Hey look, Justice wrote another "Drayton sucks" article

i would say writing an article about an offer retracted...without publishing something along the lines of what happened here from the league office...would be lying. failing to tell the whole story is lying, particularly if you're leaving out a material fact. deceptive at the very least. not what you would hope for from an "objective" journalist.

 

Well if its objective journalism then you have no complaint. That's my point, you go off on every Richard Justice article about Drayton but yet there is nothing wrong with the article.

 

i disagree with the notion that there's nothing wrong with this article.

 

1. Every year there are players who are taken in later rounds who sign for more than the projected amount in that slot. I doubt the league has that much influence to dictate what a team can or cannot sign a player for. That's certainly not in Major League Baseball's collective bargaining agreement like the NBA. There would be a strong argument for collusion and after the Tim Raines incident 20+ years ago (which also semi-involved the Astros), I doubt it's any hard and fast rule. Sounded like McLane just got cold feet similiar to someone who made a hand shake deal and backs out when he thinks he's getting ripped off.

2. As a big UT fan, Ive obviously seen Stubbs play quite a bit. And despite his offensive struggles in the CWS, he has amazing tools and fantastic defensive skills. For all his struggles, if professional scouts believe he'll be a high 1st round pick, Id go with that assessment over yours, mine, or anyone here on the BBS.

 

1. the article doesn't even question the idea that mclane got that call. it glosses right over it, instead. i don't know what went on behind the scenes.

2. back to the original point...i'm a brown noser because i disagree with you. moving on!

 

No. You're a brown noser because you always side in favor of McLane.
As Yoda would say: The consumate yes man, you are.

 

To brown nose, wouldn't you have to get something in return? I mean besides the season tickets and multiple stacks of cash we get from Uncle Drayton's other successful businesses? I'm not sure why it took you morons so long to figure out that MadMax and I were actually on the Astros payroll...

 

That's what makes it especially interesting. The fact you two have your noses so far up Drayton's arse with no consideration is amazing.

1. Did the league place pressure on McLane - let's assume yes. Did McLane have to follow their "recommendation" -no. The league cannot mandate any team to sign or not sign a player for any amount despite whatever "pressure" is placed upon the owner. This is a fact.

2. Based on Justice's interview with scouts, they project him as of now to be a high 1st round pick. This is also a fact (unless Justice lied about the conversation - a potential conspiracy theory worthy of Oliver Stone).

For MadMax to divert attention from the facts by asking if we ever watched Stubbs play is a diversion that has no relevance. It's a weak attempt to defend McLane at all costs.

The usual MO for both of you guys.

 

Someone has some reading comprehension problems. I told you why we brown nose McLane. Jeez.

 

Thank god you guys are getting something. Otherwise it'd be even more pathetic than it already is - if possible.

 

It could be. We could be Richard Justice.

 

Give me a break. Does Richard Justice have an anti-McLane slant - of course. Do I have an anti-McLane slant? (obvious).

It still does not make anything he said untrue or misleading (short of complete fabrication). Even assuming everything you guys claim is true about MLB's recommended guidelines and repercussions (whatever that may be - unlcear), McLane is ultimately responsible.

The article was accurate that McLane missed an opportunity to sign a potentially good/great player at far below market value.

The fact the league wouldve given him a dirty look obviously did not stop him from signing Troy Patton for an amount much higher than his "slot".

I have no idea how you guys can dispute any of the above.

 

The article has one quote from McLane saying he didn't renege on a deal because they never agreed to one. Then Justice goes on to say what an idiot McLane was for reneging on a deal. In the examples he cites of the Astros ignoring MLB, he never actually says that the commissioner's office instructed them not to sign the players, he just mentions what they signed for (which was 150k and 350k less than what Stubbs was going to be signed for, btw...I also don't know what Troy Patton was signed for or if there was pressure from the MLB for us not to sign him).

I think it's a flawed article by someone who's got an agenda against the owner of the Astros. Speaking for MadMax, we're extremely sorry that we disagree with you.

 

I think someone else needs reading comprehension tips.

The article has several quotes from McLane including: "That (Stubbs') contract was way over the slot," he said.

Why would McLane say that unless money or league pressure (which cannot be a mandate) was a primary reason they didn't sign Stubbs.

The article also cites a club source that said I think Drayton panicked," a club source said. "He didn't want the commissioner mad at him. Barthmaier was such a low pick, it kind of flew under the radar. Stubbs was a third-round pick getting second-round money, and I guess they noticed."

Now you can argue a club source could be anybody. However, for that source to cite a 13th round pick from 2003, he obviously knew something about the draft process within the organization. The fact McLane ponied up $750k for a 13th round pick is strange in itself and obviously he didn't care about "slotting" then.


As far as not knowing what Troy Patton signed for, the article clearly states that Troy Patton was signed for $550,000 despite being picked in the 9th round.

