So why hasn't Brob been traded?

[amateurfan]

Well, I doubt most of us would start a thread to make this sort of post. What exactly was the point of the thread? He is asking "what happened", right? Well, isn't that what is being discussed in every other thread on this board? Wouldn't five minutes of research make it clear that nobody really knows what is happening right now? Why is it acceptable to be lazy?

There is a search function on this board and it is quite easy to use. If someone wants to know what is going on but doesn't want to read through the threads, they should spend 5 minutes doing advanced searches for the latest posts by Belkast, Peace21, BigBird, Sonny76, and/or TonyOH. This would tell them what they need to know.

Someone getting annoyed and starting a thread that basically amounts to whining about how things aren't the way they want them to be and whining to be fed information is fairly frustrating to the rest of us grown ups. I saw three new ones this morning when I logged in and it just torques me up. Sorry, but that is the way I feel.

Furthermore, you're confusing the message boards with what's reported on the front page of OH. So far, I haven't seen someone in this thread complaining about the insider information on the message boards, but what was published on the front page. Big difference.

[Flosman]

What I find aggavating is that a thread that was intended to be a place for a quick update has turned into a debate about if such a thread is appropriate. These things would take care of themselves by quickly dropping off the front page if they had no value. Because of work commentments I have not been able to wade through the hundreds of relevant posts on the subject and I think a on topic thread had some value. This one does not but it has little to do with the opening post.

[TheWHG]

The story was reported as fact because it was confirmed by two independent sources. EVERY SINGLE NEWSPAPER IN THE WORLD WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING. I'm not sure why people want to make this so big a deal. He was given information by enough sources that he thought it was true so he reported it. He has now been given enough counter-information that he has softened his stance. What would you have done in this situation? I mean, I guess you can wait until the league office or the teams issue a press release, but it would seem to be a little late at that point.

And again, if you don't like this board, the people who post on it, and the people who run it, my advice would be not to patronize it. It is pretty simple.

"EVERY SINGLE NEWSPAPER IN THE WORLD WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING."

Really, then why did absolutely no newspaper report this story as OH did? Why didn't ESPN or RotoWorld or any other place I visit state the deal was done like OH did?

I am not making a big deal of it, I am just defending a person that is being attacked for asking a question. A story was reported as fact, even though every other source out there was denying it. The trade did not happen, and now the original headlines here have been completely changed. Things were not simply added as they were discovered, the whole original article was re-written.

Since you asked, if I was in this situation I would have tried to get some confirmation or denial from the Orioles before I posted the story. If Andy denied or offered no comment, I would have to really second guess my sources at that point and add that to the story and post that a deal might be very close.

But, say I already reported this story as fact I would have kept my original headline as Tony had done.

I would have included that OH was waiting for confirmation from the Orioles. When the story was denied by Andy MacPhail, I would have added that to my original story, not changed what I had written. At that time I would also have to add that the deal might not be done today after all.

At the end of the day I would add to that same story that I was sorry for the obvious non-trade today, but that my sources were solid and I had every reason to believe them.

As the post looks now, if you dissect it from the first two paragraphs and do not add the update part, that is actually how it should have looked this morning. And after seeing no movement by the time Tony posted his update is exactly how it should have looked at this time.

I am not trying to bash Tony or the OH, I appreciate what he tried to do here. He wanted to be the first to tell us of a major move. Like he said, he really trusted his sources. It is just that with no word from the club itself, I wouldn't have been as gung ho about posting it as a done deal at the time. But that is just me.

[osfan83]

Most of the posters responding to your post here completely misunderstood you. This has nothing to do with patience or trusting insiders. It has to do with professional journalism. Tony posted the trade as fact, not conjecture. RShack missed that point. The trade has not been verified as fact by any other media outlet or by the FO. It is only a scoop if it is true. It may be true, but it hasn't been verified. The professional thing to do is to remove the article or rewrite it completely. The OH took a leap and crossed a boundary that should not have been crossed: conjecture from "insiders" (whom I do not doubt have sources somehow connected) to published fact. A published article must be secure in its sources, completely confident. Keep in mind what Herbstreit experienced when he reported that Les Miles was gone to Mich. This has nothing to do with reading and enjoying what the insiders clue us into, this has to do with how far we accept it. Also, Bigbird has said that this deal, from his source inside the warehouse, is not done (as of late yesterday). Pact's post has nothing to do with patience for news, but how that news is reported, and what news is reported as fact.

