A few nuggets....

[ejf1025]

I really don't get how anyone can really be adamant one way or another...still a lot of season left.

He's done nothing to be fired over; then again I don't think he's done enough to merit iron-clad security.

I'm also getting a feeling that it has less to do with firing Trembley and more to do with finding someone else....ahem, Davey Johnson.

[Lucky Jim]

I really don't get how anyone can really be adamant one way or another...still a lot of season left.

He's done nothing to be fired over; then again I don't think he's done enough to merit iron-clad security.

I'm also getting a feeling that it has less to do with firing Trembley and more to do with finding someone else....ahem, Davey Johnson.

This has been my position all along. Right now, he's the guy. But there's a difference between "firing" (based on information now) and waiting to decide the final decision (based on information at the end of the year).

[Lucky Jim]

Lucky Jim,

I think you bring a lot to this site, and you're one of the five or ten posters I always read. But (one lawyer to another) I think the legal analogy is strained. When a lawyer represents you, he has a fiduciary duty to do what's in your best interest. That's a legal duty. He's your agent. THe relationship with a team is much more like pure contract. You buy your ticket which entitles you to watch. But there is no assertion that the team is bound in the relationship to do what's in your interest. The team can (and often does) do whatever it wants. Of course, the profit motive makes most teams strive to be successful (but see Chicago Cubs, 1908-2000). And some owners don't treat the teams as investments and want to win regardless of the bottom line. But no one owes anyone anything, at least legally.

Maybe teams ought to have a duty of loyalty to their community. But that's not the world we live in now.

Thanks for the compliment. Please don't hold the following histrionics against me.

Of course it's strained. The analogy was focused on one part of the relationship. Nothing more. I'm not talking about the legal obligation, I'm talking about the conceptual framework of accountability.

Besides, while your criticism works on one level, it's not completely apt: what's the difference between a plaintiffs attorney who sells out his class to line his own pocket (by, say, settling for coupons for the class and cash for him) than owners out for their own profit?

What's the harm of saying - in an ideal world - that a team has a fiduciary-like (-like not actual, to be clear) responsibility to its fans? Does the poor behavior of other owners somehow absolve our club of its duties to us? Have we been blinkered by 10 years of losing to think that the Orioles can't possibly owe us something approaching a "duty"?

This idea that a lawyer's fiduciary duty to his client is sacrosanct is - largely - propaganda perpetrated by lawyers to make the profession seems more "pure" than it actually is.

I'm really surprised by the sustained inability of people to comprehend how this analogy works - of course there are differences (otherwise an analogy wouldn't be necessary...the comparison would be redundant.) VTech offered HIS employment situation as an analogy. I offered mine. The accountability is different, and I just wanted to point out the difference. That's it.

[DuffMan]

WOW I don't check the hangout for one evening and look at what I miss! Not sure what to say that hasn't been said already, but let me just add this.... How is it going to look to potential FA's if we don't bring Trembley back? Trembley has done a great job and we need some stability he has to be brought back.

[section18]

Bill Hall has played SS, 3B, 2B and CF

His career fielding percentages are as follows;

SS 261 games .965 FPCT

3B 157 games .927 FPCT

2B 101 games .957 FPCT

CF 137 games .972 FPCT

He is a versatile player who is not great at any position but he does have power and knocks in runs and is 28 years old. Can he get better?

Hall for Bradford with the Brewers paying some of his salary would be a steal. We can rotate him at all four positions to give some of the starters a break once in awhile and DH him or use him as a pinch hitter when not starting. The salary is big because of his 35 HR season in 2006. I would make that deal unless we are moving Bradford in a package with Ramon or Roberts.

[mikezpen]

I don't think the Front Office should make decisions that influence the future of our franchise just to please potential free agents-Tiexiera in particular. Trembley should be judged on how well he does and not on the anticipated reactions of people who aren't even on the team and-in Tx's instance- will likely never be.

[Mashed Potatoes]

How is it going to look to potential FA's if we don't bring Trembley back?

