RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And I am done with MLB now anyway as it is cfb season. Flying to LA tomorrow to BTHO UCLA! God bless!

---

So you're not going to follow your team during the stretch run/playoffs? Are you not an actual fan? If not, why are you so livid about a sport that you'll be "done with" at its climactic point of the season?

---

Because I love sports and like to see things done the right way. This was an opportunity to do what was right without regard to money, playoffs, etc. and it was missed. I am at best a casual MLB observer and honestly in the past have pulled for the Rangers about as much as the Astros. No more. Sorry.

Now if this was Aggie baseball, like Hyman and the TCU crap two seasons ago, then I get passionate.

---

Both sides missed an opportunity. But, if you like seeing things done the right way, then surely you'll hold Reid Ryan to that standard and be critical of his public airing of what should have been private matters.

---

Reid's actions never would have happened if the Rangers had agreed to switch series.

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

I still don't get how giving the Astros 3 MLB games in late September helps with the flood victims.

---

How did the sips doing what they did after Bonfire benefit the victims? There is right and there is wrong.

---

How are those in any way related...?

---

Because this is not about money. It is about doing the right thing especially when your neighbor is down. Obviously, we disagree.

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And if I was a Rangers season ticket holder, I would be proud I was not inconvienced. The nerve of that.

---

Can I ask you one thing? Do you have any problem w/ Reid Ryan going public with the back-and-forth between the two franchises? Given the stress and emotion of what was going on, do you have any issue w/ him starting a fire that didn't need to even exist?

---

I would have gone public also as I would have been shocked and pissed that the Rangers refused to switch series given the circumstances. You called me out for "assuming the worst about the Rangers", I will not call you out for assuming the worst about Reid.

---

I'm not assuming the worst. He ran to the media and made this all public knowledge. I don't know why he did it. I'm not assuming his motives. But his actions did create an unnecessary firestorm that is in no way constructive.

---

But he would not have gone public except to praise the Rangers if they had accepted the first offer to switch series, correct? The refusal of the first offer was what started the whole thing. When a neighbor is down, you don't base decisions on the bottom line imho.

---

There's no need to go public w/ any of the details of the decision-making process. There's precedent for not switching series. Whether you think JD was wrong for rejecting their offer, or Ryan was wrong for rejecting the Rangers offer, can you not see that Ryan running to the media was unnecessary and unbecoming of a professional front office?

---

I think the biggest "wrong" was when the Rangers refused to switch series. As I have stated before, when a neighbor is down you walk the extra mile, agree, and do not quibble due to issues like money, playoffs, etc. But that is just me. You obviously think differently. But Ryan's actions, whether right or wrong never would have happened if the Rangers had accepted.

---

That's fine if you disagree with how the Rangers handled it. I would have handled it differently if I were JD or Ryan. Both could have accepted the offer of the other.

But, just because you believe one person does wrong doesn't mean that justifies another person doing something wrong. Ryan wasn't forced to go public. Don't put his free will decision to go public on the Rangers. He chose to do that. Why do you excuse his behavior then? I mean, you like to see things done the right way, right? Isn't doing the right thing independent of what others are doing?

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

I still don't get how giving the Astros 3 MLB games in late September helps with the flood victims.

---

How did the sips doing what they did after Bonfire benefit the victims? There is right and there is wrong.

---

How are those in any way related...?

---

Because this is not about money. It is about doing the right thing especially when your neighbor is down. Obviously, we disagree.

---

The Rangers would have raised far more money w/ the series in Arlington this week, than will be raised in Tampa. The Sept series is irrelevant to that. Ryan chose the less money for relief route, then went public w/ it.

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

I still don't get how giving the Astros 3 MLB games in late September helps with the flood victims.

---

How did the sips doing what they did after Bonfire benefit the victims? There is right and there is wrong.

---

How are those in any way related...?

---

Because this is not about money. It is about doing the right thing especially when your neighbor is down. Obviously, we disagree.

---

Maybe I'm missing something... What did the Longhorns do after the bonfire game? I remember the band performance, which was incredible.