This I must agree with. The only way to report the B-Rob trade as "fact" is to get confirmation from the Orioles, or Cubs, or MLB. Anything short of that can't be reported as fact. It would have been better to word the headline "Multiple Sources claim B-Rob Traded".

[NCRaven]

The story was reported as fact because it was confirmed by two independent sources. EVERY SINGLE NEWSPAPER IN THE WORLD WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING. I'm not sure why people want to make this so big a deal. He was given information by enough sources that he thought it was true so he reported it. He has now been given enough counter-information that he has softened his stance. What would you have done in this situation? I mean, I guess you can wait until the league office or the teams issue a press release, but it would seem to be a little late at that point.

And again, if you don't like this board, the people who post on it, and the people who run it, my advice would be not to patronize it. It is pretty simple.

Actually, that's not entirely correct. Two independent sources are enough to report that sources indicate the Orioles made a trade. But, we should have gone to the Orioles or Cubs for confirmation and if they denied it, include that in the original story. Then both pieces of information would have been included up front. Minor point. But it's one reason "old media" doesn't like bloggers, who don't necessarily play by ALL of the old rules. Sometimes, speed kills. I think this small action would have changed all of our perceptions about how this unfolded. But, after the fact, I think Tony's done everything possible to correct what happened from this side and make it clear why he reported the story the way he did.

Edit: See Osfan above, he beat me to it.

[ScottieBaseball]

I don't have a *poor me* attitude, I just wanted to understand why the reports from the Hangout and those from the FO were so different if the trade's completion was *100% verified* by multiple sources.

It just seems to me that if the trade was already *done*, AM and the FO wouldn't be so hasty to report it as *completely inaccurate*.

Did I miss something...since when are professional sports organizations required to be totally forthcoming with the media?

Look, you and everyone else is entitled to question/doubt/criticize this story until it either comes to fruition or is dispelled altogether.

I'm not trying to usurp Tony as the owner/publisher of this site, but as its Managing Editor, I felt obligated last night to reflect on the events of yesterday, from the original story's publication to the Orioles' comment as "entirely inaccurate" and the subsequent fallout at various media outlets around the area. I even went as far as to discuss it with other members of the media, both broadcast and print. The phrase "journalistic integrity" came to mind along with the word "ethical", and considering all of that I've come to the conclusion that what Tony yesterday was entirely on the up-and-up. It was by the book. Had the other people I discussed this with (or any other member of the media for that matter) encountered two HIGHLY reliable yet independent sources confirming the EXACT same story, they'd have gone to print as well.

Like I said before...you're welcome to question/criticize/doubt/etc. (as long as you adhere to the board rules and policies). If this deal comes to fruition, I hope you as quick with a compliment as you were with criticism.

[Cakes2Kakes]

That is not true. If you read the headline this morning, it said that the Roberts trade was 100% done.

When a report came from Roch and the Baltimore Sun that Andy MacPhail called the trade rumor highly inaccurate, Tony did not change the original message, but just added a line underneath his claim from his sources that this was a done deal.

Now if you read that headline, it doesn't read anything like it did this morning.

This is the current post:

Roberts Trade Denied by Orioles (completely different from Roberts trade a done deal)

By: Tony Pente 1/9/2008

Several sources have indicated that the trade of All-Star second baseman Brian Roberts to the Cubs has been finalized. However, the Orioles have denied this rumor and have called it "inaccurate." (different from a source within the organization and one outside of is call this deal 100% done.)

The early reports indicated that the Orioles would get back 22-year old right-hander pitching prospect Sean Gallagher, 25-year old left-handed starting pitcher Sean Marshall, and 24-year old shortstop Ronny Cedeno. (This is different as well, saying that this was the exact return for Roberts).

