PDA

View Full Version : Miguel Cabrera's "potential" suitors


JermaineDye05
11-24-2009, 02:09 PM
link (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/11/olney-on-cabrera-yankees-.html)

Buster Olney lists the Red Sox, Angels, Mets, Giants, Mariners, Braves, and White Sox.

I think Olney just included the Sox for the fact that Kenny tried to acquire Miguel right before the Tigers did and it's well known that Ozzie and Cabrera have a good relationship. However, despite that, I see the chances of the White Sox landing Cabrera FROM the Tigers as less than 0. The only hope the Sox have at acquire Miguel is through free agency after his contract expires or through a trade with whatever team he's traded to. That is of course IF he's traded and IF that team decides to move him at some point. So yeah, the chances of the White Sox picking up Cabrera are below slim.

I'd like to state that I'd vomit if the Red Sox landed Cabrera.

LoveYourSuit
11-24-2009, 02:10 PM
link (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/11/olney-on-cabrera-yankees-.html)

Buster Olney lists the Red Sox, Angels, Mets, Giants, Mariners, Braves, and White Sox.

I think Olney just included the Sox for the fact that Kenny tried to acquire Miguel right before the Tigers did and it's well known that Ozzie and Cabrera have a good relationship. However, despite that, I see the chances of the White Sox landing Cabrera FROM the Tigers as less than 0. The only hope the Sox have at acquire Miguel is through free agency after his contract expires or through a trade with whatever team he's traded to. That is of course IF he's traded and IF that team decides to move him at some point. So yeah, the chances of the White Sox picking up Cabrera are below slim.

I'd like to state that I'd vomit if the Red Sox landed Cabrera.


This line-up so badly needs a Cabrera type guy in that middle.

russ99
11-24-2009, 02:15 PM
This line-up so badly needs a Cabrera type guy in that middle.

Absolutely.

It does seem highly improbable, but what would Kenny have to offer to sway them? It's not like players haven't been traded within the division before...

DSpivack
11-24-2009, 02:16 PM
I seriously doubt he goes anywhere.

JermaineDye05
11-24-2009, 02:25 PM
I seriously doubt he goes anywhere.

Agreed. I think the Tigers are just doing this to see if they can get a kings ransom for him like the Marlins got for Beckett and Lowell.

pythons007
11-24-2009, 02:40 PM
Absolutely.

It does seem highly improbable, but what would Kenny have to offer to sway them? It's not like players haven't been traded within the division before...

Bekcham, Danks and Floyd......

JermaineDye05
11-24-2009, 02:43 PM
Bekcham, Danks and Floyd......

Why don't we just find a pistol and shoot ourselves in the foot then?

Jimmy Piersall
11-24-2009, 02:53 PM
He forgot about the Cubs.You know,for Fontenot and Bradley.

spawn
11-24-2009, 02:54 PM
Cabrera isn't going anywhere.

munchman33
11-24-2009, 03:41 PM
This line-up so badly needs a Cabrera type guy in that middle.

Quentin can be that guy.

munchman33
11-24-2009, 03:44 PM
Cabrera isn't going anywhere.

I'd take that bet. The Tigers are bleeding money. You can't spend more than you make unless you're sure to be playing postseason baseball. That team's payroll is $20+ million more than they can afford. They've been irresponsible with their money, and now they've got to trade expensive and good young players like Cabrera and Granderson to get out of it. No one's picking up their expensive crappy players. Not anymore.

I'm glad they're in our division!

Lip Man 1
11-24-2009, 03:48 PM
Munch:

"Irresponsible" is determined by the person who has to pay the bills not from an outside looking in.

The Tigers owner is a billionaire, I'm sure being 20 million over what you think he can spend isn't causing him to lose sleep at night.

If Domino's goes out of business tomorrow than you have a great point, but it isn't and I don't think you do.

Lip

ewokpelts
11-24-2009, 03:53 PM
Munch:

"Irresponsible" is determined by the person who has to pay the bills not from an outside looking in.

The Tigers owner is a billionaire, I'm sure being 20 million over what you think he can spend isn't causing him to lose sleep at night.

If Domino's goes out of business tomorrow than you have a great point, but it isn't and I don't think you do.