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And if I was a Rangers season ticket holder, I would be proud I was not inconvienced. The nerve of that.

---

Can I ask you one thing? Do you have any problem w/ Reid Ryan going public with the back-and-forth between the two franchises? Given the stress and emotion of what was going on, do you have any issue w/ him starting a fire that didn't need to even exist?

---

I would have gone public also as I would have been shocked and pissed that the Rangers refused to switch series given the circumstances. You called me out for "assuming the worst about the Rangers", I will not call you out for assuming the worst about Reid.

---

I'm not assuming the worst. He ran to the media and made this all public knowledge. I don't know why he did it. I'm not assuming his motives. But his actions did create an unnecessary firestorm that is in no way constructive.

---

But he would not have gone public except to praise the Rangers if they had accepted the first offer to switch series, correct? The refusal of the first offer was what started the whole thing. When a neighbor is down, you don't base decisions on the bottom line imho.

---

There's no need to go public w/ any of the details of the decision-making process. There's precedent for not switching series. Whether you think JD was wrong for rejecting their offer, or Ryan was wrong for rejecting the Rangers offer, can you not see that Ryan running to the media was unnecessary and unbecoming of a professional front office?

---

I think the biggest "wrong" was when the Rangers refused to switch series. As I have stated before, when a neighbor is down you walk the extra mile, agree, and do not quibble due to issues like money, playoffs, etc. But that is just me. You obviously think differently. But Ryan's actions, whether right or wrong never would have happened if the Rangers had accepted.

---

That's fine if you disagree with how the Rangers handled it. I would have handled it differently if I were JD or Ryan. Both could have accepted the offer of the other.

But, just because you believe one person does wrong doesn't mean that justifies another person doing something wrong. Ryan wasn't forced to go public. Don't put his free will decision to go public on the Rangers. He chose to do that. Why do you excuse his behavior then? I mean, you like to see things done the right way, right? Isn't doing the right thing independent of what others are doing?

---

The Rangers did the first wrong thing imho. And like always happens, more wrongs follow. I am not excusing Ryan's behavior although it is human nature to get pissed when your neighbor screws you when you are down. He should not have gone public which caused more problems. But do you agree if the Rangers had simply agreed to switch series, none of the other stuff would have happened?

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

I still don't get how giving the Astros 3 MLB games in late September helps with the flood victims.

---

How did the sips doing what they did after Bonfire benefit the victims? There is right and there is wrong.

---

How are those in any way related...?

---

Because this is not about money. It is about doing the right thing especially when your neighbor is down. Obviously, we disagree.

---

Maybe I'm missing something... What did the Longhorns do after the bonfire game? I remember the band performance, which was incredible.

---

They acted like they cared. They did not mention inconveniencing season ticket holders. They offered to reschedule the game anytime or anyplace. They acted how a neighbor does when his neighbor(even though a rival) was down. They completely put aside talk of schedules or whatever.

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

I still don't get how giving the Astros 3 MLB games in late September helps with the flood victims.

---

How did the sips doing what they did after Bonfire benefit the victims? There is right and there is wrong.

---

How are those in any way related...?

---

Because this is not about money. It is about doing the right thing especially when your neighbor is down. Obviously, we disagree.

---

The Rangers would have raised far more money w/ the series in Arlington this week, than will be raised in Tampa. The Sept series is irrelevant to that. Ryan chose the less money for relief route, then went public w/ it.

---

Arlington was not going to happen. Believe what you want.

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

I still don't get how giving the Astros 3 MLB games in late September helps with the flood victims.

---

How did the sips doing what they did after Bonfire benefit the victims? There is right and there is wrong.

---

How are those in any way related...?

---

Because this is not about money. It is about doing the right thing especially when your neighbor is down. Obviously, we disagree.

---

The Rangers would have raised far more money w/ the series in Arlington this week, than will be raised in Tampa. The Sept series is irrelevant to that. Ryan chose the less money for relief route, then went public w/ it.

---

Why did the Rangers not agree to switch series? What did they give as the basis for their decision? The. Tell me who committed the first wrong.

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And if I was a Rangers season ticket holder, I would be proud I was not inconvienced. The nerve of that.

