Originally posted by ChiCard
I printed the entire article because as I suspected, you did indeed have ulterior motives in the phraseology of your post.
And just exactly what "ulterior motive" was it I supposedly had here Mr. Mind Reader?
I had no "ulterior motives" as such, at least certainly not in any way you seem to insinuate. As I said, once I saw the specific quote, (and I'm assuming it is the one...since it was YOU who responded and not Ed.), I then knew exactly what quote Ed had referred to in his comment saying :
Originally posted by Ed B
Graves stated "he will be traded or released", Tango. Keeping him is not an option in their plans.
I saw that it was indeed the very quote we had already had a fairly lengthly discussion about. I hadn't heard any other, and that's why I originally asked Ed, thinking MAYBE I had missed another one. That's all. No secret plot to discredit Ed ....or You.....
As it turns out Ed did NOT verbatum repeat the quote. He had repeated it with HIS interpretation. Like I said, we all do that sometimes.
The trouble with your statement however, is like most comments you make, you took the quote out of context to give it your spin.
Chicard, that statement has sooooo little accuracy to it, its amazing. Simply amazing.
The thing that prompted your question was a statement that we were either going to trade or cut Jones. You conveniently left off the sentence that preceeded the quote and of course modifies it, to wit:
"The Cardinals failed in their efforts to trade disgruntled running back Thomas Jones, refusing to accept deals for late-round picks."
No Chicard, what promted my comment was Ed's post, addressed to me specifically, that I just posted above.
And my point all along being....I don't think the Cards appear to be in any hurry to just give TJ away for "nothing". I think that Jason most likely gave the best and most likely interpretation of the first part of Graves statement. And THAT combined with what myself and a few others have posted in regard to Graves not wanting to give TJ away for nothing would also explain the rest of the incidents reported.
Now when read in that light, an active attempt to get rid of the guy, it's obvious that since they couldn't get what they wanted in return, they weren't going to achieve their goal via a trade. The writer of the article felt it important enough to proceed not by narrative, but through illiterating the speakers actual words so as to stress the importance of what was to follow namely that they'd cut the guy before "giving" him away.
Now the point was whether or not the Cards have decided to part company with Jones. Next time you insist upon seeing things "in black & white", we can have a more meaningful dialogue if you don't redact the article to fit your opinion. Who was it that said "it does indeed pay to be as meticulous as possible"?
