Olney's "pure speculation." They then added this:
What would it take for the Indians to acquire Atkins? Adam Miller would be too much. Would Aaron Laffey and Josh Barfield be enough?
Please Note: For those who are sloppy readers or just skimming the site, just because I'm blockquoting the above doesn't make it true. It's not true, and not only is it not true, it's totally idiotic. I'm just blockquoting it because that's what we do here when we're posting a section of anothe article. So the first paragraph of this blockquote is not true, not valid and not important.
From there, it apparently got picked up by someone or other on sports radio, and we know what tremendous standards of reportage those guys have, plus at least one other blog I've never heard of (and here's a hint, buddy, if you're not reporting anything, then it isn't really a "Report," now, is it?).
Let us be clear about something: MLB Trade Rumors is not a news site, just as this site right here is not a news site. We convey news about the Indians, but only as reported by other major news outlets (or, of course, on Facebook).
So the fact that something appears on MLB Trade Rumors doesn't make it a real story. All they do is post links to other people reporting stuff — and sometimes, they're not even links to reports. It could be links to rumors, or things being reported as being rumored, or even just idle speculation, as in this case.
This story? Not only is it not a story, it's not even a rumor. And not only is it not a rumor, even if it were a rumor, Aaron Laffey isn't even in it!
UPDATE: MLB Trade Rumor's creator, Tim Dierkes, points out that the word "speculation" was prominent in the headline of this entry on his site: "Olney Speculation: Atkins A Fit For Indians?" A fair point, but my point was not to say that MLB Trade Rumors was at fault per se, but rather that they're part of a whole system that spread misinformation in this instance, whether or not that's their intent, and it's fair to say that this is a regular occurrence. [Jay]
So, to recap:
- We are not trading for Garret Atkins.
- Nobody has reported that we are trading for Garret Atkins.
- There is no rumor that we are trading for Garret Atkins.
- Nobody has reported that there is a rumor that we are trading for Garret Atkins.
- Only one guy has even speculated that the Indians might be a team that would like to have Garret Atkins.
- That one guy doesn't know much about the Indians, or putting together a ballclub, or OPS+.
- Aaron Laffey is not being traded.
- Nobody has reported that Aaron Laffey is being traded.
- There is no rumor that Aaron Laffey is being traded.
- Nobody has reported that there is a rumor that Aaron Laffey is being traded.
- Nobody has speculated that Aaron Laffey is being traded.
- Even the guy who speculated that the Indians might want Garret Atkins didn't say that the Indians will or would or should trade Aaron Laffey to get him, or to get anybody else.
- Only one web site has suggested that the Indians should consider trading Laffey for Atkins, and that web site just regurgitates web links and has no original sources of any kind.
- And their analysis is stupid.
- And Aaron Laffey is not being traded.
So ... Olney ... MLBTR ... blog I've never heard of ... you all speculated on something stupid, and repeated and linked it mindlessly, and now it's become a rumor based on nothing. Nice work, people.
114 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
“That one guy doesn’t know much about the Indians, or putting together a ballclub, or OPS+.”
Well played, sir.
I’m thinking Laffey for a big bat to help the team this year.
by PatBordersHelmet on May 16, 2008 12:54 AM EDT reply actions
How do we get one of those Pronk Launch widgets? Or the “Ben Francisco Watch”?
Can somebody build a widget called “Ben Francisco Regression Watch” where it just shows his OPS relative to his equivalent OPS based on his minor league stats? So if he was .10 over the widget would say +.10 or -.10?
And, yes, I anticipate 6 sarcastic remarks of “Can you explain the regression watch widget more completely? I don’t think I understand it.”
becasue Robert Smith from the Vikings would have been on the boat already
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on May 16, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Cmon, Robert Smith is a good guy, pre-med and all. He’d been retired for yours before that incident. Besides, he’s a Buckeye and aren’t all Buckeyes choir boys? ;)
You are really stretching to get a joke here.
Not streching – the Viking Robert Smith’s pic was used in the who’s Robert Smith of the Cure? line of posts in the gamethread from Wednesday night … and there’s a boat in the pic.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
I was looking at Laffey’s splits and lefties were batting .074 against him going into today’s game. I would imagine that will decrease some after todays game.
What’s the point in keeping Breslow if we have Laffey?
I don’t understand the question.
Breslow is in the bullpen.
Laffey is in the rotation.
Sowers will be going back down tomorrow.