---

Can I ask you one thing? Do you have any problem w/ Reid Ryan going public with the back-and-forth between the two franchises? Given the stress and emotion of what was going on, do you have any issue w/ him starting a fire that didn't need to even exist?

---

I would have gone public also as I would have been shocked and pissed that the Rangers refused to switch series given the circumstances. You called me out for "assuming the worst about the Rangers", I will not call you out for assuming the worst about Reid.

---

I'm not assuming the worst. He ran to the media and made this all public knowledge. I don't know why he did it. I'm not assuming his motives. But his actions did create an unnecessary firestorm that is in no way constructive.

---

But he would not have gone public except to praise the Rangers if they had accepted the first offer to switch series, correct? The refusal of the first offer was what started the whole thing. When a neighbor is down, you don't base decisions on the bottom line imho.

---

There's no need to go public w/ any of the details of the decision-making process. There's precedent for not switching series. Whether you think JD was wrong for rejecting their offer, or Ryan was wrong for rejecting the Rangers offer, can you not see that Ryan running to the media was unnecessary and unbecoming of a professional front office?

---

I think the biggest "wrong" was when the Rangers refused to switch series. As I have stated before, when a neighbor is down you walk the extra mile, agree, and do not quibble due to issues like money, playoffs, etc. But that is just me. You obviously think differently. But Ryan's actions, whether right or wrong never would have happened if the Rangers had accepted.

---

That's fine if you disagree with how the Rangers handled it. I would have handled it differently if I were JD or Ryan. Both could have accepted the offer of the other.

But, just because you believe one person does wrong doesn't mean that justifies another person doing something wrong. Ryan wasn't forced to go public. Don't put his free will decision to go public on the Rangers. He chose to do that. Why do you excuse his behavior then? I mean, you like to see things done the right way, right? Isn't doing the right thing independent of what others are doing?

---

The Rangers did the first wrong thing imho. And like always happens, more wrongs follow. I am not excusing Ryan's behavior although it is human nature to get pissed when your neighbor screws you when you are down. He should not have gone public which caused more problems. But do you agree if the Rangers had simply agreed to switch series, none of the other stuff would have happened?

---

Yes, you are excusing Ryan's behavior when you try to put the blame for his actions on the Rangers. He made his decision. It's his alone. You continue to preface it by pointing out what others did, or chalking it up to "human nature".

This could have all been avoided if EITHER side agreed to the proposal of the other. Two sides made offers. Both rejected. As a result, they're in Tampa. Neither side was inherently wrong, but both could have taken a higher road. Rangers have precedent on their side, but as I said before, if I were JD I would have accepted the offer. Also, as I've said before, if I were Ryan, I would have accepted the Rangers' offer. The fact that they're playing in Tampa is the result of both sides, not just one.

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

I still don't get how giving the Astros 3 MLB games in late September helps with the flood victims.

---

How did the sips doing what they did after Bonfire benefit the victims? There is right and there is wrong.

---

How are those in any way related...?

---

Because this is not about money. It is about doing the right thing especially when your neighbor is down. Obviously, we disagree.

---

Maybe I'm missing something... What did the Longhorns do after the bonfire game? I remember the band performance, which was incredible.

---

They acted like they cared. They did not mention inconveniencing season ticket holders. They offered to reschedule the game anytime or anyplace. They acted how a neighbor does when his neighbor(even though a rival) was down. They completely put aside talk of schedules or whatever.

---

The game was at Kyle Field.
I could see your point if the game was in Austin and they offered to reschedule and move it to College Station. That didn't happen though, so I fail to see the comparison.

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And if I was a Rangers season ticket holder, I would be proud I was not inconvienced. The nerve of that.

---

Can I ask you one thing? Do you have any problem w/ Reid Ryan going public with the back-and-forth between the two franchises? Given the stress and emotion of what was going on, do you have any issue w/ him starting a fire that didn't need to even exist?

---

I would have gone public also as I would have been shocked and pissed that the Rangers refused to switch series given the circumstances. You called me out for "assuming the worst about the Rangers", I will not call you out for assuming the worst about Reid.

