Wash Post: O's considering tejada trade

[Sports Guy]

So now I'm wrong for my use of emoticons. Wonderful...

It was a simple question...If you want to run with it in a different direction and think someone is attacking you, that's on you.

[RShack]

It was a simple question...If you want to run with it in a different direction and think someone is attacking you, that's on you.

Yeah, it's a simple question that comes up when you're mad about my opinion about something else, and you don't have a better point to make...

[SilentMajority]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/06/22/DI2006062200753.html

Jorge Arangure Jr.: Hey everyone, welcome to the chat.

Before i answer any questions here let me offer a clarification on today's story. When i wrote that there had been a link between Tejada and the Grimsley investigation there may have been an implication that: 1. i had seen the affadavit. 2. that there had been a public link to tejada and the investigation.

Neither of those are correct. When writing that the two names (Tejada and Grimsley) had been tied together, i mistakenly implied that there had yet been a public link. there has not been a link established. it was a miscalculation on my part. A mistake. This needed to be clarified. After a discussion with several editors, we feel the best way to clarify this is to offer a correction saying there has not yet been a public link. And that's my fault.

I stand by the rest of the article.

Now if all of you are still interest we can chat about this clarification, the other parts of the tejada article or any other oriole or baseball topic. Let's go.

Mr. Arangure, Jr's mea culpa. I'm glad he clarified things.

[FellsPointOsFan]

Here's the full correction:

Earlier versions of this story incorrectly implied that Baltimore Orioles shortstop Miguel Tejada has been linked to the investigation of former Orioles pitcher Jason Grimsley's possible use of performance-enhancing substances. No such link has been established and this version has been corrected.

And here is the new paragraph:

Several team sources said they have noticed Tejada sulking some of late, coinciding with the investigation into an affidavit from former Oriole Jason Grimsley, which appears to link several of his ex-teammates to at least the use of amphetamines and perhaps other substances. (The names in the affidavit have been redacted.) Since it became public on June 7, Tejada is hitting just .236 (17 for 72).

The accusation is just implied now instead of being more or less outright.

[Rock]

The only thing to worry about is steriod or HGH related trouble, and that at this point is pure speculation. It's juicy to talk about, but it's just baseless filler.

If any of that comes down, Tejada's value is gone and the O's are even more screwed. We'd have no All Star SS, we'd have no trade value, we'd have no good FA's or prospects to replace him... in short we would have nothing.

This post got lost in this thread, but this should be the major concern with Tejada now. We have no idea ifTejada is named, but when these names are released and Orioles players are among them, it could easily turn into a huge mess. Who knows what further revelations and speculation there will be. Even assuming Tejada is completely clean, it is hard to believe that another drug controversy surrounding this ballclub will have no effect on his mood and performance.

He's certainly not endearing himself to anyone the way he's been pouting and lacking in hustle lately. I wouldn't be waiting around to be overwhelmed by a trade offer. It's not going to happen. We should be actively trying to trade him for anything close to fair value. It's probably best for him and the Orioles.

[NCRaven]

My problem with posting about Ripken's failure to "hate losing" is that it is total conjecture on the part of the posters. Who asked Cal? How do you know he never went to management with his concerns? Does his failure to barricade himself in his family home and refuse to play like a big boy make him a loser? Last time I looked, Tejada was a key part of every losing team he played on and his total nose dive last season was a big part of why we lost in the first place. Maybe if he played as hard as Cal did every at bat and every defensive play, we wouldn't lose quite so many game (just my opinion, but certainly better grounded in observable events than guesses as to Ripken's mental state).

[sakata_catching]

The accusation is just implied now instead of being more or less outright.

The clarification is more damning than the original statement. He's backed off the original claim, but now he's drawing an explicit connection between Miggy's recent slump and the Grimsley bust, and citing "sources" within the Warehouse for substantiation.

And other outlets are running with it.

This looks primed to blow up sooner rather than later -- at which point Miggy and the O's are going to be stuck with each other. For the long haul.

[SouthernBird]

Like trading Tejada will make a difference on this team. Until this team is no longer owned by the Angelosers who gives a rat's ass!

[RShack]

... I mistakenly implied that there had yet been a public link.... it was a miscalculation on my part. A mistake. This needed to be clarified. After a discussion with several editors, we feel the best way to clarify this is to offer a correction saying there has not yet been a public link. And that's my fault.

Mr. Arangure, Jr's mea culpa. I'm glad he clarified things.

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.

[Dr. FLK]

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.

It seems like there are more and more "weasel" reporters every day. The new thing is to be as slimy and backhanded as possible to get an "edgy" story out. It's starting to make sports' sections hard to read.

[Rock]

I don't think he's a weasel. He might simply be communicating that his unnamed sources told him there was a link or they thought there was a link, and therefore he reported it. Then he issued this correction saying that despite this "private" link there are no public links yet.

[RShack]

I don't think he's a weasel. He might simply be communicating that his unnamed sources told him there was a link or they thought there was a link, and therefore he reported it. Then he issued this correction saying that despite this "private" link there are no public links yet.

If he had said what you think he maybe-meant, that's one thing.

But he did not say what you think he maybe-meant.

Instead he just implied that there are links without backing it up, which makes him a weasel to me...

[Rock]

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 . . ."

He's not writing his own opinion here, but that several team sources told him there might be a link between Tejada and the Grimsley affidavit. He could have corrected himself and said no link has been established, but that's not exactly true in this context because several team sources just told him there might be a link. So he just distinguishes their private opinion and avoids discrediting his sources by saying that there is no public link yet. It seems pretty logical to me.

There are other possibilities, of course. He may in fact have knowledge of a link and cannot report it for whatever reason. It's probably best to go with the most innocent explanations of these kinds of reports until more concrete information is released.

[olehippi]

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.

I'm sure his editor helped him carefully choose his wording for the "clarification"...if you can call it that. However, I think some damage has probably already been done by this story...and that Mr. Arangure may no longer be welcome in the O's clubhouse.

[MChance]

We're in trouble.