LipMike Illitch will throw a party the day Domino's folds. Seeing how he owns Little Cesars.

voodoochile
11-24-2009, 04:00 PM
Munch:

"Irresponsible" is determined by the person who has to pay the bills not from an outside looking in.

The Tigers owner is a billionaire, I'm sure being 20 million over what you think he can spend isn't causing him to lose sleep at night.

If Domino's goes out of business tomorrow than you have a great point, but it isn't and I don't think you do.

Lip

I thought MLB didn't allow that kind of stuff. Teams are not allowed to run in the red for extended periods of time and stuff like the owner throwing money in the pot has to be justified on the books somewhere to balance the budget.

CWSpalehoseCWS
11-24-2009, 04:02 PM
No way this happens. 1) Why would the Tigers trade a player of his caliber to a team within the division, and 2) I highly doubt the Sox Sox could put a package together good enough to get him.

veeter
11-24-2009, 04:33 PM
He forgot about the Cubs.You know,for Fontenot and Bradley.Paul Sullivan just presented that idea to his editor.

wulfy
11-24-2009, 05:17 PM
I think I read that he has 5 years and $125MM left on his deal.

wulfy
11-24-2009, 05:26 PM
I think I read that he has 5 years and $125MM left on his deal.

I looked it up and that's correct, he's in year 3 of an 8 year deal with $126MM left on the contract.

munchman33
11-24-2009, 06:20 PM
Munch:

"Irresponsible" is determined by the person who has to pay the bills not from an outside looking in.

The Tigers owner is a billionaire, I'm sure being 20 million over what you think he can spend isn't causing him to lose sleep at night.

If Domino's goes out of business tomorrow than you have a great point, but it isn't and I don't think you do.

Lip

Lip, I'm not big on owners who don't spend to get better but it's hard not to look at the Tigers as a classic case of a team way over operating budget spending more and more in a hail mary attempt to fix the problem. Not to mention the owner being a billionaire personally has absolutely zero to do with the Tigers operating budget. It's a franchise, not a mom and pop business. If you owned a McDonald's franchise, you wouldn't throw in your own money when times are tight. You cut costs in the business.

Hitmen77
11-24-2009, 08:54 PM
link (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/11/olney-on-cabrera-yankees-.html)

Buster Olney lists the Red Sox, Angels, Mets, Giants, Mariners, Braves, and White Sox.

I think Olney just included the Sox for the fact that Kenny tried to acquire Miguel right before the Tigers did and it's well known that Ozzie and Cabrera have a good relationship. However, despite that, I see the chances of the White Sox landing Cabrera FROM the Tigers as less than 0. The only hope the Sox have at acquire Miguel is through free agency after his contract expires or through a trade with whatever team he's traded to. That is of course IF he's traded and IF that team decides to move him at some point. So yeah, the chances of the White Sox picking up Cabrera are below slim.

I'd like to state that I'd vomit if the Red Sox landed Cabrera.

Yeah, I seem to remember Cabrera having a great night on the town with our guys in September. :o:

Lip Man 1
11-25-2009, 12:17 PM
Voodoo:

Selig has enforced in the past the 60/40 rule on team debt. I don't know if he is doing so now (Perhaps Daver can provide more info) but even if he is that's still 40% you're allowed to be in the red for a time period.

Hard to think (or believe) the Tigers franchise is above that mark right now.

Lip

ewokpelts
11-25-2009, 12:20 PM
Voodoo:

Selig has enforced in the past the 60/40 rule on team debt. I don't know if he is doing so now (Perhaps Daver can provide more info) but even if he is that's still 40% you're allowed to be in the red for a time period.

Hard to think (or believe) the Tigers franchise is above that mark right now.

Liptigers have had record attendance since 2005. they may be in the red, but not by much.

dickallen15
11-25-2009, 12:54 PM
Voodoo:

Selig has enforced in the past the 60/40 rule on team debt. I don't know if he is doing so now (Perhaps Daver can provide more info) but even if he is that's still 40% you're allowed to be in the red for a time period.

Hard to think (or believe) the Tigers franchise is above that mark right now.

Lip

What kind of debt does Illich have?

asboog
11-25-2009, 12:57 PM
I think the Orioles might have a legitimate shot at getting him. They need a power bat in their lineup and they have an opening at first base. Also they have money to spend, little commitment to players beyond next year, their payroll is low and they have the prospects. He is definitely the kind of impact player they need and could go get

munchman33
11-25-2009, 01:16 PM
tigers have had record attendance since 2005. they may be in the red, but not by much.