---

I'm not assuming the worst. He ran to the media and made this all public knowledge. I don't know why he did it. I'm not assuming his motives. But his actions did create an unnecessary firestorm that is in no way constructive.

---

But he would not have gone public except to praise the Rangers if they had accepted the first offer to switch series, correct? The refusal of the first offer was what started the whole thing. When a neighbor is down, you don't base decisions on the bottom line imho.

---

There's no need to go public w/ any of the details of the decision-making process. There's precedent for not switching series. Whether you think JD was wrong for rejecting their offer, or Ryan was wrong for rejecting the Rangers offer, can you not see that Ryan running to the media was unnecessary and unbecoming of a professional front office?

---

I think the biggest "wrong" was when the Rangers refused to switch series. As I have stated before, when a neighbor is down you walk the extra mile, agree, and do not quibble due to issues like money, playoffs, etc. But that is just me. You obviously think differently. But Ryan's actions, whether right or wrong never would have happened if the Rangers had accepted.

---

That's fine if you disagree with how the Rangers handled it. I would have handled it differently if I were JD or Ryan. Both could have accepted the offer of the other.

But, just because you believe one person does wrong doesn't mean that justifies another person doing something wrong. Ryan wasn't forced to go public. Don't put his free will decision to go public on the Rangers. He chose to do that. Why do you excuse his behavior then? I mean, you like to see things done the right way, right? Isn't doing the right thing independent of what others are doing?

---

The Rangers did the first wrong thing imho. And like always happens, more wrongs follow. I am not excusing Ryan's behavior although it is human nature to get pissed when your neighbor screws you when you are down. He should not have gone public which caused more problems. But do you agree if the Rangers had simply agreed to switch series, none of the other stuff would have happened?

---

Yes, you are excusing Ryan's behavior when you try to put the blame for his actions on the Rangers. He made his decision. It's his alone. You continue to preface it by pointing out what others did, or chalking it up to "human nature".

This could have all been avoided if EITHER side agreed to the proposal of the other. Two sides made offers. Both rejected. As a result, they're in Tampa. Neither side was inherently wrong, but both could have taken a higher road. Rangers have precedent on their side, but as I said before, if I were JD I would have accepted the offer. Also, as I've said before, if I were Ryan, I would have accepted the Rangers' offer. The fact that they're playing in Tampa is the result of both sides, not just one.

---

Switching series was the first offer which seems correct as the Astros suffered the tragedy. The Rangers refused and counter offered. Reid reacted to the Rangers refusal.

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

I still don't get how giving the Astros 3 MLB games in late September helps with the flood victims.

---

How did the sips doing what they did after Bonfire benefit the victims? There is right and there is wrong.

---

How are those in any way related...?

---

Because this is not about money. It is about doing the right thing especially when your neighbor is down. Obviously, we disagree.

---

The Rangers would have raised far more money w/ the series in Arlington this week, than will be raised in Tampa. The Sept series is irrelevant to that. Ryan chose the less money for relief route, then went public w/ it.

---

Why did the Rangers not agree to switch series? What did they give as the basis for their decision? The. Tell me who committed the first wrong.

---

I don't think either side was really "wrong". Could have been better? Sure, but it's a difficult situation. But, even if I accept your premise that the Rangers were wrong, then you have to concede that the Astros followed that up w/ a "wrong" in rejecting the Rangers offer. Again, just because one person is wrong doesn't justify another person responding w/ a "wrong" of their own.

And none of that justifies Ryan running to the media and airing all of this.

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

I still don't get how giving the Astros 3 MLB games in late September helps with the flood victims.

---

How did the sips doing what they did after Bonfire benefit the victims? There is right and there is wrong.

---

How are those in any way related...?

---

Because this is not about money. It is about doing the right thing especially when your neighbor is down. Obviously, we disagree.

---

Maybe I'm missing something... What did the Longhorns do after the bonfire game? I remember the band performance, which was incredible.

