Adam Jones and the new Orioles philosphy

[LookinUp]

Recognizing from the data posted above that Adam may even have a point, my take away from this thread is something totally different.

Man am I grateful that the Angelos brothers brought in Elias. The organization needed a totally different mindset. Like completely different. It would have been easy to promote Brady or Buck, or bring in a Cal Ripken and likely make me start to dislike my favorite player ever. Fans would have bought that approach hook line and sinker. It's not what we needed. We needed a non-Oriole to come teach us how it's done nowadays. Thank goodness that's what we got. As a Redskins fan, I can't say enough how refreshing it is to have a leadership team with brains. The Skins sure don't. Lol.

[Legend_Of_Joey]

24 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Jones has always been stubborn, and one of those guys who feels he knows what got him to the big leagues and all star games and nobody’s going to change that.   And, for a very long time, he was good enough that he was worth playing every day despite his stubborn streak.    But now his skills have eroded somewhat and he seems to be in denial.    It’s too bad.    I still wish him all the success in the world, but I think his stubborn streak may well prevent him from maximizing the rest of his career.    I hope I’m wrong about that.

I don’t relate his refusal of the Phillies trade to his stubbornness  He decided that situation wasn’t best for him, and he was entitled to decide that for himself, based on his own priorities.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:

Yeah, I have no problem with the trade refusal. It was part of his CBA-negotiated rights that he earned.  

The only issue I had with it was the reports that Duquette talked with Jones in Toronto around July 20th about being traded.

When Jones refused the trade at the deadline, it brought up some questions from me:

Did he give Duquette the ok to find a trade partner for him? I belive he did, as I don't think, despite Duquettes faults, he would try and work out a trade on someone who actively told him "I'm not going anywhere."

Did the fact the Phillies reportedly wanted him as a corner outfielder and bench bat play into Jones saying "no?" I know he eventually moved to right a month later and got some extra time on the bench, but who knows what Buck was doing by then. 

Did Jones really just enjoy being the "big fish in a small pond?" In Philly, he would of just been another player. In Baltimore, he was revered on another level, especially more so after Machado (and to a lesser extent, Schoop) were traded. The spotlight was now fully on Jones.

I'm not asking these questions or putting my thoughts as a way to bash him. I enjoyed Jones in Baltimore, as a player. But since I've followed him on Instagram and Twitter, his ego has been a huge turn off. I respect the way he played in Baltimore and the charity work he did (which was pretty amazing), but he does love patting himself on the back. His view on "I'm not changing the way I play" shows it, to me atleast.

[Number5]

I don't have a subscription to the Athletic, so I couldn't read the article.  Do we know if Jones' comments were made recently, or if the writer listed a quote that Jones made last year.  I remember him saying something like this last season.  Just curious if he is indeed still insisting on not changing, or if perhaps the writer is making an assumption based on that previous quote.

[LookinUp]

1 minute ago, Legend_Of_Joey said:

Did the fact the Phillies reportedly wanted him as a corner outfielder and bench bat play into Jones saying "no?"

I believe this was 100% the issue. His choice was to take the trade, be a great team guy and do whatever it takes for a playoff opportunity or stay with the Orioles and, in his eyes, be viewed as a full time player and likely a CF.

I absolutely believe his decision was about his market power after last season. The same thing goes for Manny and playing SS last year. It was about how he can get the most value as a FA. 

I absolutely believe it was Jones' right, so I have no problem with that, and I absolutely believe he (and Manny for that matter) misread the situation badly. 

[Luke-OH]

1 minute ago, Legend_Of_Joey said:

 

The only issue I had with it was the reports that Duquette talked with Jones in Toronto around July 20th about being traded.

When Jones refused the trade at the deadline, it brought up some questions from me:

Did he give Duquette the ok to find a trade partner for him? I belive he did, as I don't think, despite Duquettes faults, he would try and work out a trade on someone who actively told him "I'm not going anywhere."