That is a poor assumption. Especially with the disregard for common sense the Tigers have been spending with. They are not the Red Sox. Heck, they're not even the White Sox. Attendance alone does not account for payroll. And the Tigers will NEVER have the kinds of resources available to larger markets.

voodoochile
11-25-2009, 01:26 PM
That is a poor assumption. Especially with the disregard for common sense the Tigers have been spending with. They are not the Red Sox. Heck, they're not even the White Sox. Attendance alone does not account for payroll. And the Tigers will NEVER have the kinds of resources available to larger markets.

Especially playing in Detroit in the current economic situation. Michigan leads the country with 16% unemployment...

SOXSINCE'70
11-26-2009, 11:12 PM
Can the Sox also acquire Curtis Granderson?? :D:

akingamongstmen
11-30-2009, 02:45 PM
I think the Orioles might have a legitimate shot at getting him. They need a power bat in their lineup and they have an opening at first base. Also they have money to spend, little commitment to players beyond next year, their payroll is low and they have the prospects. He is definitely the kind of impact player they need and could go get

This would make a ton of sense. It's downright sad to see what has become of the once-proud Orioles franchise since Ripken retired. That fan base could use some hope, and this would certainly give them a jolt.

Of course, I would be thrilled to see a lot less of Miguel Cabrera against the Sox as he is a devastating hitter.

jabrch
11-30-2009, 04:33 PM
"Irresponsible" is determined by the person who has to pay the bills not from an outside looking in.


Lip

So let me try and understand...An external entity can't judge "irresponsible" but it is OK for you to talk about the Sox as a public trust and to either explicitly say, or at a bare minimum imply, that the Sox ownership abuses their responsibility to that public trust by not spending more?

I'm not in the business of defending (or even paying any attention to) Munch. But Lip, for you to say that he can't decide if, in his opinion, the Tiggers were irresponsible when loading up on big contracts because that is only for Illitch and Dombrowski to do is, at the bare minimum, flagrant hypocrisy. I've watched you for nearly a decade (7 years) mount a campaign that Sox ownership never does enough. If Munch can't call the Tigers irresponsible for spending 300mm or so in 2 offseasons, how can you possibly continue your incessant complaints about the Sox management?

spawn
11-30-2009, 05:11 PM
Munch:

"Irresponsible" is determined by the person who has to pay the bills not from an outside looking in.

Funny, but that hasn't stopped you from trying to play armchair GM and spend money you "think" Reinsdorf and Sox management has. :shrug:

EDIT: It seems jabrch has beaten me to it.

Lip Man 1
11-30-2009, 05:34 PM
Spawn and Jab:

My comments aren't based totallyon hearsay or wishful thinking. My comments are based in part on conversations with two individuals with ties to the Board of Directors.

Unless Munch has some contacts with the Tigers his comments are based completely on speculation and his opinion.

My comments are part speculation, no question, but also based on the comments of those who DO know what is going on.

I respectfully submit there is a big difference between the two. And I'm not saying that to try to be arrogant or to put down Munch.

And has Jab has said in the past and I appreciate it, I rarely try to post any type of a opinion without some hard evidence to back it up.

I've had involved conversations with people who do know a lot more about this situation than myself, you or 99 .1/2% of everyone on this board (Ranger may be the only one who does have as much information).

I use that information to help form my opinions.

Lip

jabrch
11-30-2009, 06:56 PM
Spawn and Jab:

My comments aren't based totallyon hearsay or wishful thinking. My comments are based in part on conversations with two individuals with ties to the Board of Directors.



So you are able to make these judgement calls, not because, as you said, you pay the bills, but because you talked to two people who have ties to people who do? GMAB Lip. That's horsepoo.

Unless Munch has some contacts with the Tigers his comments are based completely on speculation and his opinion.

No different than yours...

My comments are part speculation, no question, but also based on the comments of those who DO know what is going on.

I respectfully submit there is a big difference between the two. And I'm not saying that to try to be arrogant or to put down Munch.

And has Jab has said in the past and I appreciate it, I rarely try to post any type of a opinion without some hard evidence to back it up.

I've had involved conversations with people who do know a lot more about this situation than myself, you or 99 .1/2% of everyone on this board (Ranger may be the only one who does have as much information).