---

They acted like they cared. They did not mention inconveniencing season ticket holders. They offered to reschedule the game anytime or anyplace. They acted how a neighbor does when his neighbor(even though a rival) was down. They completely put aside talk of schedules or whatever.

---

The game was at Kyle Field.
I could see your point if the game was in Austin and they offered to reschedule and move it to College Station. That didn't happen though, so I fail to see the comparison.

---

Because you don't want to.

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And if I was a Rangers season ticket holder, I would be proud I was not inconvienced. The nerve of that.

---

Can I ask you one thing? Do you have any problem w/ Reid Ryan going public with the back-and-forth between the two franchises? Given the stress and emotion of what was going on, do you have any issue w/ him starting a fire that didn't need to even exist?

---

I would have gone public also as I would have been shocked and pissed that the Rangers refused to switch series given the circumstances. You called me out for "assuming the worst about the Rangers", I will not call you out for assuming the worst about Reid.

---

I'm not assuming the worst. He ran to the media and made this all public knowledge. I don't know why he did it. I'm not assuming his motives. But his actions did create an unnecessary firestorm that is in no way constructive.

---

But he would not have gone public except to praise the Rangers if they had accepted the first offer to switch series, correct? The refusal of the first offer was what started the whole thing. When a neighbor is down, you don't base decisions on the bottom line imho.

---

There's no need to go public w/ any of the details of the decision-making process. There's precedent for not switching series. Whether you think JD was wrong for rejecting their offer, or Ryan was wrong for rejecting the Rangers offer, can you not see that Ryan running to the media was unnecessary and unbecoming of a professional front office?

---

I think the biggest "wrong" was when the Rangers refused to switch series. As I have stated before, when a neighbor is down you walk the extra mile, agree, and do not quibble due to issues like money, playoffs, etc. But that is just me. You obviously think differently. But Ryan's actions, whether right or wrong never would have happened if the Rangers had accepted.

---

That's fine if you disagree with how the Rangers handled it. I would have handled it differently if I were JD or Ryan. Both could have accepted the offer of the other.

But, just because you believe one person does wrong doesn't mean that justifies another person doing something wrong. Ryan wasn't forced to go public. Don't put his free will decision to go public on the Rangers. He chose to do that. Why do you excuse his behavior then? I mean, you like to see things done the right way, right? Isn't doing the right thing independent of what others are doing?

---

The Rangers did the first wrong thing imho. And like always happens, more wrongs follow. I am not excusing Ryan's behavior although it is human nature to get pissed when your neighbor screws you when you are down. He should not have gone public which caused more problems. But do you agree if the Rangers had simply agreed to switch series, none of the other stuff would have happened?

---

Yes, you are excusing Ryan's behavior when you try to put the blame for his actions on the Rangers. He made his decision. It's his alone. You continue to preface it by pointing out what others did, or chalking it up to "human nature".

This could have all been avoided if EITHER side agreed to the proposal of the other. Two sides made offers. Both rejected. As a result, they're in Tampa. Neither side was inherently wrong, but both could have taken a higher road. Rangers have precedent on their side, but as I said before, if I were JD I would have accepted the offer. Also, as I've said before, if I were Ryan, I would have accepted the Rangers' offer. The fact that they're playing in Tampa is the result of both sides, not just one.

---

Switching series was the first offer which seems correct as the Astros suffered the tragedy. The Rangers refused and counter offered. Reid reacted to the Rangers refusal.

---

Then don't say you like things done the right way. You're excusing Ryan's behavior by trying to blame the Rangers. He offered the Rangers. They rejected and countered. Ryan rejected the Rangers offer. Tampa was "compromise". None of that justifies Reid crying to the media.

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

I still don't get how giving the Astros 3 MLB games in late September helps with the flood victims.

---

How did the sips doing what they did after Bonfire benefit the victims? There is right and there is wrong.

---

How are those in any way related...?

---

Because this is not about money. It is about doing the right thing especially when your neighbor is down. Obviously, we disagree.

---

The Rangers would have raised far more money w/ the series in Arlington this week, than will be raised in Tampa. The Sept series is irrelevant to that. Ryan chose the less money for relief route, then went public w/ it.

