Cal Speaks

[clapdiddy]

Hello? Do you remember what the actual story was about? Go back and see. Certain military records just magically vanished. It was a case where the only possible proof was to have those records produced, and they never were despite the fact that there was nothing about them that was classified, they were just personnel records, that's all. AFAIK, nobody ever claimed the story was not true. Instead, they just changed the subject to the font on the doc's, and lotsa people forgot about what the real issue of the story was...

I was going to reply to this, but I realize we are a bit off topic.

I apologize to the rest of the board for aiding into this "argument".

[NewMarketSean]

Re-reading Cal's comments, he never says the report about him being turned down weren't true -- just that Angelos never told him that he didn't want Cal getting all the credit for the team's turnaround.

And if people think that these comments aren't filtered and run by lawyers and publicists, etc... they are crazy. These people are not speaking off the top of their heads.

[LookitsPuck]

I cannot believe some people here. First off, Cal has said for years that he's taking family time and that he'd think about coming back when his kids were grown. As he said in this response, he's got a kid who's almost out of high school, and thus will be open to returning once that happens. Second off, both he and PA clearly denied the story. Yet people will find some goofy way of claiming that they didn't really deny it. It was worded too carefully, unless it was worded too uncarefully. Jeez, people, what the hell do you want? You think both Cal and PA should put *you* in charge of how they phrase their statements? Half the people here can't even spell, much less use proper grammar, yet the statements of both Cal and PA are not up to the standards of what people here expect? Does anybody really think they're gonna announce the actual content of their private and ongoing conversations? If so, you're naive. They're not gonna tell us that, nor should they. Plus, even if they did, some people here would turn into a disaster anyway by twisting their words this way and that way.

No matter what anybody says, there will be some idiot here who claims that (a) Cal has a timetable different than what he says his timetable is, even though he has no reason to lie, (b) PA really did reject him, even though he and Cal have gotten along fine for years © PA really did say he didn't want Cal getting credit, even though there is zero reason to think that PA would say such a thing, and (d) something evil is afoot. Frankly, some people here are just flat-out nuts and will ignore any and all evidence, just to keep their wacko theories alive...

Ah, you defending Angelos and the Orioles, who would have thunk it?

FWIW, if you're going to continue to call out posters, are you going to call out Peter Shmuck as well?

[TradeAngelos]

Yes the time-frame might be a couple of years away, but then why didn't he say: "I want to make it clear I was never rebuffed or rejected for any position with the Orioles. The only discussions we had were preliminary, as my only interest in a position with the Orioles will be in a couple of years when my son graduates."

Because then Cal would be lying.

That is Angelos' department.

[RShack]

Ah, you defending Angelos and the Orioles, who would have thunk it?

What are you talking about? I have repeatedly said that PA is unilaterally responsible for the more-than-a-decade of crapitude. What part of that do you not understand?

FWIW, if you're going to continue to call out posters, are you going to call out Peter Shmuck as well?

OK, sure: If Schmuck thinks PA told Cal to go away because PA didn't want him getting credit, then Schmuck is an idiot too. How's that?

Look, neither Cal nor PA are gonna say beans about what they did talk about. Nor should they. Those were private conversations and will stay that way. Even if they did release the content of those conversations, some fool would turn it into something bad, just because they want to...

[LookitsPuck]

What are you talking about? I have repeatedly said that PA is unilaterally responsible for the more-than-a-decade of crapitude. What part of that do you not understand?

OK, sure: If Schmuck thinks PA told Cal to go away because PA didn't want him getting credit, then Schmuck is an idiot too. How's that?

Look, neither Cal nor PA are gonna say beans about what they did talk about. Nor should they. Those were private conversations and will stay that way. Even if they did release the content of those conversations, some fool would turn it into something bad, just because they want to...

Ripken only refuted *1* thing and is was the comment that Angelos didn't want to give Ripken credit if the team turned itself around. So tell me, how is that a tin-foil approach?

Read between the lines. You have a snake in Peter Angelos who's job it is to word things carefully, and Cal Ripken who only denied one aspect of the entire report. Personally, I think Ripken is being as diplomatic as possible, so even IF (And I think it's a good chance) that Angelos made the "credit" comment, then I doubt even Cal Ripken would confirm it.

I'm sorry, I don't get all the hate against Rosenthal here. If anything, I think some people here should be ashamed that they're so quick to rush to Angelos's side and say, "See! I told you so!", but are so fast to say, "Rosenthal is an idiot and he should lose his job."

[Mackus]

Ripken only refuted *1* thing and is was the comment that Angelos didn't want to give Ripken credit if the team turned itself around. So tell me, how is that a tin-foil approach?

Read between the lines. You have a snake in Peter Angelos who's job it is to word things carefully, and Cal Ripken who only denied one aspect of the entire report.

I'm sorry, I don't get all the hate against Rosenthal here. If anything, I think some people here should be ashamed that they're so quick to rush to Angelos's side and say, "See! I told you so!", but are so fast to say, "Rosenthal is an idiot and he should lose his job."

The hate against Rosenthal is because the story would have only been of minor consequence if he hadn't thrown in the blatant lie (whether his or his source's) of "Angelos not wanting Cal to get the credit for a turnaround". If the story is basically the same otherwise but instead of that purposely incendiary comment it had something like "Ripken and Angelos met to speak about a position with the team but decided that the timing wasn't right currently" then the article doesn't cause such uproar.