Latest Update (10:45 PM): The Orioles continue to deny this report and as of 10:45 PM no announcement has been made. Although our sources were solid, there is certainly a possibility the players in return could be different or that the deal was not as "final" as we were told. (If you report that a deal is done for players mentioned, but the deal is held up because the players mentioned might be different, well, the trade obviously is not done.)

There is a lot of traction to this story, but Andy MacPhail is playing his cards very closely on this one. I still believe the basis of the story, but the players reported in the trade coming back may be different. (MacPhail is playing no cards. His statements have always remained the same.)

I think we'll see a resolution to this shortly, but it may not be in the time we'd all like to see.

More to come as it develops.....

So perhaps if the headline this morning read:

"Roberts deal to Cubs very close: Several sources OH trusts are stating that the return for Roberts would be Sean Marshall, Sean Gallagher, and Ronny Cedeno. While we believe this deal is near completion, we are waiting for confirmation from club officials."

You wouldn't have people "complaining." What's with the inferiority complex around this place?

The issue is, this story was reported as fact, not a rumor. The word rumor, possible, might, did not appear in that headline or the story containeTd under it.

What's not true?

The fact that the front page story has been updated this morning in no way negates what I said! The original headline with a foot note ran all day yesterday and Tony I'm sure spent the day trying to get to the bottom of things. Today's cover story is an explanation of why and how things have played out thus far.

This site is not the ESPN site, or the Baltimore Sun site, or any other news gathering agency! It is a fan site where Orioles fans gather to discuss and debate everything Orioles. If you popped in here looking for the latest headlines your in the wrong place. If you want to voice some valid criticism why not go to ESPN's site or the Chicago newspaper site that ran with this story yesterday? That is their job one, to report confirmed news stories from valid sources, not pass on rumors from blogs and chat sites. While some were flattered by the attention this brought to the HO yesterday, I for one saw it as another example of how unprofessional national and local news sources have become when the writers surf the web and quote as fact things they learn from blogs, chat boards and rumor sites! We who frequent the HO know the the first rule is, "take all rumors with a grain of salt!"

[Tony-OH]

Most of the posters responding to your post here completely misunderstood you. This has nothing to do with patience or trusting insiders. It has to do with professional journalism. Tony posted the trade as fact, not conjecture. RShack missed that point. The trade has not been verified as fact by any other media outlet or by the FO. It is only a scoop if it is true. It may be true, but it hasn't been verified. The professional thing to do is to remove the article or rewrite it completely. The OH took a leap and crossed a boundary that should not have been crossed: conjecture from "insiders" (whom I do not doubt have sources somehow connected) to published fact. A published article must be secure in its sources, completely confident. Keep in mind what Herbstreit experienced when he reported that Les Miles was gone to Mich. This has nothing to do with reading and enjoying what the insiders clue us into, this has to do with how far we accept it. Also, Bigbird has said that this deal, from his source inside the warehouse, is not done (as of late yesterday). Pact's post has nothing to do with patience for news, but how that news is reported, and what news is reported as fact.

You are mistaken. I did not take my information off of rumors from board but sources who privately conveyed the information. I check two different sources and both had the same information and both, after repeatedly being asked "Are you 100 percent", said yes they were 100 percent.

Please do not start telling what boundary I should cross. I've been in contact with mulitple journalists around the Baltimore area about this situation over the last 24 hours and they all understand where I was coming from and thought I followed a journalistic standard.

In fact, the Orioles PR people are satisified with the way I went about this.

One last thing, the report always read that sources indicated the deal was finalized. Now I did put it on the front page and I will take the blame if it's proven false, but it won't be the first time someone has reported something in print, on TV, or radio that didn't prove to be correct.

I felt good that I checked with mulitple sources and they had the same information. I'm still not sure what happened overall but I will obviously look into this more since I'm not happy about how this went down.

You are free to have any opinion you like over this situation, and surely I will get crucified in other circles and on other boards, but the information was supposed to be 100 correct. Apparently some of the sources need to understand what 100 percent, no doubt about it means.