Something like this happened over here once, although it was always intended as a hoax.
I would note that our papers are much much more obsessed with trade/transfer rumours than you guys seem to be.
Referring back to the Indians…I am pleased that Laffey isn’t going anywhere…he’s certainly increasing his value. Lets hope when they do eventually made Laffey Taffey it doesn’t have the same affect as the Pronk bars!
http://www.on-the-bench.blogspot.com - an irreverant take on EPL football (that's soccer!)
by Luis (Tribe Fan in London) on May 16, 2008 7:27 AM EDT reply actions
Last I heard, trade speculation was one of the fun things about baseball. So if Olney or MLBTR wants to throw out an idea, I’m all for it.
Yes, it’s fun if you keep these things at face value. But when the Internet plays Telephone with a rather inocuous musing by Buster Olney (who is generally very good, btw, at reporting actual trades) and words it like the Indians and Rockies are in heated trade discussions, readers take that post as face value and calls in some sports talk station.
For instance:
Olney: You know, the Indians and Rockies seem to match up with third baseman and starting pitchers.
Rumor Site: I think Laffy for Atkins make sense.
Radio Caller: OMG! The Indians are trading Laffey for Atkins1!
That’s why we stick to actual linked new articles, and include the actual context of the statement.
I got a call from a friend last night without me having any knowledge of these “rumors” saying that he had just heard that the deal went down. Apparently Bruce Drennan (consider the source) was talking about it in very firm terms.
I think that’s the difficulty of separating fact from fiction.
Some people lack that “filter” button that differentiates idle talk from actual action. What’s funny to me is that the “legitimate” news sources are starting to be more of the incendiary sources or just perpetuating the fanning of the fire.
Meanwhile, a place like this cuts through the muck to identify the origin and evolution of the nonsense.
by The DiaTriber on May 16, 2008 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
What’s funny to me is that the "legitimate" news sources are starting to be more of the incendiary sources or just perpetuating the fanning of the fire.
Meanwhile, a place like this cuts through the muck to identify the origin and evolution of the nonsense.
That really is upside down if you think about it. Good point. You just got rec’d.
Steel Nick
Wag The Dog meets MLB trade rumors …
Conrad ‘Connie’ Brean: And it’s most certainly NOT about the B-3 bomber.
John Levy: There is no B-3 bomber.
Conrad ‘Connie’ Brean: I just said that! There is no B-3 bomber. I don’t know how these rumors get started!
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
I don’t mind trade speculation, I like it just fine. But there’s a carelessness here that allows the speculation to become talked about like a news story.
We’ve had to de-bunk this rumor in about six different threads on this site alone — on other sites, it’s probably not getting de-bunked at all. I decided the de-bunking needed to be forceful, and on the front page, which for some folks is all that they read here.
Yeah, you really e-warriored the crap out of this rumor.
by fleerdon on May 16, 2008 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I would be beside myself with joy if Garet Atkins (I’d call him Adkins just for the hell of it) just so I could link back to this post. It would be heavenly.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
You’re still upset that I was right about Hafner, Lee and CC long before there was clear what was going to really happen.
Here’s what I’m trying to say: it next to impossible to predict what will happen in baseball, unless, of course you’re talking about the Indians playing the Yankees. Even I don’t have enough self confidence to be this positive about what might happen on the trade front. I could see this trade happening – and admittedly it’s not even long shot. It’s about as likely as the Rays being in first place in the AL East and the Yankees in last on May 15. Possible, but not very probable.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
It was actually Bruce “Why Do I Have a TV Show” Drennan who picked it up for the non-Internet world to hear. Bruce has a history of running with anything—anything—that he hears as a rumor.
Then radio picked it up. I actually heard them talk about it on the call-in shows, and to their credit both guys said no way they’re giving up Laffey.
I’m glad you squashed this. I tried unsuccessfully to explain the difference between idle speculation and a rumor in the game thread a few nights ago.
Steel Nick
in hindsight i probably shouldnt have said anything…just thought it was interesting and thought provoking at first
There's always next year...and the next year...and the next year...
by HireRockyColavito on May 16, 2008 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions
To add to the speculation, Ken Rosenthal speculates that the Rockies might prefer to trade Matt Holliday and mentions the Indians as a possibly interested party. I hear that the D’backs are trying to unload that Brandon Webb guy. Maybe we could trade for some decent starters while we’re at it—think they’d be interested in Barfield?