[LookitsPuck]

The hate against Rosenthal is because the story would have only been of minor consequence if he hadn't thrown in the blatant lie (whether his or his source's) of "Angelos not wanting Cal to get the credit for a turnaround". If the story is basically the same otherwise but instead of that purposely incendiary comment it had something like "Ripken and Angelos met to speak about a position with the team but decided that the timing wasn't right currently" then the article doesn't cause such uproar.

Blatant lie? Are you so sure of yourself? And is that a shot at Rosenthal? Or what it is this time?

This forum is wildly sensationalist. They think the media hates the Orioles, and never gives the team credit, and thinks there is this conspiracy with the Red Sox and the Yankees, and I think those members are...how shall I say it properly? Well, I won't. Fathom what you can.

And I have that same opinion for those that think Rosenthal is an idiot and a liar.

Angelos has said/done some pretty idiotic, asinine things over the years. I would not put this past him.

[Mackus]

Blatant lie? Are you so sure of yourself? .

100% sure.

Somebody is lying here. Either the sources, Rosenthal, or Angelos and Ripken. If Angelos said it, then Rip and PA are lying, if he didn't, then its someone further down the stream. That's too harsh of an accusation to get summed up as "misinterpreting a comment" anywhere along this chain.

[LookitsPuck]

100% sure.

Somebody is lying here. Either the sources, Rosenthal, or Angelos and Ripken. If Angelos said it, then Rip and PA are lying, if he didn't, then its someone further down the stream.

Ripken would be being diplomatic. Angelos would be lying, which has happened on numerous occasions. Why so quick to jump on Rosenthal and call it a blatant lie, as opposed to Angelos? Because Ripken was diplomatic about it?

[Mackus]

Ripken would be being diplomatic. Angelos would be lying, which has happened on numerous occasions. Why so quick to jump on Rosenthal and call it a blatant lie, as opposed to Angelos? Because Ripken was diplomatic about it?

Because I believe Cal. So it then becomes a lie on Rosenthal or his source's part. If Angelos had said that to Cal, then Ripken wouldn't have denied it in his statement

I'm not quick to jump on Rosenthal, I've said repeatedly that I think its likely he heard this from his sources. But, unless he names the sources, he's the only name attached to it, and as such the fault lies with him. Part of being a journalist is to take the heat for reporting things that aren't true, he's gotta dig deeper to see if this has any teeth. If he didn't do a good enough job of that, and running the story before speaking to Cal or Peter shows he didn't do a good enough job, that's on him.

[square634]

The hate against Rosenthal is because the story would have only been of minor consequence if he hadn't thrown in the blatant lie (whether his or his source's) of "Angelos not wanting Cal to get the credit for a turnaround". If the story is basically the same otherwise but instead of that purposely incendiary comment it had something like "Ripken and Angelos met to speak about a position with the team but decided that the timing wasn't right currently" then the article doesn't cause such uproar.

Well if this is the only problem that people have, then that's fair enough. It could easily be that the sources were misinformed, lying, and/or sensationalizing that point.

I thought the larger issue here was not Angelos's justification, but whether or not Ripken was denied a position (personally, I don't care whether he was or wasn't because I don't know whether he is qualified). I think the preponderance of evidence suggests that 1) Ripken was turned down/rebuffed/some other synonym for a job with the organization and 2) if Angelos's reason was that he didn't want Ripken to get credit for a turnaround, then at the very least he didn't tell Ripken that.

[LookitsPuck]

Because I believe Cal. So it then becomes a lie on Rosenthal or his source's part. If Angelos had said that to Cal, then Ripken wouldn't have denied it in his statement

I'm not quick to jump on Rosenthal, I've said repeatedly that I think its likely he heard this from his sources. But, unless he names the sources, he's the only name attached to it, and as such the fault lies with him. Part of being a journalist is to take the heat for reporting things that aren't true, he's gotta dig deeper to see if this has any teeth. If he didn't do a good enough job of that, and running the story before speaking to Cal or Peter shows he didn't do a good enough job, that's on him.

You think Cal would confirm that Angelos made that comment even if Angelos made that comment?

There in lies the issue.

[LookitsPuck]

Well if this is the only problem that people have, then that's fair enough. It could easily be that the sources were misinformed, lying, and/or sensationalizing that point.

I thought the larger issue here was not Angelos's justification, but whether or not Ripken was denied a position (personally, I don't care whether he was or wasn't because I don't know whether he is qualified). I think the preponderance of evidence suggests that 1) Ripken was turned down/rebuffed/some other synonym for a job with the organization and 2) if Angelos's reason was that he didn't want Ripken to get credit for a turnaround, then at the very least he didn't tell Ripken that.

Well, yeah, that's the bigger issue. Angelos being a jerk wouldn't come as any surprise. But you have people here (not you Mackus) that think the entire story is bs.

[RShack]

I think the preponderance of evidence suggests that 1) Ripken was turned down/rebuffed/some other synonym for a job with the organization and 2) if Angelos's reason was that he didn't want Ripken to get credit for a turnaround, then at the very least he didn't tell Ripken that.

The preponderance of evidence? What evidence? There is no evidence. People are just making up junk out of thin air.

Cal's gonna do what he wants, and he has said all along that he'll shift gears once his kids are grown. He repeated the same thing in his response.