 

Doesn't the second quote say that the primary reason that Drayton backed off was because of the pressure from the commissioner's office? And the first quote makes no mention of the money - except as it relates to how much he was being overpaid based on draft status.

McLane's paid over the slot before, everyone acknowledges this - so why not this particular time? We didn't sign a guy with obvious top round talent - why not? Was it solely monetary reasons? Or like the club source implied - was it because of pressure from the commissioner's office?

That's what the article should've said. You can still criticize him for bowing to pressure from the Commissioner's office if you want - but it seems to me, at least, that the difference between Stubbs and a guy like Patton - is that Bud Selig didn't call McLane and tell him not to give Patton that contract.

 

I never denied I needed reading comprehension lessons.

Regardless, he said they never had a deal and the article quotes him, but doesn't believe him. I do hate anonymous sources as well on stuff like this, FWIW. My bad on the Patton thing, don't know why I read someone else's name. Regardless, the article also implies that there was MLB pressure on the Astros on those picks, but it never actually says it. If there was pressure and they bucked it, why didn't Justice press Drayton on it?

 

Exactly. This is why I can't stand McLane. On the one hand, he claims the reason we didn't sign Stubbs was "slotting" when it's clear he has not adhered to the guidelines himself.

That's exactly the point the article was making - that Stubbs was not signed because somehow McLane felt Stubbs was either not worth the amount of money or that he bowed to the commissioner's request.

How was this article unfair? It wasn't. If the article was unfair, he'd try to blame McLane for being cheap (like most of us do).

He didn't.

Justice cited 2 low draft choices who signed for substantially more money than their slots and then got a quote from mcLane that Stubbs was not signed because of contract slotting which is completely contrary to Patton and Barthmaier.

The article certainly makes McLane look bad (especially when they quote Drew Stubbs father) but that in itself doesn't dismiss the fact that we couldve signed Stubbs for far less than what he'll probably be worth and that McLane botched up the deal.

And any Juustice article that makes McLane look bad (even if true) brings out RM95 and MadMax.

 

See, here's the problem - you bought into the innuendo. You took a quote from McLane, without knowing any context, and decided that he was indicating that the slotting / pay rate was a reason he didn't sign the guy. For all you know, the quote could have come from:

"How does the contract you were considering compare to the normal pay for this type of draft pick?"

McLane: "That (Stubbs') contract was way over the slot"

You (and Justice) took the quote and interpreted it the way you want but we have no idea the context. That's the slant other people are talking about. Unlike those guys, I don't have any problem with Justice in general, but this does seem like an article designed to paint a bad picture of McLane without necessarily backing it up.

 

The problem I still have is that the question of why this time was different remains unasked, and unanswered. We've done it before, with similar dollar figures, and going even higher over the slot before.

What I want out of an article about this situation is the factor that made it different from the other times. I think it was pressure from the commish's office, but I can't say for sure.

I don't think it's going to paint a rosy picture on the Astros regardless of what it says - but this article never answered the question of WHY? other than to point a stubby finger at McLane and bleat "Cheap, Cheap, Cheap, Cheap, Cheap".

Now, now - lets be fair. Any argument about McLane brings out the same people on both sides of the discussion - whether the article merely fits their currently held biases, or they're just being consistent - I cannot say. But I think to imply that only one side of the argument is predictable is quite unfair.

 

Im not sure what he has to do to "back it up".

1. The "Pro-McLane side" has completely dismissed everything that Drew Stubbs' father said about being misled. It may be true it may not be. However the pro-McLane faction gives absolutely no creedence to the Stubbs family - an obvious party to the negotations.

To further "back it up" -

2. Justice quotes a source that was involved enough in the organization to discuss a 13th round draft choice and how he "flew under league radar". The same source has also been completely dismissed by the "pro-McLane" faction

as well as the circumstantial evidence -

3. When the Astros fans drafted Stubbs, many UT fans like myself never felt he would step on campus because any team drafting him knew his contract demands which was no secret. Why would the Astros take a player who was so adamant about his contract unless they felt they had a good shot of signing him. Obviously many players bluff to leverage their negotiating position but Justice's scenario is plausible when coupled with the "source" that stated the whole process was not handled well. Of course this is once again complete subterfuge as Justice was interviewing the janitor whose hobby is to research 13th round salary slots.

4. As far as the McLane quote, you're assuming it was taken out of context. There's actually a Baseball America article from June 2005 that discussed exactly this point which is: since 2000, the league had been trying to "slot players". However, the article also points out that the league does not have an actual mandate as that could be considered collusion. Also, owners (like McLane himself) have gone against the league when they wanted players badly enough.

But of course despite all of this, the automatic assumption is that Justice is just out to get McLane. Even assuming arguendo, you can "get somebody" when the facts present themselves (Res Ipsa) just as the truth is a defense for libel.

Rather than arguing the points, because Justice is anti-McLane, "some people" automatically call it trash or roll their eyes.