You really think this will be a factor ahead of things like, money, length of contract, competitiveness of team, location, and playing with friends?

I would say that unless the player has a personal relationship with the manager it plays no role in their free agency decisions.

[waroriole]

I understand the wait and see approach with DT before we extend him, but what indications does anyone have that the O's will suddenly collapse. What we have seen from this team this year is incredible. Unlike years past, they fight until the last out, they play hard, and they get along. I would think that alot of this has to do with DT, so why would this stop all of a sudden in the 2nd half. If the team does fall off in the 2nd half, my guess is that alot of it will have to do with the lack of ML ready pitching depth in the organization. DT can't control the pitching depth.

Just a question to those who don't want to extend him yet (or at all), who would you bring in to replace him?

[RShack]

Oh, quit being willfully obstinate. You're completely passive aggressive - you put some stupid little winky thing next to an insult and call it "joking".

You criticized my analogy because you obviously have little idea about how the legal system works - and you were wrong. But you still refuse to admit it.

It was an analogy - designed to bring out a structural similarity between two situations. What does suing any Oriole have to do with anything? We were talking about situations of accountability - I didn't even bring up the workplace analogy. By focusing on the structural similarity between the two situations, we can see why DT might be accountable to the O's public in the way that BaltimoreTerp suggested.

Still, all I did was extend the example. I didn't equate the two. Once. Anywhere. Should I link you to wikipedia for the definition of "analogy"? For someone "writing a book" I sure hope your understanding of rhetorical technique and figurative language is greater than this misprision would indicate.

The fact is, class actions are an excellent analogy to the Fans/O's relationship. We all have similar interests - not great, but large in the aggregate. And the media allows us to aggregate those interests in a way that the financial future of the Orioles is implicated. But in order for us to know how to behave, we need information. Making sure we're informed is important.

In the end, though, it's still - essentially - just a metaphor. Why drag it into the literal? Because you realize you've drifted beyond your ken? Your silly attempt to claim that there's a difference because of magnitude of interest just goes to show that you have little idea about how the legal system works. In spite of this, you implied it was obvious my analogy was silly. Then compounded that with your piercing analysis of the lawyer/client relationship as being about "millions of dollars" or "years in prison." A silly, reductive, "I learned all I know about the law from watching television" analysis.

When called out on this, you made some stupid reference to me being "tender" which - while on the one hand being about my understandable bristling at you lecturing me on my own field (not the first time, mind you) also had clear "sissy" implications.

Good grief, LJ, I don't know what you're going on about. I said I thought your analogy was one that, upon reflection, you would agree was not a good one. My mistake. Evidently, you think it is a fine and robust analogy. OK. However, you didn't say that, and instead you asked me what I meant. So I went to the trouble of explaining what I meant (complete with word count ;-) At which point you had a fit.

What's the big deal? You apparently think it's a fine analogy, and I don't. So what?

You think I was calling you a "sissy"?

Really? Is that what you think?

FYI, in sailor parlance "tender" refers to a sailboat that easily gets knocked off-center, and lists to one side, based on just a very little bit of weather.

I hadn't even addressed you in this thread before that. And I didn't get huffy. I got annoyed. If you were half the autodidact that you think you are, you'd have learned by now when not to pipe up.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that a message board is somehow your personal forum, and you get to choose who you address and who you don't. But let's not worry about that. Especially since you did indeed *ask me* what I meant. (Silly me for thinking you wanted an answer.)

As for how you were being "annoyed" but not "huffy", I'm not sure what you think "huffy" means, but according to Merriam-Webster it means "2a. roused to indignation : IRRITATED; 2b: easily offended : TOUCHY". If this isn't an example of that, a disagreement about the debatable merits of a freakin' analogy, I don't know what is.

As for the idea that I should "have learned by now when not to pipe up", I have a question: Exactly who do you think you are?

You think I should be careful to not make posts for fear that our self-proclaimed legal expert might get annoyed?

