Atlanta Braves Rumors: Reading Between Conflicting Lines
Sep 18, 2015; Los Angeles, CA, USA; Los Angeles Dodgers center fielder Joc Pederson (31) and Los Angeles Dodgers left fielder Chris Heisey (28) head off the field after the game against the Pittsburgh Pirates at Dodger Stadium. Dodgers won 6-2. Mandatory Credit: Jayne Kamin-Oncea-USA TODAY Sports
Round 2 is Underway Now…
Robert Murray did not back down… in fact, he doubled down this afternoon:
Saw report denying what I said about #Dodgers & #Braves trade talks regarding Miller/Pederson. Sticking with what I reported. It's true.
— Robert Murray (@ByRobertMurray) November 30, 2015
Murray does have sources… it’s not like he’s reporting this stuff in a vacuum. On Black Friday, one of his sources led him to write that Bronson Arroyo has interest from five different clubs… though apparently would prefer the Reds.
So How Does One Resolve These Things?
More from Tomahawk Take
- Braves News: Braves add multiple new players, Max Fried extension?, more
- Ronald Acuña Jr Donates Venezuelan League Salary to Charity
- Atlanta Braves 2023 Preseason Top 30 Prospects List: 21-25
- Braves News: Braves Acquire Hoy Park
- Braves Sign Ehire Adrianza, Mitchell Tolman to Minor League Deals
- Reputation: this is practically impossible to judge; and even if so, one has to exercise extreme care. But I don’t have any reason to impune anyone’s rep in this case… and frankly, these guys are paid to do a job and they have to do it right, so integrity has to be highly important to them. They are pros… not fly-by-night internet spoof guys.
- Source placement: I’ll get to this in a minute.
- Wording of the rumor: here’s where I think we can draw a distinction.
First of all: it’s pretty obvious that we’re talking about 2 different sources. It could be as different as one in the Braves Front Office and one from the Dodgers.
Neither reporter suggested an adjective to augment their source: nobody said “highly placed” or “informed” or “with knowledge of the negotiations”. So we’re left with the information provided.
That information? Heyman’s source said simply “Joc Pederson is not involved”… his add-on note about LAD preferring to trade from their “deep prospect stash” is good info, but it’s not terribly obvious that it was the same source adding that information, or if this was just separate knowledge. Ah, the woes of a 140 character twitter world.
If I’m a Dodgers’ source: I would definitely deny that Joc is being made available to anybody. In fact, he’s not available to just anybody: he might be available in a specific trade for a specific player, though. Either way, I don’t really want that information out there. In fact, they are probably a bit annoyed at Mr. Murray today.
Also: This is a denial. It’s the absence of information. That is not the same thing as the opposition to positive information, as this isn’t a mathematical equation. Heyman’s information has to be viewed in one of two contexts: (1) his source didn’t know there had been a conversation about Pederson; or (2) his source wanted to deny the existence of such a discussion.
Next: Let's Walk Back to the Other Corner