Conspiracy Theories
.
=== Plot Spoiler and Caveat Emptor ===
Here there be philosophy, ethics, and politics, as they relate to business and baseball. If that's not your thing, you might wish to click on past this one.
Tacoma Rain axs,
.
Guys - hang in there with me on this, cuz' I'm really not trying to prove Bigfoot killed Oswald here....
The Mariners are always tight lipped about everything. Right? EVERYTHING. But the M's are ALWAYS - NO COMMENT - on any trades proposals, ESPECIALLY the ones that do not work. Jack has made it a point NEVER to include names.
Yet for THIS trade proposal, we know EVERY name.
Now at first we would say, yeah but the Diamondbacks are in volved too, so Towers is talking... BUT this story is on the Mariner's web site. This story is on Shannon's blog. This story has even had Jack himself talk about it. AND we know EVERY name. It's like the Mariner's are broadcasting this story... and the Mariners are fanning the flames too, by trying to keep people talking about this story.
Harold Reynolds is talking up the fact that UPTON does NOT want to come to Seattle EVER? Harold Reynolds, MLB TV Host.
What is going on?...
The only thing that makes ANY sense to me is that Jack is doing this to get the attention of the MLB or the commissioner.
I am sure there are reasons to do this... like take pressure off the Marlins so they can make a trade, or get a first round draft pick next year, or ???
I am open to your suggestions and comments.
.
=== Talking Points ===
1. Conspiracies do occur.
Some how, some way, at some date, the modern American press was able to stigmatize this phrase "conspiracy theory." Just the mention of the phrase is enough to falsify any protest against a political agenda.
There is a rich, complex set of arguments -- on both sides -- available on the subject of gun control. The NRA sincerely fears an agenda to completely disarm the American populace and in the NRA's view, this could lead to a totalitarian government riding herd over its citizens with impunity.
Most NRA members don't particularly feel like they need 30-round magazines for their rifles, but what they do feel like, is that some segments of American society are trying to incrementally work towards a situation in which no American legally owns a gun at all.
Very often the logical retort against the NRA consists of --- > laughter, pointing, and "Look at the conspiracy theorists!" And very often this retort is completely effective.
How many U.S. senators and representatives would like to see private gun ownership outlawed? Of course there are some. Why, then, respond to the NRA's protest with Conspiracy Theory Kook ridicule? Why not simply make the case that citizens should not own guns?
It's not about right wing or left wing, as such. The left wing might oppose prayers at school assemblies not because a 30-second prayer is so repugnant, but because of its fear of an underlying agenda -- that the right wing, if left unopposed, would saturate the K-12 system with Bible education. And that's a concern well founded. Many on the right actually would do this, if it were possible.
Why then ridicule the left over its concerns that an agenda exists? An agenda does exist. Those who deny the existence of the agenda are being dishonest, but they're being effectively dishonest. The "Conspiracy Theory" accusation wields tremendous power in our society. Too much power.
I know nobody asked me, but if anybody did, I'm completely opposed to the debate tactic of mockery. And the increasing American tendency to win arguments through ridicule is at its worst in this terrain, the Conspiracy Theory terrain.
Notice, for example, Tacoma Rain putting his hands into defensive position before the fact, since he's going to be venturing into "Conspiracy Theory" territory.
..............
Why? What, exactly, is so preposterous about the suggestion that somebody might have an agenda? And that they might keep this agenda close to the vest?
I have agendas -- many of them, even with respect to SSI, some of which I don't tell you about. Doesn't everybody have agendas? And how often do you make it a point to provide full disclosure for your own agendas?
If a politician, or a powerful business executive, did NOT have agendas, what use would he be?
It's not preposterous to suggest that the Mariners are managing their P.R., nor that the Justin Upton situation was chiefly a ploy to represent themselves as aggressively trying to win. Geoff Baker suggested precisely this with respect to the Josh Hamilton contract offer. And the Mariners have always been exceptionally concerned with public perception.
.
2. "Conspiracy" usually implies that you're plotting to do something illegal, or at least immoral. That's the emotional tone attached.
Let's say the Mariners had been doing this -- making lukewarm efforts to improve their team, assuming the efforts won't be enough, and figuring "Well, if Hamilton accepts our mediocre offer, so much the better. But at least we'll be able to advertise our efforts."
What would be illegal or immoral about that? Nothing.
On the other hand, their decade-long policy of treating 85 wins like a pennant, their Committee belief that all we owe to Soccer Mom is an evening of Major League Baseball (TM) under the open air, I could argue that there are things unethical about that. But this winter, nada, not in a vacuum.
.
3. Based on my own (limited) experience with business executives at Zduriencik's and Towers' level, would I say that it's feasible that maybe the Mariners and DBacks went through this whole thing, not really wanting to make a deal?
No way in the world.
For one thing, you don't jerk people around like that, people outside your own company. A necessary evil, like the M's jumping off Montero to Smoak in the Cliff Lee deal, that is part of the rough-and-tumble of big bidness. But to sit down with a fellow power broker, and take up his time based on a sham negotiation that was a fraud from day one? That's not the cloth they are cut from.
Execs who make $500,000 a year are about getting from point A to point B, whatever the bloodshed might be along the way. They're just not interested enough in your opinion, to spend that kind of time and energy on appearances. They've got stuff to do, man. There are a lot of things you might call Jack Zduriencik, but small-minded is not one of them.
.
4. That last sentence does not apply, in my opinion, to Harold Reynolds.
I think he's just being catty about a former org that has offended him in the past. Some of those ex-ballplayers are extremely focused on the petty aspects of the situation and if Reynolds got a chance to take a swipe at the M's, I'm sure he'd take it.
.
5. Upton's agent was indeed quoted, last year, specifically opening the door to teams on Upton's no-trade list. Guess here is that the agent and the player weren't on the same page, which is nothing unusual.
Kelly Gaffney hit this one spot on, we think. Upton probably has some specific trade in mind, much like Griffey did back in '99*, and we're guessing that's the dynamic here.
How to overcome it? Back channel, you'd need to convince him that his preferred destination(s) really aren't possible, because Upton's trying to twist your arm to take 75 cents on the dollar to send him there. Undoubtedly he thinks that if he pushes hard enough, if he plays chicken with enough determination, you (Towers) will throw your hands in the air and say "Oh, all right."
All things considered, it would probably take a whale of a recruiting effort by Zduriencik to get Upton here. Maybe that's what's going on now.
.
6. If Zduriencik is willing to give up this kind of jack to make a deal happen, you would think he'd be able to Git R Done sometime this winter. I mean, two 10K major league relievers, together with the top-100 prospects bundle, that's serious coin. If I'm a rival GM shopping my All-Star, I want to know what all else Zduriencik is willing to cough up.
BABVA,
Dr D