I’m going to call up sports radio and float a Laffey for Bonds rumor.
I figure it will be at least an hour before someone points out the obvious.
by PatBordersHelmet on May 16, 2008 10:15 AM EDT reply actions
I’m kind of intrigued by the concept of trolling sports radio.
Not that anyone should ever do that, of course.
Disclaimer: this post doesn't mean what you think it means.
It may seem fun, but each minute of AM sports talk = -1 IQ point. I don’t have any hard data on this, but I’m pretty sure I’ve degraded my intellect quite a bit over the past few years.
by PatBordersHelmet on May 16, 2008 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions
I finally stopped torturing myself with Colin Cowherd. This was a great step forward in my mental health.
Disclaimer: this post doesn't mean what you think it means.
Listening to the local guys in Cleveland is like sitting in the dark, but that Cowherd guys is what I would imagine waterboarding to be like.
by PatBordersHelmet on May 16, 2008 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I seriously punched my radio at least four times in my Cowherd listening career.
I… It was cathartic?
Disclaimer: this post doesn't mean what you think it means.
I very seldom get the signal, but don’t mind them (WTAM) as much anymore. I think they’re better now than they’ve ever been. It’s pretty clear the voices and their interns are mining the blogs, but they’re making an effort to be more insightful and deserve some credit (The -TAM hosts gently mock the callers who insist we should bring Kenny back, for example). AM radio pretty much sucks by definition, but the Cleveland Sports talkers are not especially bad at the craft.
MLBTR. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
by fleerdon on May 16, 2008 1:51 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
it’s not so bad as long as you don’t read it for more than it is. It’s largely a collection of links to other stories, each which have their own varying degrees of authenticity (as it pertains to sourcing). As long as you never think of it as more than that, it’s not terrible. Same with sites like Rotoworld.
by APV on May 16, 2008 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hokey rumors and ancient links are no match for a good community blog at your side, Adam.
by fleerdon on May 16, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
same
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.
by Gradyforpresident on May 16, 2008 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
i did my part
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.
by Gradyforpresident on May 16, 2008 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions
In the baseball world, maybe.
But Pro Football Talk’s daily rumor mill takes the cake for all major sports.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
I don’t really think they’re that bad, but they’re nothing but a link aggregator collecting ad revenue. Good for them for making it work financially, but they do make the world a little dumber every day.
by Jay on May 16, 2008 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Very entertaining post. I like Ryan’s comments above. I don’t mind speculating on potential trade targets here. I still think Atkins, or a similar player, is an interesting fit here.
Yes, the fact that Laffey would be too much seems to me to be so clear and well-established that it’s not worth discussing.
There’s no harm in discussing it, as long as it’s understood as idle speculation. This is the sort of discussion we have in our FanPosts, or more commonly in the discussions within front-page stories and fanposts.
The issue here is that for Olney, MLBTR, blog I’ve never heard of, the tald radio dolts and Bruce Drennan - all five - this is their main content. There is nothing to distinguish it terms of placement or tone from a story that is 100% fact.
There are times when I think, “Wouldn’t it be nice if more Cleveland sports fans spent their time discussing the team on sites like this instead of on shows like Drennan’s.” And then I think, “I love feeling like I am part of a small, elite group of fans who actually know what the hell is going on.” And my brain starts to stretch apart and I fear it might explode, so I think about something else.
Oh: and nice work, Jay. Very good stuff.
by tabler84 on May 16, 2008 3:26 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
cherry pickin a bit aren't you?
HERE IS THE VERY FIRST LINE FROM THE MLB TRADE RUMORS POST WHICH JAY SO CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT:
ESPN’s Buster Olney makes a point to say that this trade idea is pure speculation rather than anything he’s heard. Still worth discussing. Here it is:
BTW, the title of the post on MLBTR is “Olney Speculation”
It looks to me like the guys at MLBTR made it abundantly clear that it was “speculation” and then for the fun of “water cooler discussion” they wonder what a trade might look like. If others misinterpret that…how in the H-E-DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS is that their fault?
they never said…”the teams are discussing players X and Y”
Are you new to baseball?
do you know how many thousands of completely false rumors get started by the Mainstream Media?
speculating on trades is BASEBALL.
misinterpreting what one person said/wrote and turning it into a full-fledged rumor is BASEBALL.
if you are going to throw a conniption every time somebody perpetuates a false trade rumor, this site is going to get real boring, real quick
I’m familiar enough with media to know there are slow periods for a baseball trade-rumor site—particularly the first 40 games of the season, which is probably the slowest time of the season and one of the slowest times of the year—and on slow news days you sometimes have to make things happen to keep getting eyeballs for your site.