---

Why did the Rangers not agree to switch series? What did they give as the basis for their decision? The. Tell me who committed the first wrong.

---

I don't think either side was really "wrong". Could have been better? Sure, but it's a difficult situation. But, even if I accept your premise that the Rangers were wrong, then you have to concede that the Astros followed that up w/ a "wrong" in rejecting the Rangers offer. Again, just because one person is wrong doesn't justify another person responding w/ a "wrong" of their own.

And none of that justifies Ryan running to the media and airing all of this.

---

Agree. But will you agree that none of this would have happened if the Rangers had accepted switching series? And what did they say that they based that decision on? Do you agree with that?

And to be honest, if Reid had not gone to the media, no one would know that the Rangers rejected switching series. Which started the whole thing.

"He offered the Rangers. They rejected and he countered." Why didntheynreject given the circumstances? Have you read the reasons they gave? And you are okay with that?

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

I still don't get how giving the Astros 3 MLB games in late September helps with the flood victims.

---

How did the sips doing what they did after Bonfire benefit the victims? There is right and there is wrong.

---

How are those in any way related...?

---

Because this is not about money. It is about doing the right thing especially when your neighbor is down. Obviously, we disagree.

---

The Rangers would have raised far more money w/ the series in Arlington this week, than will be raised in Tampa. The Sept series is irrelevant to that. Ryan chose the less money for relief route, then went public w/ it.

---

Why did the Rangers not agree to switch series? What did they give as the basis for their decision? The. Tell me who committed the first wrong.

---

I don't think either side was really "wrong". Could have been better? Sure, but it's a difficult situation. But, even if I accept your premise that the Rangers were wrong, then you have to concede that the Astros followed that up w/ a "wrong" in rejecting the Rangers offer. Again, just because one person is wrong doesn't justify another person responding w/ a "wrong" of their own.

And none of that justifies Ryan running to the media and airing all of this.

---

Agree. But will you agree that none of this would have happened if the Rangers had accepted switching series? And what did they say that they based that decision on? Do you agree with that?

---

Yes, none of this would have happened if the Rangers accepted the Astros offer. Just as none of this would have happened if the Astros accepted the Rangers offer.

From a FWST article:

Quote:

---

Astros president Reid Ryan said that the Astros suggested a series swap. Daniels said that the Rangers declined, not wanting to force the team to play a 12-game road trip over the final two weeks of the season with a potential playoff berth on the line. There were also concerns about the fans who had tickets for the Sept. 25-27 series and forcing them to use their tickets this week.

The Rangers' idea was for the series to be played in Arlington with Houston as the home team. The Rangers would give the Astros all profits from the three games after being reimbursed by the Astros for expenses. The Rangers would then donate the reimbursements to hurricane relief.
The plan was for a Texans-helping-Texans theme. The Rangers wouldn't be treated as the home team. Fans would be encouraged to participate in the Texas 2 Split 50/50 raffle, with all the proceeds for the Rangers Foundation going to hurricane relief.

There would have been donation stations. The hope was that Astros fans who had fled to North Texas would want to attend the games as a distraction for what they left behind.
Everything was to be geared toward helping Harvey's victims.

The Astros declined.

---

Both sides declined what seemed like fair offers. I've already said multiple times that if I were either of these people, I would have accepted the offer of the other. Both sides declined. That's what we're in Tampa.

dermdoc said:

---

And to be honest, if Reid had not gone to the media, no one would know that the Rangers rejected switching series. Which started the whole thing.

---

Again, you continue to rationalize away immature and wrong behavior. The fact that the Rangers rejected switching the series doesn't justify Reid running to the media. The fact that you can't say he was wrong without qualifying it by blaming the Rangers is telling.

What kind of person rejects an offer from someone who was in the Astros position?

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And to be honest, if Reid had not gone to the media, no one would know that the Rangers rejected switching series. Which started the whole thing.

---

Again, you continue to rationalize away immature and wrong behavior. The fact that the Rangers rejected switching the series doesn't justify Reid running to the media. The fact that you can't say he was wrong without qualifying it by blaming the Rangers is telling.

