Talk:Jeff Moorad

Moorad ownership bid

A recent edit by an editor stating to be in contact with Moorad has introduced the text "After the record sale of the Dodgers in 2012, Moorad and his group saw the perfect opportunity to sell the Padres, and withdrew their bid to gain ownership control of the team." This appears to be original research about the reasons Moorad withdrew his bid, as no sources are cited that show the cause-and-effect relationship. The timeline appears to be that in January 2012, MLB deferred its vote on Moorad's group's bid to purchase the remaining 51% of the Padres from John Moores. On March 9, Moorad and his group withdrew their application to complete the sale of the Padres. On March 22, Moorad stepped down as CEO of the Padres. The Dodgers were not even scheduled to select a new owner until April 2012.—Bagumba (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

98.155.80.248 wrote that the Dodgers sale provided "a good time to reach out and find out what the interest level" was for the Padres. However, the quote was from Moores, not Moorad, and was on April 10. The chronology of the events needs to be written clearer, as the wording might be confused and interpreted that Moorad stepped down to sell the Padres for a larger sum due to the Dodgers valuation. In fact, he withdrew his application to complete the Padres purchase and stepped down in March before the Dodgers sale, and Moores—the majority owner who needed to sell because of his divorce—was driving the sale and provided the quote on the opportunity due to the Dodgers.—Bagumba (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Minority owner or owner

Moorad and his group owned 49% of the Padres at their peak, while John Moores owned 51%.[1]. I think it would be accurate to call him the "minority owner" in the lead, while this recent edit removed the qualifier "minor".—Bagumba (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sale of Arizona Diamondbacks

Moorads sale of his 12% stake of the Diamondbacks was inexplicably removed twice [2][3]. I do not see any reason why it should not be mentioned, as he needed to sell the team as a condition of buying the Padres.—Bagumba (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I just started tagging this article and making some simple fixes, and that is one of the things I noticed that's missing. He couldn't buy the Padres without first selling the Diamondbacks. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sale of Padres

I can't find a reliable source that definitively says Moorad sold the Pads. The best I could find is from U-T San Diego: "That would be CEO Jeff Moorad, who vanished after the club was sold to new ownership..."[4] I'm pretty sure he sold, but one could also liberally interpret "vanished" to mean he is an absentee owner. At any rate, if he did sell, it's unverified how much he received in the transaction.—Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Fowler and minority group

Moorad being replaced by Ron Fowler seems relevant. I'm not opposed to rewording, but it's removal here gives incorrect impression that Moorad led the sale by the minority owners.—Bagumba (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

98.155.80.248 questions

NOT SURE HOW TO START NEW TALK The article seems to have been stripped of a great amount of detail. Not sure I understand the rationale behind this? Removing the entire Community Work section seems especially strange: almost as if there were a personal campaign against Mr. Moorad by some editors... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I am done editing this article. Over the past months I've tried to add detail to the article, much of it coming from an MLB.com biography and some from more recent news articles, etc. I feel cheated as a Wikipedia user that my edits have been stripped in the name of mere technicalities. For the record, I'm not in contact with Mr. Moorad but in reality just a Padres fan. My apologies for the fib. But even that, it seems, gives no protection from the tyrrany of Wikipedia editors. Pretty interesting that when the community tries to get involved in editing an article, there is this harsh a response from Wikipedia editors. Of course, I understand fully: you editors have your niches here on the baseball sections of Wikipedia, and someone trying to change that would take some of your power. Everything said yesterday is taken back. Please remove all my comments immediately rather than directing me to the welcome page. I will not view the welcome page, so please cease sending suggestions to my IP address at Wikipedia.

By the way, is there someone I can talk to about this? Wikipedia management/higher up editor, etc.?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a note on the top of the article about concerns with close paraphrasing of sources, which may violate copyrights. Additionally, any unverifiable text may be deleted. All editors are welcome, but no one person owns an article. As the top of the page says when any of us edits, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." Perhaps Teahouse may be of assistance to you.—Bagumba (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to delete all of my edits, you all sure as better get to work on creating this article. If I have no ability to add to the article (as is evidenced by, for example, deleting completely valid, quotable material), then I expect you all to get to work searching every article on Jeff Moorad ever. As a Padres fan, this is such an injustice, were it Jake Peavy's article or John Moores or anyone.

