"Hearing Trembley threw Rhyne Hughes under the bus and that the clubhouse is turning"

[JTrea81]

Trembley isn't this team's problem. There isn't someone who is a solution, so don't tell me he's not the solution either.

There's just not some magic manager pill, people. They're a very bad offensive team.

True, but you might as well try to change the coaching staff right?

It's not like it's going to make the offense worse...

[trk001]

"Thrown under the bus" is most often used to imply that someone who had minor involvement in something was implicated or blamed instead of someone who likely had greater responsibility for the problem in the first place, usually to protect that someone.

Just gonna go ahead and stay out of the argument as to whether it was used properly in this context.

[dhaze]

Someone gave me negative rep for starting this thread LOL

I was just passing along public discourse about the Orioles. Some people are so sensitive about Trembley, it's hilarious

[BaltimoreTerp]

Sounds like a stretch to me. Anyone who reads this board frequently knows I'm not a Trembley supporter and I do believe he played favorites with Pie last year and didn't like the way he singled out his mistakes at the expense of others.

But this looks to me like a writer who has come to a conclusion about Trembley and is looking for anything to back it up. When Trembley is eventually relieved of his duties, Carroll will have a self-congratulatory article about how Trembley "lost the clubhouse" and how Carroll was one of the first people to publicly write about it happening.

Where's your proof about this?

[Lucky Jim]

Where's your proof about this?

He needs proof to offer an opinion? All he said was "it looks like" this to him. I mean, folks are free to disregard his take on Carroll's (unsourced) rumor-mongering.

I'm not sure why you'd hold Steve to a higher standard than Carroll.

[Lucky Jim]

Come on now. Do we need to dig up the quotes? It's common knowledge that Trembley singled out Pie, PUBLICLY, for mistakes on several occasions while keeping mum when veteran players made the same mistakes.

Yeah, what exactly IS BT asking for proof of?

I thought it was the second part.

[BaltimoreTerp]

He needs proof to offer an opinion? All he said was "it looks like" this to him. I mean, folks are free to disregard his take on Carroll's (unsourced) rumor-mongering.

I'm not sure why you'd hold Steve to a higher standard than Carroll.

Generally you need some background in order to form an opinion. I'm just asking where he got his opinion from.

And I can't believe you just equated a professional journalist reporting information from sources and an internet message board poster creating an opinion.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Come on now. Do we need to dig up the quotes? It's common knowledge that Trembley singled out Pie, PUBLICLY, for mistakes on several occasions while keeping mum when veteran players made the same mistakes.

Second paragraph, not first.

[byrdz]

Oh, jeez.

Yeah, Hughes - the long-time MLB stalwart - was thrown under the bus? Two days ago this team was absolutely ecstatic with its recent play.

I hate this rumor crap.

It may or may not be true. But this is the kind of thing that eeks out only by those with an agenda.

No doubt, I'm amazed at how fast it comes out!

[Lucky Jim]

Generally you need some background in order to form an opinion. I'm just asking where he got his opinion from.

And I can't believe you just equated a professional journalist reporting information from sources and an internet message board poster creating an opinion.

Eh. First, "background" is not "proof." They're different things altogether.

Second, I'm not equating posters and journalists. My point was the de-contextualization. There's literally no information about what that source is. And the subsequent tweets make no sense as explanation. Not sure why Steve needs to disclose his "proof" of anything. You can argue that his "background" is insufficient and that's fine. It's also a separate thing.

I don't know if Carroll has pre-determined opinions about Trembley, but the tweets themselves are threadbare and smack of opportunism.

[Roll Tide]

The ship is sinking on Trembley...I dont know about this situation ... Seriously Hughes doesnt deserve any coddling. None of these guy do IMO. He was on fire when he was brought up. Then he stopped hitting... Trembley should have played him everyday early especially after saying he was going to do that. Hughes continued to hit for a while. Then Atkins was alternated right back in. Thats all I blame Trembley for is not standing by his word.

[dhaze]

smack of opportunism.

That's a bit much. Carroll is already a well respected writer. No one is going to make a name for themselves reporting the bumblings of Dave Trembley, anyhow. He got some information from a source, so he shared it with his readership.

[LA2]

I always thought the expression "throwing someone under a bus" referred to publicly blaming someone or calling them out. If it happened in the cliubhouse how could it be throwing him under the bus? Sending hin down? Did he throw Reimold under the bus, Bergy, JJ? Doesn't AM have a say in these things? Sounds like a bunch of IMO.

Theoretically, if he scapegoated or lashed out at Hughes in front of many other players in the clubhouse, I think that would be "public" enough to be called "throwing him under the bus." I seriously doubt that happened tho.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Eh. First, "background" is not "proof." They're different things altogether.

Second, I'm not equating posters and journalists. My point was the de-contextualization. There's literally no information about what that source is. And the subsequent tweets make no sense as explanation. Not sure why Steve needs to disclose his "proof" of anything. You can argue that his "background" is insufficient and that's fine. It's also a separate thing.

I don't know if Carroll has pre-determined opinions about Trembley, but the tweets themselves are threadbare and smack of opportunism.

Or they "smack" of, "Hey, this is something interesting I heard about the manager situation in Baltimore."

You only believe a statement when there is a clear indication of the source?

"Proof" and "background" are not unrelated, either. The background of how he created his opinion is the proof of his statement.

So, that's what I want to know.

As for you, I'm finding your earlier use of "confirmation bias" awfully ironic at the moment

[Lucky Jim]

That's a bit much. Carroll is already a well respected writer. No one is going to make a name for themselves reporting the bumblings of Dave Trembley, anyhow. He got some information from a source, so he shared it with his readership.

You missed my original post, apparently. I'm not talking about Carroll. I'm talking about the changing nature of "journalism" and the incentive to put new information in the pipeline w/ maximum velocity.

It's really not a knock on Carroll at all, anymore than it's a knock on those who think having tons of folks following their tweets is important.

If you think I'm wrong, maybe you could give me an analysis in the value of 140 character blasts of unsourced gossip, and why they're a good addition to the world of "journalism."