---

Reid was wrong. There you go. The Rangers were way more wrong imho and none of this would have happened if they had acted charitably in the first place. Done.

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

I still don't get how giving the Astros 3 MLB games in late September helps with the flood victims.

---

How did the sips doing what they did after Bonfire benefit the victims? There is right and there is wrong.

---

How are those in any way related...?

---

Because this is not about money. It is about doing the right thing especially when your neighbor is down. Obviously, we disagree.

---

The Rangers would have raised far more money w/ the series in Arlington this week, than will be raised in Tampa. The Sept series is irrelevant to that. Ryan chose the less money for relief route, then went public w/ it.

---

Why did the Rangers not agree to switch series? What did they give as the basis for their decision? The. Tell me who committed the first wrong.

---

I don't think either side was really "wrong". Could have been better? Sure, but it's a difficult situation. But, even if I accept your premise that the Rangers were wrong, then you have to concede that the Astros followed that up w/ a "wrong" in rejecting the Rangers offer. Again, just because one person is wrong doesn't justify another person responding w/ a "wrong" of their own.

And none of that justifies Ryan running to the media and airing all of this.

---

Agree. But will you agree that none of this would have happened if the Rangers had accepted switching series? And what did they say that they based that decision on? Do you agree with that?

---

Yes, none of this would have happened if the Rangers accepted the Astros offer. Just as none of this would have happened if the Astros accepted the Rangers offer.

From a FWST article:

Quote:

---

Astros president Reid Ryan said that the Astros suggested a series swap. Daniels said that the Rangers declined, not wanting to force the team to play a 12-game road trip over the final two weeks of the season with a potential playoff berth on the line. There were also concerns about the fans who had tickets for the Sept. 25-27 series and forcing them to use their tickets this week.

The Rangers' idea was for the series to be played in Arlington with Houston as the home team. The Rangers would give the Astros all profits from the three games after being reimbursed by the Astros for expenses. The Rangers would then donate the reimbursements to hurricane relief.
The plan was for a Texans-helping-Texans theme. The Rangers wouldn't be treated as the home team. Fans would be encouraged to participate in the Texas 2 Split 50/50 raffle, with all the proceeds for the Rangers Foundation going to hurricane relief.

There would have been donation stations. The hope was that Astros fans who had fled to North Texas would want to attend the games as a distraction for what they left behind.
Everything was to be geared toward helping Harvey's victims.

The Astros declined.

---

Both sides declined what seemed like fair offers. I've already said multiple times that if I were either of these people, I would have accepted the offer of the other. Both sides declined. That's what we're in Tampa.

---

But the Astros made the first offer which the Rangers refused. It is incomprehensible to me that you do not see how callous that was. Now done.

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And to be honest, if Reid had not gone to the media, no one would know that the Rangers rejected switching series. Which started the whole thing.

---

Again, you continue to rationalize away immature and wrong behavior. The fact that the Rangers rejected switching the series doesn't justify Reid running to the media. The fact that you can't say he was wrong without qualifying it by blaming the Rangers is telling.

---

Reid was wrong. There you go. The Rangers were way more wrong imho and none of this would have happened if they had acted charitably in the first place. Done.

---

Again, you can't say he was wrong without trying to rationalize it by including blame of the Rangers.

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

I still don't get how giving the Astros 3 MLB games in late September helps with the flood victims.

---

How did the sips doing what they did after Bonfire benefit the victims? There is right and there is wrong.

---

How are those in any way related...?

---

Because this is not about money. It is about doing the right thing especially when your neighbor is down. Obviously, we disagree.

---

The Rangers would have raised far more money w/ the series in Arlington this week, than will be raised in Tampa. The Sept series is irrelevant to that. Ryan chose the less money for relief route, then went public w/ it.

---

Why did the Rangers not agree to switch series? What did they give as the basis for their decision? The. Tell me who committed the first wrong.

---

I don't think either side was really "wrong". Could have been better? Sure, but it's a difficult situation. But, even if I accept your premise that the Rangers were wrong, then you have to concede that the Astros followed that up w/ a "wrong" in rejecting the Rangers offer. Again, just because one person is wrong doesn't justify another person responding w/ a "wrong" of their own.