[TonySoprano]

I do not fault the OH for running with this story. All the media outlets have "sources." Just because other media outlets didn't confirm the story this time doesn't mean they wouldn't have done so had their own trusted sources given them the information. The OH's reputation is such that Roch Kubatko of the Sun followed up on this story.

It is becoming more apparent that multiple sources fed the OH faulty information. As Tony-OH stated, "some people will have some explaining to do because something was just not right about all of this." I would like to assume that the explanation will be provided to the OH community at a time the staff finds appropriate.

[allstar1579]

You are mistaken. I did not take my information off of rumors from board but sources who privately conveyed the information. I check two different sources and both had the same information and both, after repeatedly being asked "Are you 100 percent", said yes they were 100 percent.

Please do not start telling what boundary I should cross. I've been in contact with mulitple journalists around the Baltimore area about this situation over the last 24 hours and they all understand where I was coming from and thought I followed a journalistic standard.

In fact, the Orioles PR people are satisified with the way I went about this.

One last thing, the report always read that sources indicated the deal was finalized. Now I did put it on the front page and I will take the blame if it's proven false, but it won't be the first time someone has reported something in print, on TV, or radio that didn't prove to be correct.

I felt good that I checked with mulitple sources and they had the same information. I'm still not sure what happened overall but I will obviously look into this more since I'm not happy about how this went down.

You are free to have any opinion you like over this situation, and surely I will get crucified in other circles and on other boards, but the information was supposed to be 100 correct. Apparently some of the sources need to understand what 100 percent, no doubt about it means.

And in your defense, it would not surprise me if things were final, and then after seeing things get out, they changed directions and tried to go bigger. Who is to say that it wasn't 100% done and waiting for signatures and then someone said you know what, how about if we did this as well? We can all agree there is something being worked on, you followed sources, you got confirmation from sources and then you gave us rumor hungry crazies what we have been begging for. We appreciate it.

[Tony-OH]

What's not true?

The fact that the front page story has been updated this morning in no way negates what I said! The original headline with a foot note ran all day yesterday and Tony I'm sure spent the day trying to get to the bottom of things. Today's cover story is an explanation of why and how things have played out thus far.

This site is not the ESPN site, or the Baltimore Sun site, or any other news gathering agency! It is a fan site where Orioles fans gather to discuss and debate everything Orioles. If you popped in here looking for the latest headlines your in the wrong place. If you want to voice some valid criticism why not go to ESPN's site or the Chicago newspaper site that ran with this story yesterday? That is their job one, to report confirmed news stories from valid sources, not pass on rumors from blogs and chat sites. While some were flattered by the attention this brought to the HO yesterday, I for one saw it as another example of how unprofessional national and local news sources have become when the writers surf the web and quote as fact things they learn from blogs, chat boards and rumor sites! We who frequent the HO know the the first rule is, "take all rumors with a grain of salt!"

You know what's getting old.. Crap like this!

I DID NOT TAKE RUMORS FROM THIS BOARD AND RUN WITH IT AS NEWS!!!!

I have no idea why some people can't get this through their heads. I had two sources privately convey the information was 100 percent true and accurate. I did not just grab some stuff off this board and run with it.

You want to bash me go ahead, but get your darn facts straight!!

[Baroquen131]

One last thing, the report always read that sources indicated the deal was finalized.

This is the bottom line for me. When I saw the headline yesterday, I clicked and read the article. Now, in past situations, when it has gotten to a point where sources claimed it was a done deal, it was a done deal. I was as surprised as anyone that things were so completely off-base. That said, in my opinion, it was clear that Tony was relaying information from two of his sources and a deal had not been announced by the club.

In short, it pays to read carefully and to dig deeper beyond the headline.

[osfan83]

You are mistaken. I did not take my information off of rumors from board but sources who privately conveyed the information. I check two different sources and both had the same information and both, after repeatedly being asked "Are you 100 percent", said yes they were 100 percent.