I suppose what I say doesn't matter to you, but hear my plea: Please work on creating a good reference for the community here. All you have done is tear this article down! Please help, don't hurt! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You know, you're spending an awful lot of time arguing on talk pages and noticeboards - time that could be used to rewrite the text so that it doesn't violate copyright. polarscribe (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

To Editors

First off, I want to apologize for the above comments. I was very frustrated by the process, but I realize that compromise must be made. I'm ready to edit the article again with your help.

First: Again, perhaps this is incorrect edit, but: In regards to the "clarification needed" edit: I think we can agree that the sourced "more than 40 first round selections" is important. I understand the editor wants the specific number, but I don't think that can ever be found without original research. Moorad's agency days are long over, and the specific number will never be found. Again, I think the "more than 40" is obviously important, but I think it's silly to include a "clarification needed" edit for something that can never be found. Please remove if you agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"More than 40" is vague. It could mean 41 or 41,000. If it's true, it should be verifiable. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's vague at all. When someone says more than 300, it is between 300 and 400. When they say more than 7000, it is between 7000 and 8000. In the same regard, more than 40 means between 40 and 50. This is standard expression in the english language, and NO reader will be searching for clarification of 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, or 49. It's not the point of what's being written. It's the spirit of the factual "more than 40" that matters, not the exact number of 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, or 49.

Suggested Edits

In regards to the phrase: "By 2011, Moorad had sold his 12 percent share of the Diamondbacks."

It just seems so out of place. If you really want it in, as you seem to, then perhaps move it as the last sentence of the Diamondbacks section.

It just doesn't fit in the Padres section which is about Moorad's time at the Padres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw the section heading as being more chronological than specifically limiting its content. It would seem strange to mention that he sold years later before the connection with his purchase in Padres. I'll defer to consensus on its proper placement.—Bagumba (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems a perfect closing to the Diamondbacks section. In other words, he sold the Diamondbacks and moved on, and now we talk about his Padres years. Also, it's not like he chose to sell during his Padres years. He was forced the sell. He didn't have a choice. You can't own two teams at once, as you know. Therefore, when the sale actually concluded does not make it worth putting in the Padres section. It is a Diamondbacks deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

His sale of Ariz was a precondition of him being a majority owner of SD. He didn't sell immediately; he only fully sold by 2012. We shouldn't change the facts to make the article fit into neat compartmentalized sections. That said, we should mention in the Ariz section that he stepped down to purchase SD, and we can say in the same section that he fully liquidated by 2012.—Bagumba (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea on mentioning "that he stepped down to purchase SD." I don't suggest changing the facts. In other words, the sentence should still read "By 2011, Moorad had sold his 12 percent share of the Diamondbacks." Those are the facts, and they do not change. But the placement is all that I think should be changed because the excerpt naturally fits into a neat compartmentalized section. There's no fact changing being suggested here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Fowler replacement

Going to be honest here, I really don't see the relevance of Fowler replacing Moorad in the sale. In fact, to say he replaced to lead minority group is to imply that, as you suggest, Fowler lead the group to sale. In fact, Fowler has stayed in the Padres new deal so it is quite the opposite! It's confusing to mention Fowler's replacing as it implies he then sold, which is not the case.

I think to say Moorad's group, which it still was in the sense that it was the same exact people, would be less confusing/misleading.

See the difference between the two versions:

AS IT IS: Moorad's minority group would receive 49% of the proceeds of any sale of the Padres.[15] Moorad was succeeded by Ron Fowler as lead of their investment group.[7] In August, the Padres were sold for $800 million, a $300 million increase over the valuation in the 2009 sale.