I use that information to help form my opinions.

But at the end of the day, they are just that...opinions. They are no more valid because you talk to two people who know people. They are your opinion. I have an opinion on a lot of things. Most of it is based on some observation. Now I may be right, or may be wrong...same with you. The point is that you are being very much a hypocrite in saying that someone cant judge the Tigers situation because they arent paying the bills...you judge the Sox situation quite freely...and not only do you not pay the bills, you aren't even really much of a direct revenue generating customer. Somehow your imaginary pulpit gives you this right to judge how the Sox should spend their money, while someone else can't make a similar judgement on the approach to committing unguaranteed revenue that Detoilet now doesn't have that they are now appearantly trying to dump....

You have a doublestandard. Having friends who have friends hardly seems to justify that.

spawn
11-30-2009, 07:56 PM
Spawn and Jab:

My comments aren't based totallyon hearsay or wishful thinking. My comments are based in part on conversations with two individuals with ties to the Board of Directors.

Unless Munch has some contacts with the Tigers his comments are based completely on speculation and his opinion.

My comments are part speculation, no question, but also based on the comments of those who DO know what is going on.

I respectfully submit there is a big difference between the two. And I'm not saying that to try to be arrogant or to put down Munch.

And has Jab has said in the past and I appreciate it, I rarely try to post any type of a opinion without some hard evidence to back it up.

I've had involved conversations with people who do know a lot more about this situation than myself, you or 99 .1/2% of everyone on this board (Ranger may be the only one who does have as much information).

I use that information to help form my opinions.

Lip
So you know a couple of people with ties to the Board of Directors. The bottom line is you're still an outsider, no matter who your contacts are. You still don't pay any of the bills. Your opinion is still just that...an opinion.

munchman33
12-01-2009, 12:25 PM
This thread seems a little backwards.

Lip, I definately agree that there have been many times the White Sox could (even should) have been spending more. Not necessarily on payroll, but on development and scouting for certain.

I don't think this is one of those years. And it isn't like the Tigers didn't see this all coming. Detroit is the front line of the recession. I'm not even sure the city will be standing ten years from now. That might sound ridiculous, but it's trending that way. There is no industry. No business. Very little residency. And while it might be noble for the Tigers to spend the way they did (having one of the highest payrolls in the game), selling out every game alone won't cover their operating costs. There aren't the merchandise sales, advertising, and TV deals available to the Tigers that other teams get. And now they're locked into payroll for a very long time. It doesn't take knowing someone in the Tiger's front office to realize how substantial a blunder they've made. And before it's all said and done, I believe the Tigers will be sold and relocated because of this.

As for our Sox, it's hard to say they should be raising payroll knowing what we do. They lost the Chevy deal, attendance was down (not just because of production on the field, season ticket sales and individual game sales were down before the season began last year), the outlook for the economy doesn't look any better... And while there is documentation and studies contrary to what owners would lead you to believe about income, it's still a fair assumption that teams are making, at best, a smaller profit than they were before. Put yourself in position to make the decisions. Profits are down, revenue streams that were there before are completely gone with no chance of returning in the near future...you're going to tell your stockholders we're going to spend more money for a chance to increase attendance, knowing it will have little to no effect on the aforementioned dried up revenue streams? Is that wise? More than likely, the board of directors would vote no confidence in you the very next day. You can't operate any business like we aren't in the recession. Because we are. And you're always one mistake away from bankruptcy.

russ99
12-01-2009, 12:51 PM
As for our Sox, it's hard to say they should be raising payroll knowing what we do. They lost the Chevy deal, attendance was down (not just because of production on the field, season ticket sales and individual game sales were down before the season began last year), the outlook for the economy doesn't look any better... And while there is documentation and studies contrary to what owners would lead you to believe about income, it's still a fair assumption that teams are making, at best, a smaller profit than they were before. Put yourself in position to make the decisions. Profits are down, revenue streams that were there before are completely gone with no chance of returning in the near future...you're going to tell your stockholders we're going to spend more money for a chance to increase attendance, knowing it will have little to no effect on the aforementioned dried up revenue streams? Is that wise? More than likely, the board of directors would vote no confidence in you the very next day. You can't operate any business like we aren't in the recession. Because we are. And you're always one mistake away from bankruptcy.

