<http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/11/mets-tell-putz-they-will-not-pick-up-his-2010-option.html

So much for that dominating back end of the bullpen...

<http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/11/twins-acquire-jj-hardy.html
FWIW.

great trade once again by the Twins.... Gomez is a poor man's Juan Pierre. Hardy had an off year, but will thrive with the Twins. Hardy still just 25 and has 25HR potential.

We got so caught up in the UPI report on Feliz last night, that the Putz move got past us.........
That's got to really sting our friends up north.......they spent over a million to "buy him out", and millions for an unproductive season......I wasn't following the situation closely, but I had assumed he still figured into their 2010 plans in a significant way.......

"We got so caught up in the UPI report on Feliz last night, that the Putz move got past us"
Was that a real article? I stopped reading it after it called Matt Stairs a first baseman and it questioned the status of Lidge. Lidge isn't going anywhere.

"I wasn't following the situation closely, but I had assumed he still figured into their 2010 plans in a significant way....... "
When he's healthy, he's really good. He just hasn't BEEN healthy for three years or so.

When I was in college, there were three major competing news organizations: The Associated Press, The United Press International, and Reuters....

This "article" was soooooo weird.... It had about a half dozen things in it that made no sense, but it was clearly on the actual UPI site. Parrothead left a cryptic post that implied that today's UPI is not the UPI I grew up with, but the site's heading still talked about 100 years of news gathering, so I don't know WHAT'S going on here.

I guess by now we can assume it was intentionally or unintentionally bogus.

Whenever I see something in print that I know enough about to realize it's bogus, I always wonder if when I read stuff that I do not know much about, is all THAT stuff likely to be bogus, too?!?

"When I was in college, there were three major competing news organizations: The Associated Press, The United Press International, and Reuters...."
I can honestly say I've never heard of (the) UPI. But, I don't trust the MSM anyway, so it kind of evens out...

"Whenever I see something in print that I know enough about to realize it's bogus, I always wonder if when I read stuff that I do not know much about, is all THAT stuff likely to be bogus, too?!?"
When it comes to something you aren't familiar with, who's to say what is and isn't bogus??

"Trust -- but verify." On a more serious note, we ought not be gullible, of course. But I lend far more credence to reports that have been processed through media with known reputations for high editorial standards.

In other words, I'd trust the AP far more than Joe Shmoe's Blogspot, e.g.

<<"Trust--but verify">>

In a glasnost vein, ironically, it was the perestroika theme of the article in question (i.e., that the Phillies were going to be "rebuilding" in the off season) that rang the most untrue.

It will be interesting to discover where this story originated. (Surely not in the Kremlin!)

You never know, steve. Could be "disinformation" from a KGB dead-ender (wow, a Rumsfeld reference following a Reagan reference....not very "socialist puppetlike" of me)

*chuckles* Well, the AP, the UPI, and Reuters are better reading than Pravda and Isvetia.

You want the Pravda? You can't handle the Pravda!

There's no Pravda in Izvestia -- and no Izvestia in Pravda. ;)