BTW, in case you're curious about Merriam-Webster's first definition of "huffy", it's "1. HAUGHTY, ARROGANT". Now, judging by how others sometimes view my posts, I'm familiar with the point of view that says I'm arrogant. But the special combination of haughty and arrogant is something that only a smaller few have a claim to.

ps: No, I don't think you're a sissy. However, I do think you're not very good at dealing with disagreement. I think you not only turn every little thing into an argument, I also think you somehow expect others to back down whenever you throw legalese around. When that doesn't work, your fallback position appears to be that you have some kind of special status simply because you went to law school. My personal guess would be that you're a desk lawyer and not a courtroom lawyer, but I certainly could be wrong about that, I really don't know what you do.

[OttoNoveDieci]

Good grief, LJ, I don't know what you're going on about. I said I thought your analogy was one that, upon reflection, you would agree was not a good one. My mistake. Evidently, you think it is a fine and robust analogy. OK. However, you didn't say that, and instead you asked me what I meant. So I went to the trouble of explaining what I meant (complete with word count ;-) At which point you had a fit.

What's the big deal? You apparently think it's a fine analogy, and I don't. So what?

You think I was calling you a "sissy"?

Really? Is that what you think?

FYI, in sailor parlance "tender" refers to a sailboat that easily gets knocked off-center, and lists to one side, based on just a very little bit of weather.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that a message board is somehow your personal forum, and you get to choose who you address and who you don't. But let's not worry about that. Especially since you did indeed *ask me* what I meant. (Silly me for thinking you wanted an answer.)

As for how you were being "annoyed" but not "huffy", I'm not sure what you think "huffy" means, but according to Merriam-Webster it means "2a. roused to indignation : IRRITATED; 2b: easily offended : TOUCHY". If this isn't an example of that, a disagreement about the debatable merits of a freakin' analogy, I don't know what is.

As for the idea that I should "have learned by now when not to pipe up", I have a question: Exactly who do you think you are?

You think I should be careful to not make posts for fear that our self-proclaimed legal expert might get annoyed?

BTW, in case you're curious about Merriam-Webster's first definition of "huffy", it's "1. HAUGHTY, ARROGANT". Now, judging by how others sometimes view my posts, I'm familiar with the point of view that says I'm arrogant. But the special combination of haughty and arrogant is something that only a smaller few have a claim to.

ps: No, I don't think you're a sissy. However, I do think you're not very good at dealing with disagreement. I think you not only turn every little thing into an argument, I also think you somehow expect others to back down whenever you throw legalese around. When that doesn't work, your fallback position appears to be that you have some kind of special status simply because you went to law school. My personal guess would be that you're a desk lawyer and not a courtroom lawyer, but I certainly could be wrong about that, I really don't know what you do.

Hmm. I don't know whether to suggest you guys take this offline or pop some popcorn and wait for the retorts.....

[RShack]

Hmm. I don't know whether to suggest you guys take this offline or pop some popcorn and wait for the retorts.....

Good point.

[Mashed Potatoes]

Good point.

Please don't take this to PM, I love when you fight with people, same with Lucky Jim, vatech, SG, Davearm, Migrant Redbird, RZNJ, and 66-70-83-??

[The Rick]

Please don't take this to PM, I love when you fight with people, same with Lucky Jim, vatech, SG, Davearm, Migrant Redbird, RZNJ, and 66-70-83-??

What he said.

I don't like when it's with me, but I am enjoying this.

[TGO]

This thread sucks. Here I am trying to take a break from studying for the bar, looking for some O's talk and I walk into a discussion of definitions, analogies, and fiduciary duties. FIDUCIARY DUTIES??!! I am trying not to think about duties of care and loyalty you jerks. :cussing:

( , I think? Or maybe )

[RShack]

This thread sucks. Here I am trying to take a break from studying for the bar, looking for some O's talk and I walk into a discussion of definitions, analogies, and fiduciary duties. FIDUCIARY DUTIES??!!

Well, it kinda surprised me too, to tell you the truth.

When you pass the bar, are you gonna start doing stuff like that too? ;-)