I don't buy this. We're talking about very wealthy men who don't operate like other businesses. Very rarely are baseball teams operated as a profit making venture to the extent of other business who's ownership depends on them as their sole livelihood. And their board of directors and investors aren't as demanding as other businesses.

And any company owner knows that you can't hang your hat on recession as a reason not to expand, as the ones who do are the best positioned when the recession is over. You cut expenses at the beginning, and add at the end.

Besides, I think there's a direct correlation between what a baseball club invests on payroll and other player development expenses - and the revenue they can generate.

Would the Sox be able to attract advertisers and a higher gate with a winning team or a losing one?

rwcescato
12-01-2009, 02:01 PM
link (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/11/olney-on-cabrera-yankees-.html)

Buster Olney lists the Red Sox, Angels, Mets, Giants, Mariners, Braves, and White Sox.

I think Olney just included the Sox for the fact that Kenny tried to acquire Miguel right before the Tigers did and it's well known that Ozzie and Cabrera have a good relationship. However, despite that, I see the chances of the White Sox landing Cabrera FROM the Tigers as less than 0. The only hope the Sox have at acquire Miguel is through free agency after his contract expires or through a trade with whatever team he's traded to. That is of course IF he's traded and IF that team decides to move him at some point. So yeah, the chances of the White Sox picking up Cabrera are below slim.

I'd like to state that I'd vomit if the Red Sox landed Cabrera.




We will Get Miguel Cabrera when he is 43.

Lip Man 1
12-01-2009, 02:05 PM
Munch:

Last year the Sox had the second largest payroll cut in all of MLB, they raised ticket prices. I don't know if parking / concessions went up (my assumption is that they did).

Purely from last year it's hard to imagine that even with the advertising situation things are as difficult as some are assuming.

I agree with a lot of what Russ is saying and again standby what I've been told, and what I've been able to find out myself through a number or interviews and contacts.

As far as the advertising specifically my opinion is that in tough economic times the last things you want to do is give your sponsors and ticket holders an "excuse" to jump ship. You want to make it as hard a decision as possible for them. Having an off season centered around guys like Wilson Betemit, Corky Miller and Bartolo Colon is not the way to go about it.

Again my opinion.

---------------------

Spawn...I never said it wan't anything other than an opinion. Please re-read my original post again. I am saying, again respectfully, that like it or not, it's more of an educated guess because I have more solid information to work with than Munch. I'm not simply guessing based on just opinion. I'm factoring in the comments of those who have more knowledge of this situation then I do...far more.

Not flaunting this...I didn't even want to bring the subject up and didn't based on the fact that I let the thread go until seeing the latest comments yesterday while in Wyoming. I felt it was necessary to respond to you and Jab.

If we disagree, and me thinks, you probably still do, than that's fine.

Lip

munchman33
12-01-2009, 04:46 PM
I don't buy this. We're talking about very wealthy men who don't operate like other businesses. Very rarely are baseball teams operated as a profit making venture to the extent of other business who's ownership depends on them as their sole livelihood. And their board of directors and investors aren't as demanding as other businesses.


You know this how? Know many baseball owners? Know many wealthy conglomerate owners? Bull****. Baseball teams operate very similar to other businesses, especially those that are franchises of a large unit.


And any company owner knows that you can't hang your hat on recession as a reason not to expand, as the ones who do are the best positioned when the recession is over. You cut expenses at the beginning, and add at the end.


Would the Sox be able to attract advertisers and a higher gate with a winning team or a losing one?


The only thing that affects is attendance, and that has a fixed maximum. TV and ad revenue will be there. They just aren't there now. And it has ZERO to do with on the field play. The sox lost contracts because of the economy, and when the recession is over, they will easily pick up other contracts, because their business lends itself to lots of exposure even when play on the field is poor.


Besides, I think there's a direct correlation between what a baseball club invests on payroll and other player development expenses - and the revenue they can generate.

In attendance yes. But once again that's fixed. It's fixed by the economy, which determines what people can afford to spend to attend, how often they can attend, etc. Other factors are not affected during a recession. The Sox could win the World Series this year, but if the economy is just as bad at the end of the year, we aren't going to see an ad deal like the one we had with Chevy. If the Sox TV contract was up (and I realize they own their own station), their value at market would be lower simply because no one can afford to pay what they're really worth. Spending more money isn't going to change that. It's just going to mean you have less money.