There’s a reason why water-cooler discussions are so inane.
What is this “baseball” you speak of? I would like to hear more about it, it sound interesting. Please impart wisdom and such and such….
The day that the excitement of LGT is dependent on false trade rumours is the day I leave.
This is all getting a bit tedious and meta to be honest.
by supermarioelia on May 17, 2008 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Where does a “professor” stand among the many advanced degree holders at LGT? Adam’s a professor and very well respected. But then he doesn’t claim to be “THE” professor. Hmm, ponder this conundrum I will.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on May 17, 2008 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
"do you know how many thousands of completely false rumors get started by the Mainstream Media?"
yep. and that’s why LGT exists. to raise the discourse.
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.
by Gradyforpresident on May 17, 2008 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
aw, hell.
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.
by Gradyforpresident on May 17, 2008 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good one. I think I’ll start using this instead of “100,000,000 Chinese can’t be wrong.”
by Fiddlesticks on May 17, 2008 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions
do you know how many thousands of completely false rumors get started by the Mainstream Media?
Professor, we’re here to stomp those out like the vermin they are. And anyway, you’ve got it backward. The MSM is the most risk-averse group out there. They use the shield of “reporting the reports” of these kind of hypotheticals-turned-speculation-turned-rumors to defend propagating this stuff. Dealing with facts and fundamentals are way more interesting and creative.
by Bogalusa Bomber on May 17, 2008 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
“It looks to me like the guys at MLBTR made it abundantly clear …”
“The guys at MLBTR,” eh?
You mean, like, you?
You and your brother?
You, Cork Gaines, who write for MLBTR, and yoru brother, Tim Gaines, who runs it?
by Jay on May 17, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Your obtuseness on this subject has been really incredible.
Lying about his identity, his affiliation and conflict of interest, goes directly to the kinds of issues we’re talking about here. He presents himself as a neutral fan with no stake, other than his outrage over the article itself.
There’s no perspective about credibility, reliability or basic factuality — from him, or from you.
Yeah, that’s kinda not all that good. But his point stands, and isn’t that what we’re about? Substance?
They were threatening castration! Are we gonna split hairs here? Am I wrong?
by randallhank on May 18, 2008 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions
His point stands? No.
His point was to change the subject. Like any straw man, it stands only because you let it.
Did I say this was all their fault? No.
Did I say trade speculation was bad? No.
Did I say that the mainstream media never does things like this? No.
And yet, despite obvious deceptions and overall bottom-feeding, it doesn’t even occur to you to spend one minute thinking about how he’s manipulating you and distorting the argument.
You’re straying dangerously close to personal attacks again.
MLBTR did nothing wrong. If you think their standard set-up is bottom-feeding, fine. If you think they’re just as at fault as mainstream media, fine. But they didn’t do anything bad here, if bad is defined as “different than normal”.
This whole conversation, in both threads, has gotten badly sidetracked by (among other reasons) questions of “right” and “wrong.” Let me state as simply as I can what I think the issue is.
If you say something, you have to be willing to stand behind it, and be willing to take responsibility for events that occur because you said it.
MLBTR can print anything they want for any reason they choose. If they want to print substanceless tripe because it drives ad revenue, so be it. But they can’t, and shouldn’t, attempt to evade responsibility for the ensuing explosion of rumormongering, just because they used some lame disclaimer or because someone downstream made the situation even worse. Don’t just weasel out by saying “it’s not our fault if our easily misinterpreted item was misinterpreted by others.” Stand up and say “this whole controversy is of our doing, and right, wrong, or indifferent, we accept responsibility for having started it.” They can say this and still not agree that they shouldn’t have published what they published; it’s about acknowledging responsibility, not “right” and “wrong.”
They have chosen a different approach, and are now even employing subterfuge to maintain it. That should tell you a lot.
by Fiddlesticks on May 18, 2008 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Straying? Just because you’re personally embarassed doesn’t make it a personal attack.
Like our sock-puppet friend, you bristle at legit criticism and respond by trying to change the question, pretend I said something that I didn’t.
Your response was banal and simplistic, and I said so, and I explained why. That isn’t a personal attack, it’s a fair criticism.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