And none of that justifies Ryan running to the media and airing all of this.

---

Agree. But will you agree that none of this would have happened if the Rangers had accepted switching series? And what did they say that they based that decision on? Do you agree with that?

---

Yes, none of this would have happened if the Rangers accepted the Astros offer. Just as none of this would have happened if the Astros accepted the Rangers offer.

From a FWST article:

Quote:

---

Astros president Reid Ryan said that the Astros suggested a series swap. Daniels said that the Rangers declined, not wanting to force the team to play a 12-game road trip over the final two weeks of the season with a potential playoff berth on the line. There were also concerns about the fans who had tickets for the Sept. 25-27 series and forcing them to use their tickets this week.

The Rangers' idea was for the series to be played in Arlington with Houston as the home team. The Rangers would give the Astros all profits from the three games after being reimbursed by the Astros for expenses. The Rangers would then donate the reimbursements to hurricane relief.
The plan was for a Texans-helping-Texans theme. The Rangers wouldn't be treated as the home team. Fans would be encouraged to participate in the Texas 2 Split 50/50 raffle, with all the proceeds for the Rangers Foundation going to hurricane relief.

There would have been donation stations. The hope was that Astros fans who had fled to North Texas would want to attend the games as a distraction for what they left behind.
Everything was to be geared toward helping Harvey's victims.

The Astros declined.

---

Both sides declined what seemed like fair offers. I've already said multiple times that if I were either of these people, I would have accepted the offer of the other. Both sides declined. That's what we're in Tampa.

---

But the Astros made the first offer which the Rangers refused. It is incomprehensible to me that you do not see how callous that was. Now done.

---

I've said I'd have handled it differently. Let's say the Rangers were wrong. Okay. That doesn't justify the Astros responding by being wrong themselves. If we accept your premise that the Rangers were wrong, the Astros could have still played in Arlington. They rejected the Rangers offer, and by using your logic, they too are now in the wrong.

A million times agree. But how I still can't get past the Rangers refusing the first offer. Maybe it is just me.

dermdoc said:

---

A million times agree. But how I still can't get past the Rangers refusing the first offer. Maybe it is just me.

---

That's fine. The Rangers offer, however, would have resulted in a lot more money to the Astros and the hurricane relief efforts. Perhaps it was poor form to reject any offer the Astros made. You can certainly make that argument. I also think it's fair to point out the Rangers offer was actually more beneficial to Houston, as the fundraising during this series would have been tremendous. One let business guide their decision. The other let pride.

And with all due respect, you will not say the Rangers did wrong without bringing Reid into it. So we are both equally guilty? I don't know but just got a call and they are calling for the evacuation of Beaumont including my sister with cancer. Prayers appreciated.
BTHO UCLA!

Also, in the grand scheme of things, this is a game. The important thing is the hurricane relief. I pray you and your family are safe and as dry as possible. Let's not allow decisions by billion dollar businesses cloud us from seeing the humanity in the other. Peace to you, brother.

dermdoc said:

---

And with all due respect, you will not say the Rangers did wrong without bringing Reid into it. So we are both equally guilty? I don't know but just got a call and they are calling for the evacuation of Beaumont including my sister with cancer. Prayers appreciated.
BTHO UCLA!

---

You and yours stay safe, Derm.

Really do appreciate your insight on this board. I hope you stick around.

Have fun in LA and BTHO UCLA.

dermdoc said:

---

And with all due respect, you will not say the Rangers did wrong without bringing Reid into it. So we are both equally guilty? I don't know but just got a call and they are calling for the evacuation of Beaumont including my sister with cancer. Prayers appreciated.
BTHO UCLA!

---

Oh, I have said from the beginning that I don't think either side was necessarily "wrong". I think both sides could have been "more right" though. I have said from the beginning I wouldn't have made the same decisions if I were JD or Ryan. That doesn't change whether we know about it or not. I just wish this was something that was not made public because of the fighting it's led to.

Prayers to your sister and the people of Beaumont.