Munch:

Last year the Sox had the second largest payroll cut in all of MLB, they raised ticket prices. I don't know if parking / concessions went up (my assumption is that they did).

Purely from last year it's hard to imagine that even with the advertising situation things are as difficult as some are assuming.

I agree with a lot of what Russ is saying and again standby what I've been told, and what I've been able to find out myself through a number or interviews and contacts.

As far as the advertising specifically my opinion is that in tough economic times the last things you want to do is give your sponsors and ticket holders an "excuse" to jump ship. You want to make it as hard a decision as possible for them. Having an off season centered around guys like Wilson Betemit, Corky Miller and Bartolo Colon is not the way to go about it.

Again my opinion.

Lip,

It was public knowledge the Sox were going to lose that contract well before the offseason began. Mentioned constantly on the radio and tv. I remember first hearing it during the playoffs. While we were in the playoffs. Play on the field had nothing to do with it. Times are tough.

PalehosePlanet
12-01-2009, 06:13 PM
We will Get Miguel Cabrera when he is 43.

This running joke is two years older than dirt. I'd personally like to take a bat to it's legs so it stops running.

oeo
12-01-2009, 06:22 PM
This running joke is two years older than dirt. I'd personally like to take a bat to it's legs so it stops running.

Welcome to WSI, where bad jokes live forever.

doublem23
12-01-2009, 06:44 PM
This running joke is two years older than dirt. I'd personally like to take a bat to it's legs so it stops running.

Blame Kenny for always getting his players, no matter how old.

jabrch
12-01-2009, 11:17 PM
Last year the Sox had the second largest payroll cut in all of MLB, they raised ticket prices. I don't know if parking / concessions went up (my assumption is that they did).

Lip


There are liars, damn liars and statisticians.

1 data point doesn't make a line or a trend. Look at their payroll over time. And again, to your point, you don't pay the bills Lip. You are in no position to judge what they can or can not afford to pay. You have friends who have friends...so do I...so do many people. That doesn't mean your completely and totally biased, anti Sox management crap is any more factual than anyone else's poo poo opinions do.

Lip Man 1
12-01-2009, 11:27 PM
Jab:

In point of fact I have given JR much credit for changing his policy (albeit it appears temporarily) over the past decade and winning a World Series.

I don't know what else you want me to do...kiss his ass on State Street?

He's done a lot of good and his charitable endeavors are very noteworthy.

But history also shows his extortion of a new tax payer funded stadium by threatening to move a charter member of the American League, his role in the labor impasse in 1994-95, and his part in the "White Flag Trade" that made the franchise a national laughingstock as the butt of late night TV jokes, to the feature article in S.I. titled "Sox Surrender" to a scathing response on ESPN's "Baseball Tonight". (For specific comments et al please read this story: http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=1528)

Seems to me that's a tad bit more than a "one data point..." (In fact if my math is right that makes three plus the point in the earlier post which gives us a total of four.)

:D:

You are obviously a big supporter of him, fair enough and cite his recent decisions. I try to look at the entire body of work over the past 28 years. We'll simply have to agree to disagree here but I still appreciate your compliment that when I take a position I try to defend it with facts.

-------------------

EDIT: Upon more reflection you may add a 5th "line item" to the resume. I say may because given what history records the accuser may be biased. Former Commissioner Fay Vincent charges in his book, "The Last Commissioner" that Reinsdorf and Selig were the architects of the collusion scam in the mid 80's embraced by then Commissioner Peter Ueberroth. Obviously that violated the law and wound up costing MLB millions of dollars.

Lip

Noneck
12-02-2009, 12:47 AM
I've had involved conversations with people who do know a lot more about this situation than myself, you or 99 .1/2% of everyone on this board (Ranger may be the only one who does have as much information).

I use that information to help form my opinions.



It bothers me when some try to belittle this comment by saying they have friends who have friends also. I would like to know how many contacts and interviews these people have had with former Sox players, broadcasters and former and current Sox management. Also what type of sports journalist background they have.

I read all of Lips comments because he does have inside information and knowledge others don't have. I see the attacks at Lips comments as a form of jealousy because it goes against their opinions, even though Lips have a factual basis.

This will be the only comment I will make about this.