I don't think the Mets have jerked him around. I just think they never should have said they were upset by Dickey's comments.
When a CY Young award winner is offering you a hometown discount for an extension and you for whatever reason decide to stall the deal, you're supposed to just shut up and let him say he is a little disappointed. (btw Dickey also said numerous times including in the same interview with Kevin Burkhardt that there are other sides to this that he doesn't see but understands that there is another side to it)
This whole thing was blown out of proportion thanks to the Mets' reactions. Dickey never made a bad comment, he answered the question that was posed to him in a respectful and honest way.That being said, I don't think the relationship has soured to the point where there is no hope of signing him.
In an interview?
edit: With the SNY's Kevin Burkhardt the TV station personally that is directly affiliated with the team?
"Team official" IS an "unnamed source"!!!
Joel Sherman & Mike Puma. Bastions of reputable journalism. LOL
As opposed to who? Whatever sports writer shills for the organization so you can agree with them?
A "team official" is an unnamed source, but was not cited as the source of the organization's displeasure. The word "official" also implies it's not a stadium sanitation employee as you so colorfully suggest in an attempt to distract from the issue.
Just to be clear, you distrust a story written by two established NY sports writers, writers who are frequently cited on other sites like MLB Trade Rumors and Metsblog, but when a member of an organization that has lied repeatedly for years, is owned by men who were actively investing in two separate Ponzi schemes and actively encouraging others to participate and sold minority shares in the team to friends who are under investigation for consumer fraud and insider trading makes a statement it should be believed?
I did like this line though
" Sandy Alderson acknowledging the possibility that the 2013 roster won't look much different than the 2012 roster. That would be the same roster that won 74 games last year, that Alderson described as needing major changes way back on ... December 2, a roster that as of today, lacks a viable starting major league outfielder, catcher, and more than a skeletal bullpen."
This quote has the potential to say everything about this offseason and the state of the Mets if they end up doing nothing.
As opposed to writers who attribute quotes to a specific individual. And using WHOLE quotes. Makes a difference to know ALL of what person actually said vs taken out of context, misquoted, embellished and/ or given erroneous interpretation. And unnamed "source" can be just about anybody. Even team "official." Might have no real knowledge of what's going on. Could be Mr. Met for all we know!!!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- from your last post:"writers who are frequently cited on other sites like MLB Trade Rumors" from mlb Trade Rumors Nov 27, 2012 http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/david_wright/page/2/ "agent Seth Levinson explained to MLBTR: “Discussions with the Mets are ongoing. We don’t anticipate a deal any time soon. However, things can always change. I will not characterize the negotiations or comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of what is being reported," Levinson said."
from Puma (NY Post) Nov 28, 2012: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/talks_on_megadeal_hit_snag_over_ziLiUGDY4FdGNMvW2uGQaP " “We don’t anticipate a deal any time soon,” Levinson told the website MLB Trade Rumors, adding that discussions with the Mets were ongoing."
Perfect example!!! Puma took mlb Trade Rumors story & decided to leave out the rest of what Levinson said. Stopped at "We don’t anticipate a deal any time soon.” Left out that Levinson said "However, things can always change. I will not characterize the negotiations or comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of what is being reported." Changes whole meaning of what Levinson said!! Puma's job is to create as much controversy as possible. Leaving things out helps create more controversy. Even where there isn't any!! Mlb Rumors story on Nov 27th. Puma wrote on Nov 28th. Wright's $138M deal was agreed to Nov 30th. Things DID "change" in just couple days -- just like Levinson said they could. But you would've had to read WHOLE quote to know that. Unlike Puma's "report." Thanks for proving my point!!!
Actually your MLBTR example is quite poor especially since there are plenty of other great examples.
Leaving out the rest of that quote didn't change the facts or misrepresent the situation. If talks are ongoing, implied is the chance that a deal may come. Or else why are they talking? There's nothing wrong with that.