Did the fact the Phillies reportedly wanted him as a corner outfielder and bench bat play into Jones saying "no?" I know he eventually moved to right a month later and got some extra time on the bench, but who knows what Buck was doing by then. 

Did Jones really just enjoy being the "big fish in a small pond?" In Philly, he would of just been another player. In Baltimore, he was revered on another level, especially more so after Machado (and to a lesser extent, Schoop) were traded. The spotlight was now fully on Jones.

I'm not asking these questions or putting my thoughts as a way to bash him. I enjoyed Jones in Baltimore, as a player. But since I've followed him on Instagram and Twitter, his ego has been a huge turn off. I respect the way he played in Baltimore and the charity work he did (which was pretty amazing), but he does love patting himself on the back. His view on "I'm not changing the way I play" shows it, to me atleast.

My take on ego in sports, ego/cockiness is good as long as you can back it up with play. Once that changes, the attitude should change to reflect that. 

Regarding the trade or lack thereof, I don't care if it's the most selfish reason in the world, he still has that right. It's like if your employer gives you X hours of paid time off a year, I think you should be able to take all X of those hours off each year, whether or not their is a ton of work to be done. Even if it's to just sit at home and drink beer and do nothing. It's part of one's agreed upon compensation. 

[Legend_Of_Joey]

Just now, Luke-OH said:

My take on ego in sports, ego/cockiness is good as long as you can back it up with play. Once that changes, the attitude should change to reflect that. 

Regarding the trade or lack thereof, I don't care if it's the most selfish reason in the world, he still has that right. It's like if your employer gives you X hours of paid time off a year, I think you should be able to take all X of those hours off each year, whether or not their is a ton of work to be done. Even if it's to just sit at home and drink beer and do nothing. It's part of one's agreed upon compensation. 

I agree on both parts. When the skills were declining, the ego/cockiness should decline too, but doesn't. At that point, it goes from "talking the talk and backing it up" to a "look at me!" type cry.

Yes, he has that right. But people also have the right to be displeased with the decision. Though it's a little different between "you are being transferred to another company location" vs. "enjoy some time off and test out some new brews!"

[Luke-OH]

2 minutes ago, Legend_Of_Joey said:

I agree on both parts. When the skills were declining, the ego/cockiness should decline too, but doesn't. At that point, it goes from "talking the talk and backing it up" to a "look at me!" type cry.

Yes, he has that right. But people also have the right to be displeased with the decision. Though it's a little different between "you are being transferred to another company location" vs. "enjoy some time off and test out some new brews!"

I agree with this, he's a public figure and fans can feel however they want about his actions. 

The next sentence though, it's not really a good analogy, it's like you have in your contract that you are going to work at the Baltimore location and the company asks you to transfer and you refuse because you have a contractual right to refuse.  

[Tony-OH]

55 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Recognizing from the data posted above that Adam may even have a point, my take away from this thread is something totally different.

Man am I grateful that the Angelos brothers brought in Elias. The organization needed a totally different mindset. Like completely different. It would have been easy to promote Brady or Buck, or bring in a Cal Ripken and likely make me start to dislike my favorite player ever. Fans would have bought that approach hook line and sinker. It's not what we needed. We needed a non-Oriole to come teach us how it's done nowadays. Thank goodness that's what we got. As a Redskins fan, I can't say enough how refreshing it is to have a leadership team with brains. The Skins sure don't. Lol.

At the end of the day, this is all that really matters. I'm just very thankful we have someone looking at things analytically and not doing things because "fan favorites" matter. Watching and reading how fans fawn all over Jones and refuse to admit his faults shows actually why if you listen to fans, you'll be one of them soon enough. 

[milbest77]

3 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Not sure I under the "Buck effect" here. Buck was slow in moving him from center, but in Buck's defense, who else did he have available to play center? Also, Buck did bench him down the stretch last season.

Stubborn, refusing to change, “my way or the highway.” 

[Tony-OH]

33 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:

I agree with this, he's a public figure and fans can feel however they want about his actions. 

