Cal Speaks

[square634]

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.

The evidence is that Rosenthal -- a respected journalist whether you like it or not -- reported it, and then neither Angelos nor Ripken actually denied it in their carefully worded statements.

Why wouldn't Angelos just say "We never rejected Cal for any position."?

Or why wouldn't Ripken just say "I never asked for or was rejected for any position."?

[Mackus]

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

There in lies the issue.

If Angelos had said that to Cal, then Ripken wouldn't have denied it in his statement.

Actually read what I wrote and get back to me.

[LookitsPuck]

Actually read what I wrote and get back to me.

How about you stop being a jerk, and actually take it at face value.

Which is exactly why I said, and I quote for your sakes (since apparently, you can't read as well):

There in lies the issue.

I think Cal would play diplomat. And you don't. Good for you. I disagree.

[Mackus]

How about you stop being a jerk, and actually take it at face value.

Which is exactly why I said, and I quote for your sakes (since apparently, you can't read as well

I'm not being a jerk and I read just fine.

I never said Cal would have "confirm that Angelos made the comment" even if he had. I said he "wouldn't have denied it". Those are obviously two different things. Since Cal did flatly deny that Angelos ever made that comment to him, it's apparent to me that Angelos did not. I refuse to even imply that Cal is lying here, which apparently is a courtesy you're not going to extend to Cal, even if you're masking it as him "being diplomatic".

[NewMarketSean]

The evidence is that Rosenthal -- a respected journalist whether you like it or not -- reported it, and then neither Angelos nor Ripken actually denied it in their carefully worded statements.

Why wouldn't Angelos just say "We never rejected Cal for any position."?

Or why wouldn't Ripken just say "I never asked for or was rejected for any position."?

Good point. The responses from Angelos and Cal were measured statements that responded to only parts of Rosenthal's report.

There is still a lot of gray area here -- like whether Cal was actually turned down for the instructor's position.

I don't think Cal would lie -- far from it -- but I do think he would twist some words to protect Angelos and the Orioles. And if that happened, I think it's an admirable thing to do.

As I said before, I think "Angelos not wanting Cal to get credit" could be any number of things, and it could actually make sense if we knew the context. Rosenthal or his sources probably twisted those words around to sound as harsh as possible.

At the end of the day I think this is much ado about nothing. Angelos and Cal both seem on the same page, at least in what they said. The biggest thing we can wait for is what Cal decides to do when he is ready -- whether that is with the Orioles or not.

[LookitsPuck]

I'm not being a jerk and I read just fine.

I never said Cal would have "confirm that Angelos made the comment" even if he had. I said he "wouldn't have denied it". Those are obviously two different things. Since Cal did flatly deny that Angelos ever made that comment to him, it's apparent to me that Angelos did not. I refuse to even imply that Cal is lying here, which apparently is a courtesy you're not going to extend to Cal, even if you're masking it as him "being diplomatic".

I don't think it's a matter of courtesy. If Cal was asked that question and Angelos did indeed say it, what do you think Cal would do? Avoid the question? Say "no comment"? See, that's where I disagree. I think he would be diplomatic about it to both protect the Orioles and Angelos.

[Mackus]

I don't think it's a matter of courtesy. If Cal was asked that question and Angelos did indeed say it, what do you think Cal would do? Avoid the question? Say "no comment"? See, that's where I disagree. I think he would be diplomatic about it to both protect the Orioles and Angelos.

I don't know what he'd say in response to a direct question in that scenario.

I do know that if Angelos had said that to Cal, that Cal absolutely would not have directly refuted that he had said it in his public statement.

In your case "being diplomatic about it" is "lying about it". I don't think Cal would lie like that. Saying it never happened when it did isn't something Cal would do. If he hadn't addressed it at all in his statement, I would be willing to concede it was possible Angelos said it. But he did address it directly, and he denied it. Therefore, Angelos did not say it.

[carolinaoriole]

Well now.

In my opinion this proves that Rosenthal is caught in a lie.

I knew it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Arthur_Bryant]

I mean, based on all the statements that have been made, it sounds to me that Ripken made a suggestion or wanted a certain position, and was either rejected outright or told it wasn't the right time. That is the main point of what Rosenthal printed, and neither Angelos nor Ripken actually denied it in their statements. Considering how carefully the statements were worded -- and the fact that Ripken went out of his way to directly deny the whole thing about "getting credit" -- it sounds to me like the majority of what Rosenthal reported was accurate.

Also, Rosenthal's source(s) may have interpreted or inferred the thing about Ripken receiving credit, and now it sounds like that was probably incorrect. I don't think that invalidates the rest of the story though.

Unfortunately, there is no partial credit in journalism.

[square634]

Unfortunately, there is no partial credit in journalism.

That is one way of looking at it, but I think there is a partial credit in journalism -- i.e. whatever percentage of what was reported was correct, assuming it was reported with due diligence. Not everything that sources say is always 100% true, so I think some credit is deserved for even getting the basic outline of facts in a story. To me, attacking Rosenthal's credibility doesn't seem fair. Does anyone remember when the OH front page reported a Brian Roberts trade? Does anyone believe that Tony-OH was lying or intentionally being deceitful? The nature of journalism is such that it is nearly impossible for everything you hear to be fully vetted.

[Dipper9]

For someone who "stands by his story" its taking Rosenthal an awfully long time to respond to Cal's statement that was issued around lunchtime.

Me thinks something is fishy, and it smells like a Kenny Fish to me!

[PrivateO]

Well this has bee a big bundle of fun.

I can't wait to see Rosenthal's next article (which should be coming out soon...).

[Arthur_Bryant]

Good point. The responses from Angelos and Cal were measured statements that responded to only parts of Rosenthal's report.

There is still a lot of gray area here -- like whether Cal was actually turned down for the instructor's position.

The idea that Cal Ripken would be interested in acting as an instructor for the Orioles strikes me as just as far-fetched as the parts that have already been shot down.

His stature in the sport is way bigger than that. If he wants to be involved with an MLB team, he can probably end up with a Nolan Ryan-like job and a minority ownership position--if not with the O's then with someone else.

[WEAVERMAN]

Viviano just read a statement from Cal on the air... he refuted the whole "Angelos doesn't want Cal to receive credit for the turnaround" thing.

He also confirmed that he's been in discussions with Andy & Angelos about returning to the big leagues for the Orioles.

I don't have a link but I suspect there'll be one shortly.

So, this sounds like good news to me.... I'm sure someone will call it spin, etc... go nuts.

I'm no fan of PGA, but the comments attributed to him never seemed make sense and I'm glad they are not true. Angelos is too smart to make such comments.

[ledzepp8]

Aren't you going to wait to see what Rosenthal says in response to Cal and Angelos' responses?

What difference does it make? He's got the two parties involved saying he's full of ****. All he has is "unnamed sources" and all he can do is call Cal and Angelos liars.