AS IT COULD BE WITHOUT INSERT: Moorad's minority group would receive 49% of the proceeds of any sale of the Padres. In August, the Padres were sold for $800 million, a $300 million increase over the valuation in the 2009 sale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I didnt want to get into Fowler's new ownership, as it seems unrelated to Moorad. He did lead the sale for the minority group. His involvement in the new ownership seems more relevant to Fowler's own bio. A footnote can be added if you think it is needed in Moorad's bio. However, Moorad's tenure as group lead ending should be mentioned for consistency if we are going to mention him having the title to begin with.—Bagumba (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The article you source here says the following about Fowler: "Moores had owned 51 percent of the team while a minority group, once controlled by Moorad and then by Fowler, owned 49 percent." It doesn't mention that Fowler sold, but rather, to the contrary, says that "Ron Fowler, chief executive of Liquid Investments, would become controlling owner if the agreement is approved by baseball owners and finalized, a baseball official said Tuesday." These are the only two things about Fowler mentioned. Nothing is noted about Fowler's sale, because, in fact, he didn't sell! He moved on with the new group as the article says.

No, I don't desire to make a footnote because you're right, I don't think Fowler's new ownership is relevant to Moorad. But nor is his leadership of the "Moorad group." As a reader, when I see "Moorad was succeeded by Ron Fowler as lead of their investment group.[7] In August, the Padres were sold for $800 million, a $300 million increase over the valuation in the 2009 sale," the reasonable assumption to make is that Fowler lead the minority group and sold, which is not correct and not what the article states at all. To leave it is misleading (though I agree it would be even more silly to add even more about Fowler). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The entire team was for sale, and any existing owner needed to be a part of the new group—effectively selling with the old group and buying with the new group. "Moores indicated the entire team is for sale, and the limited partnership will get 49 percent of the proceeds. He said some of those in the limited partnership might want to become part of a new ownership group or may want to buy the club themselves."[5].—Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of speculation

In regards to: "Media outlets including U-T San Diego, Fox Sports, and Associated Press speculated that Moorad was short of the needed support of 22 MLB team owners to complete the purchase of the Padres."

I'm just not sure it's appropriate to include any speculation. (Especially when, for the record, it's highly likely that the vote was not in fact postponed for that reason; there are a whole host of reasons why this was or could have been postponed. For example, there wasn't enough time at the meetings, baseball wanted to see completion of the TV deal before completion of the sale, Moorad and his group wanted to complete a new sale imminently with Moores rather than complete their own sale over the extended time period, etc., etc.)

To speculate on any situation could be an unending list, especially on an issue of this magnitude; therefore, it seems biased and not neutral to include speculation as it is not the reporting of facts as, I have well-learned, is the goal of Wikipedia articles.

Also, consider changing "deferred" to "postponed." I realize they are just about the same meaning, but to a reader, postponed gives a better sense of postponed as in timing, whereas deferred gives the sense that, as is the dictionary definition from Dictionary.com: "Submit humbly to (a person or a person's wishes or qualities): "he deferred to Tim's superior knowledge"." Not quite the meaning we're going for. Postponed seems better to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A good perspective is at Wikipedia:Describing points of view, which says, "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy." As such, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, allows for potentially biased views as long as they are attributed to the source. Given that multiple outlets support the point of view, it seems more notable to include than just a passing rumor.—Bagumba (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I suppose I cede this issue. I think it would be better with no speculation, but given the above description I guess it's alright.

In regards to above suggestions

I will not make the above edits myself but rather request the edits on the talk page, as was suggested by Bagumba.

PLEASE incorporate the suggestions if appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

My original suggestion was based on the possibility you were paid in light of your claim that you were in contact with Moorad. You later retracted that claim. Can you please clarify your relationship, if any, with Moorad. The information will set proper expectations for both your experience and the rest of the community. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I wish I was getting paid for working on Wikipedia... Just a Padres fan trying to hash out the facts and give Wikipedia users reliable articles on Padres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Baguma

While we're at it, I would ask again that you remove all of the comments of mine on your talk page. I'm not sure how to use the thing you suggested. I'm giving you permission and in fact asking you to delete them.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As I previously responded, WP:REDACT provides instruction on how to handle this. You can experiment at the sandbox. You can also get assistance at WP:HELPDESK or WP:TEAHOUSE. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank You Mobusghu + Close Paraphrasing

Thank you for the help with sources, Mobushgu.

Would it be possible now, to perhaps remove the "close paraphrasing" thing at the top of the article as there are many more sources you have incorporated? Or are we not quite there yet?

Please do if appropriate.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)