The next sentence though, it's not really a good analogy, it's like you have in your contract that you are going to work at the Baltimore location and the company asks you to transfer and you refuse because you have a contractual right to refuse.  

But if you are fans of that company, then you may not be happy that an employee refused to help out the company even though he had a right. I'm not sure why you and some others can't see this point of view.

No one argues that Jones didn't have that right to veto the trade. But just because he had a right doesn't mean that's what's best for the team, and as a fan of the team, most are more concerned over the team's prospects than any individual player. A player is nothing more than a means to help you win ballgames and entertain the fans. 

Jones had every right to veto that trade and exercised that right, but that doesn't mean that future employers didn't look at that and become skeptical of a guy who is about himself over the team.
 

[Number5]

47 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

But if you are fans of that company, then you may not be happy that an employee refused to help out the company even though he had a right. I'm not sure why you and some others can't see this point of view.

No one argues that Jones didn't have that right to veto the trade. But just because he had a right doesn't mean that's what's best for the team, and as a fan of the team, most are more concerned over the team's prospects than any individual player. A player is nothing more than a means to help you win ballgames and entertain the fans. 

Jones had every right to veto that trade and exercised that right, but that doesn't mean that future employers didn't look at that and become skeptical of a guy who is about himself over the team.
 

I'm not sure that this situation qualifies as a "self over team" situation, Tony.  If he OK'd the deal, he wouldn't be on the team.  Hard to hold not putting an opposing team's concerns over your own against a player, IMO.  I think perhaps that is a bit much to expect.  He had no-trade rights and exercised them.  I'm not sure of all his reasons, but not wishing to either uproot his family, live apart from his family, or having quite a long commute for a three month assignment doesn't really seem all that outrageous to me. 

As someone else pointed out, I don't know if DD had discussed this with Jones ahead of the trade and Jones indicated that he would waive his no-trade rights.  If that was the case, then yes, that would be disturbing.  I haven't heard that that was indeed the case, however.  DD's past record regarding personal contact with players would tend to make me believe that such a pre-trade discussion probably did not take place.

[TonySoprano]

No one knows what was offered from Philly, so we don't know what we lost.  My guess is it wasn't much for a two-month rental.   It was also a strong signal to him that he probably wouldn't be asked back, and I might be bitter if I were him.  That said, I don't agree with his decision. 

The ship already hit the iceberg with a 32-75 mark at the end of July.   He chose to continue sinking.    

[Luke-OH]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

But if you are fans of that company, then you may not be happy that an employee refused to help out the company even though he had a right. I'm not sure why you and some others can't see this point of view.

No one argues that Jones didn't have that right to veto the trade. But just because he had a right doesn't mean that's what's best for the team, and as a fan of the team, most are more concerned over the team's prospects than any individual player. A player is nothing more than a means to help you win ballgames and entertain the fans. 

Jones had every right to veto that trade and exercised that right, but that doesn't mean that future employers didn't look at that and become skeptical of a guy who is about himself over the team.
 

The sentence before I acknowledged that it was a fair view for fans to not to be happy about it and I agree that future employers have the right to consider his refusal to waive his rights. I'm not going after fans who are bothered by it, I don't think there is a "wrong" opinion here, I'm just saying why I'm not bothered by it. 

[PaulFolk]

3 hours ago, Number5 said:

I don't have a subscription to the Athletic, so I couldn't read the article.  Do we know if Jones' comments were made recently, or if the writer listed a quote that Jones made last year.  I remember him saying something like this last season.  Just curious if he is indeed still insisting on not changing, or if perhaps the writer is making an assumption based on that previous quote.

No journalist worth his salt would recycle an out-of-context quote from last year and pass it off as a fresh quote. It's a recent quote, presumably from after he reported to D'Backs camp.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, PaulFolk said:

No journalist worth his salt would recycle an out-of-context quote from last year and pass it off as a fresh quote. It's a recent quote, presumably from after he reported to D'Backs camp.

I agree that the Athletic wouldn't allow something like that.