Wash Post: O's considering tejada trade

[OregonBird]

Man it's painful being an Orioles fan.....

[RShack]

Man it's painful being an Orioles fan.....

Why? Because of some guy stirring up rumors?

I think this team is fun to follow, despite the disappointments. At most positions, we're more-than-fine. And at long last, it looks like the pitching is coming around. It might be painful for you (sorry if it is) but I'm looking forward to this team getting better as the season goes on...

[Why Not?]

Boy, I hope this guy never apoligizes to me. What a load of bull. Look at what he said...

* He should have said "there has not been a link established".

* What he did say was "there has not yet been a public link established".

Which makes him a weasel in my book... because his "clarification" implies that there are links, it's just that the public ones haven't been established... yet...

But he words it so that he's not responsible for saying what he's implying. If he had any journalistic ethics, he would have worded it as shown next to the first asterisk, and then left it alone until he had some evidence about anything more. I know nothing about this guy, but if this is how he "corrects" his errors, I don't trust him as far as I can throw him.

Keep in mind that Arangure didn't correct his error, his editors did.

Tejada's name hasn't been "officially" revealed as being under the black ink of the Grimsley documents. But several media folks seem to be implying that it is there. There's a lot of smoke beyond Arangure's story.

Make no mistake, reporters know which names are there. Maybe not ALL the names, but some. I would be willing to bet that Arangure knows, or at least has very solid reason to believe that Tejada's name is on those documents.

[El Gordo]

He originally wrote, "Several team sources said they have noticed Tejada sulking some of late, perhaps stemming from his name being linked to the investigation into an affidavit from former Oriole Jason Grimsley . . ."

Read this more carefully; he is not saying several team sources have linked Tejada's name to the Grimsley affidavit. He is saying team sources have noticed that Tejada is sulking of late, and then either the writer himself or the team sources are SPECULATING that the reason for this behavior stems from his name being mentioned in the Grimsley affidavit. The only published mention of Tejada with Grimsley that I've read is the Deadspin article that alludes to Tejada using amaphetamines. That has never been confirmed and Deadspin did not claim that they had confirmation. So in my opinion this is just an ambitious writer trying to stir up a little interest on a slow news day and boy has he succeded. It's been some time since the Grimley affidavit hit the press and no names have yet to be confirmed. My take on this is, the legal ramifications are too risky for any one in the press to try. No one has come up with sufficient multiple sources to back any claims. Rumors continue to fly but I doubt if anything will come of them.

[mweb]

Keep in mind that Arangure didn't correct his error, his editors did.

Tejada's name hasn't been "officially" revealed as being under the black ink of the Grimsley documents. But several media folks seem to be implying that it is there. There's a lot of smoke beyond Arangure's story.

Make no mistake, reporters know which names are there. Maybe not ALL the names, but some. I would be willing to bet that Arangure knows, or at least has very solid reason to believe that Tejada's name is on those documents.

I agree and have no issues with what he wrote.

[RShack]

Make no mistake, reporters know which names are there. Maybe not ALL the names, but some. I would be willing to bet that Arangure knows, or at least has very solid reason to believe that Tejada's name is on those documents.

Well, you can place any bets you like. Personally, I don't know. But there are two things I do know...

1. Make no mistake, while many sportswriters are ethical, there would be some guy who hints and implies it, building on last year's Raffy B-12 mess, just to stir the pot. But if he's proved wrong, he hasn't actually *said* it, has he?

2. Make no mistake, if multiple unnamed sources who had any legitimacy said that Miggy's name was there, that would be reported. (Has it?)

I think it's a very good thing that juries haven't been replaced by message-board opinion-jumpers. Miggy's our guy. I think it's sad that so many Oriole fans seem ready to lynch him.

[mweb]

Well, you can place any bets you like. Personally, I don't know. But there are two things I do know...

1. Make no mistake, while many sportswriters are ethical, there would be some guy who hints and implies it, building on last year's Raffy B-12 mess, just to stir the pot. But if he's proved wrong, he hasn't actually *said* it, has he?

2. Make no mistake, if multiple unnamed sources who had any legitimacy said that Miggy's name was there, that would be reported. (Has it?)

I think it's a very good thing that juries haven't been replaced by message-board opinion-jumpers. Miggy's our guy. I think it's sad that so many Oriole fans seem ready to lynch him.

I think it's sad that so many are willing to lynch a reporter because they don't like what he had to say about our guy.

I'm not ready to lynch Tejada either, but all this gives me more reason to want what I already wanted, which is for him to be traded if we can get a very good package. And I've been suspicious of steroids with Miggy for a long time now.

[RShack]

I think it's sad that so many are willing to lynch a reporter because they don't like what he had to say about our guy.

I have no problem with what a reporter *says*straightforwardly. That's not the issue with this guy. The issue with this guy is what he hints, implies, etc., while carefully not saying anything. Then, when he's called on it, his "correction" is worse than the original.

I think it's good when sportswriters write responsibly. This clown did the opposite. Which is exactly the kind of thing that gives good sportswriters a bad name.

And then, people around here jump all over it, as if he actually *said* anything. Which he didn't. For whatever reasons (none of them good) some people here just love to think the worst. *Especially* if it's about our very best player.

[Rock]

I think it's sad that so many are willing to lynch a reporter because they don't like what he had to say about our guy.

I'm not ready to lynch Tejada either, but all this gives me more reason to want what I already wanted, which is for him to be traded if we can get a very good package. And I've been suspicious of steroids with Miggy for a long time now.

Completely agree. There's no evidence Jorge had any venomous or malicious intentions. Some O's officials speculated to him that Tejada's recent slump may be connected to the Grimsley investigation and he reported it. Perhaps he should have chosen his words more wisely, but he was very apologetic in his chat and he said he would personally apologize to Miggy when he arrived at the clubhouse. Don't shoot the messenger.

Perhaps we should be more concerned that privately many O's officials feel there could be a connection.

[Rock]

For whatever reasons (none of them good) some people here just love to think the worst. *Especially* if it's about our very best player.

Exactly what you are doing with respect to the reporter. Per my earlier post, he's not implying anything unless you want to assume the worst, instead of the most logical.

[Why Not?]

2. Make no mistake, if multiple unnamed sources who had any legitimacy said that Miggy's name was there, that would be reported. (Has it?)

It's not that simple.

Unnamed sources are used all the time (especially by the Wash. Post), but they are still heavily scrutinized by reporters and editors. Some papers pretty much forbid use of unnamed sources altogether. With an official legal document like the Grimsley one, there are a myriad of things that need to be considered.

I suspect that Arangure (and other reporters) have been told the names in the Grimsley documents (perhaps by Grimsley himself). It's possible that reporters have been told the names strictly off the record, so they can't report it. Perhaps they are simply prevented from naming the names by their editors.

There are lot of reasons Arangure might have approached the story the way he did. I don't think a personal vendetta against Tejada or a quest for the spotlight are among them.