Please do not start telling what boundary I should cross. I've been in contact with mulitple journalists around the Baltimore area about this situation over the last 24 hours and they all understand where I was coming from and thought I followed a journalistic standard.

In fact, the Orioles PR people are satisified with the way I went about this.

One last thing, the report always read that sources indicated the deal was finalized. Now I did put it on the front page and I will take the blame if it's proven false, but it won't be the first time someone has reported something in print, on TV, or radio that didn't prove to be correct.

I felt good that I checked with mulitple sources and they had the same information. I'm still not sure what happened overall but I will obviously look into this more since I'm not happy about how this went down.

You are free to have any opinion you like over this situation, and surely I will get crucified in other circles and on other boards, but the information was supposed to be 100 correct. Apparently some of the sources need to understand what 100 percent, no doubt about it means.

My only problem was with the headline to the front page story. I still don't see how anyone can claim "Roberts has been traded" without confirmation from the team that currently employs him, or the new employer, or the league that has approval of the trade?

Without confirmation from one of the above three, then roberts being traded is not "fact".

[amateurfan]

You are mistaken. I did not take my information off of rumors from board but sources who privately conveyed the information. I check two different sources and both had the same information and both, after repeatedly being asked "Are you 100 percent", said yes they were 100 percent.

Please do not start telling what boundary I should cross. I've been in contact with mulitple journalists around the Baltimore area about this situation over the last 24 hours and they all understand where I was coming from and thought I followed a journalistic standard.

In fact, the Orioles PR people are satisified with the way I went about this.

One last thing, the report always read that sources indicated the deal was finalized. Now I did put it on the front page and I will take the blame if it's proven false, but it won't be the first time someone has reported something in print, on TV, or radio that didn't prove to be correct.

I felt good that I checked with mulitple sources and they had the same information. I'm still not sure what happened overall but I will obviously look into this more since I'm not happy about how this went down.

You are free to have any opinion you like over this situation, and surely I will get crucified in other circles and on other boards, but the information was supposed to be 100 correct. Apparently some of the sources need to understand what 100 percent, no doubt about it means.

One thing I really like about OH is that you take time to respond. There is one aspect I wasn't clear on in my original post: I don't know who your sources are and I don't claim to. Furthermore, in a later post I posited that they were not necessarily the "insiders", but you did not reveal, as many journalists do not also, who those sources were. However, the timing and manner of the report led me, as I'm sure many others, due to the fact that those sources were not specified, to believe that it was based on the "insiders". It is clear that your sources were not AM, or the warehouse. Old media, as someone above posted, would have checked with the Orioles themselves. Perhaps you did, but you didn't state that. I feel bad about yesterday, and I'm sure you're taking heat on this, which is to be expected, honestly.

[osfan83]

Did I miss something...since when are professional sports organizations required to be totally forthcoming with the media?

Look, you and everyone else is entitled to question/doubt/criticize this story until it either comes to fruition or is dispelled altogether.

I'm not trying to usurp Tony as the owner/publisher of this site, but as its Managing Editor, I felt obligated last night to reflect on the events of yesterday, from the original story's publication to the Orioles' comment as "entirely inaccurate" and the subsequent fallout at various media outlets around the area. I even went as far as to discuss it with other members of the media, both broadcast and print. The phrase "journalistic integrity" came to mind along with the word "ethical", and considering all of that I've come to the conclusion that what Tony yesterday was entirely on the up-and-up. It was by the book. Had the other people I discussed this with (or any other member of the media for that matter) encountered two HIGHLY reliable yet independent sources confirming the EXACT same story, they'd have gone to print as well.

Like I said before...you're welcome to question/criticize/doubt/etc. (as long as you adhere to the board rules and policies). If this deal comes to fruition, I hope you as quick with a compliment as you were with criticism.

I have worked in the media for over 22 years. Yes there are media outlets that claim "facts" without confirmation from primary sources. I find this a bit misleading.

The only sources that could "confirm" the B-Rob trade are, The O's organization, the Cubs organization, or MLB. All other sources fall short in confirming the trade as "fact".