Fowler Signs With Cubs.

[SteveA]

If it furthers his goals or the goals of his client or clients, yeah. Absolutely.

OK, if you feel that publicly accusing someone of improper behavior and not backing it up in any way is an ethical way to do business, then I can accept that. You and I will just have to agree to disagree on that.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[Stotle]

OK, if you feel that publicly accusing someone of improper behavior and not backing it up in any way is an ethical way to do business, then I can accept that. You and I will just have to agree to disagree on that.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

If you can point me towards the damages Baltimore is suffering maybe I'll entertain a consideration as to "ethics." I'm not saying Close is a good guy. But his job isn't to be a good guy, it's to push the agenda that benefits his clients.

[SteveA]

If you can point me towards the damages Baltimore is suffering maybe I'll entertain a consideration as to "ethics." I'm not saying Close is a good guy. But his job isn't to be a good guy, it's to push the agenda that benefits his clients.

Publicly accusing someone of something illegal, against the rules, or "reprehensible" without backing it up with any specifics or facts is OK as long as no actual damages are suffered by the person being accused?

Perhaps in a legal sense. But not in an ethical sense, IMO.

If you believe someone has broken rules or the law, there are essentially 4 things you can do:

1) ignore it entirely

2) say nothing publicly but pursue a grievance according to whatever rules the system has in place

3) Publicly accuse the person and state specifically what you are accusing them of

4) Make veiled statements about reprehensible behavior and violation of rules in a public forum and give absolutely no specifics to back it up

I believe that #1, #2, and #3 are all preferable and more ethical than #4.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[Stotle]

Publicly accusing someone of something illegal, against the rules, or "reprehensible" without backing it up with any specifics or facts is OK as long as no actual damages are suffered by the person being accused?

Perhaps in a legal sense. But not in an ethical sense, IMO.

If you believe someone has broken rules or the law, there are essentially 4 things you can do:

1) ignore it entirely

2) say nothing publicly but pursue a grievance according to whatever rules the system has in place

3) Publicly accuse the person and state specifically what you are accusing them of

4) Make veiled statements about reprehensible behavior and violation of rules in a public forum and give absolutely no specifics to back it up

I believe that #1, #2, and #3 are all preferable and more ethical than #4.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

I'd think the accused would prefer not to have the specifics accusations made public -- it doesn't seem like the Orioles are interested in the details of discussions being made public. Everyone slammed Close for not "setting the record straight publicly" with respect to the reports a deal was done. Where is the obligation for the Orioles to set the record straight?

My guess is neither party really wants people to know what was going on.

[SteveA]

I'd think the accused would prefer not to have the specifics accusations made public -- it doesn't seem like the Orioles are interested in the details of discussions being made public. Everyone slammed Close for not "setting the record straight publicly" with respect to the reports a deal was done. Where is the obligation for the Orioles to set the record straight?

My guess is neither party really wants people to know what was going on.

Then don't publicly accuse the Orioles' of reprehensible rule breaking actions.

Look, we disagree. That's OK. It's not the end of the world for two people to disagree. No point keeping it going. You aren't going to convince me that Close's tweet was an ethical thing to do and I'm not going to convince you it isn't. No big deal.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[Frobby]

L

Jones texted Fowler and said "My bad. I guess I jumped the gun." Sounds like Jones screwed up when he gave everyone the impression that Fowler was signed. Of course, everyone wants to believe that Fowler, Close, and Duquette are all lying, and that this text didn't happen.

I don't see any inconsistency. Fowler led Jones to believe he was signing, but Jones jumped the gun on reacting to a reporter's question based on the assumption that he was going to sign. Nothing much to see here.

[Number5]

L

I don't see any inconsistency. Fowler led Jones to believe he was signing, but Jones jumped the gun on reacting to a reporter's question based on the assumption that he was going to sign. Nothing much to see here.

:agree: Jumping the gun is not synonymous with creating a false story. Jumping the gun means releasing news early, or before it is official.

[Number5]

The question is, "What did Fowler tell Jones, if anything". If Fowler told Jones the deal was done and he was signing with the Orioles the Jones reaction (after the news of the Cubs signing Fowler) would not be "sorry, I guess I jumped the gun", it would be "hey man, what happened?"

It is clear to me that you will never understand that Jones is sorry that dirty laundry got aired publicly. If you prefer to believe that Jones is a liar, knock yourself out. We will never agree on that point.

[weams]

:agree: Jumping the gun is not synonymous with creating a false story. Jumping the gun means releasing news early, or before it is official.

Of course. He's done that before.

[Frobby]

Disagree. If Fowler told Jones he was signing, Jones has nothing to apologize to Fowler for. That's not jumping the gun. That's getting a first hand account and repeating it. Problem is that Fowler probably never told Jones he was signing. I'd be hypothesizing for an alternative conversation between the two. Jones may have assumed Fowler was signing. Fowler may not have disagreed but he probably didn't confirm either. I don't think Jones lied. I just think Jones made an assumption on things based on what he read in the news, what he possibly heard from someone within the organization, and perhaps Fowler saying it could happen but not 100% confirming it.

I"m pretty certain (can't be 100%) that Fowler did not tell Jones that he was signing with the O's and would be seeing him the next day.

I don't know exactly what Fowler told Jones. What I do think is that they had communicated. When Fowler said he and Jones hadn't spoken since December, I think either that is not true at all, or it is technically true but they had communicated by text or whatever.

I assume you've seen Jones' interview that gave rise to the quotes. If not, click here and go to about the 1:30 mark. http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-adam-jones-talks-about-dexter-fowler-20160224-premiumvideo.html Jones is asked, "Have you talked with him?" Jones answers, "Yeah, I've spoken with him. Excited. He should be on his way here now." He then goes on to say that Fowler is excited but frustrated with the free agency process. Based on that, I have little doubt that the two of them had communicated in the last day or two.