Quantcast

“While Tom [Ricketts] respects Pat Gillick’s Hall of Fame career, reports of a conversation are unfounded.”

That was the statement released by Chicago Cubs owner Tom Ricketts’ spokesman Dennis Culloton late yesterday in an effort to refute reports that Ricketts has had conversations with Gillick about the direction of the Cubs.

So, that ends all the Gillick talk, right?

You tell me. You’ll note that Ricketts did not make the statement himself. He did not make himself available to the media to discuss the issue. Hmm.

Ricketts used a spokesman, who released a short, written statement. Hmm.

The statement is almost intentionally obtuse, declining to address whether conversations have taken place, instead saying simply that “reports” of the conversation “are unfounded.” Hmm.

I may not be a practicing attorney anymore, but even I can turn that statement to mush.

So, Tom Ricketts – through your spokesman in a one-sentence, written statement – are you saying that the reports are unfounded because the conversation hasn’t taken place? Or because the reports were not precisely correct? Or because the stated foundation for the alleged sources’ knowledge is specious? Or are you saying that there hasn’t been a “conversation” directly between the two of you, which would not preclude contact between the two of you?

Because only the first of those four possibilities means that you haven’t been in touch with Gillick. And, forgive my presumption, if you’d meant the first one, you would have said the first one. You might have even said it yourself. In spoken words. To the media.

This is one of those rare times where the rumor seems more plausible to me than the denial. I suspect that Ricketts hoped that the meetings would remain private for any number of reasons, not the least of which is not hurting the feelings of his current front office, and jeopardizing his future relationship with them should he hope to maintain one – personally or professionally. He also may not have wanted public reports to screw up any negotiations taking place with Gillick (if so, er, um, sorry about that).

And, if Gillick is merely serving in a limited, advisory role (as opposed to being hired for a front office position), but for the report, we may have never eave have heard about it. So it’s pretty easy to deny a conversation – it could be kept quiet from here on out.

  • Fishin Phil

    Thank you for putting a positive spin on a disturbing story.

    Now tell me another story about Ricketts working hard behind the scenes for a big front office shake up. It doesn’t have to be true, but the stories do help me sleep at night.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      That’s what I keep hearing about. Though maybe I’m selectively listening because I, too, like to sleep at night.

      • Jamesjones

        SURVEY SAYSSSSS?????

  • Chris

    Not to distract from the actual content of the post, but every time I see that picture of Gillick, I assume he’s hosting Family Feud or the Price is Right or something. He looks very “game show host” in that shot.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Gonna need something you hear at the mall. Three seconds.

      • dreese

        If wern’t in public i would kick your ass you little brat

        • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

          It took me like six reads to realize that you were jokingly answering the question. I thought maybe you wanted to rumble.

  • CubFan Paul

    Brett i read something somewhere about this yesterday (i cant find it now, maybe u read it browsing around too) saying that Ricketts has to get permission from the League office to talk to Gillick ‘officially’ or ‘professionally’ because he’s still technically a Phillies employee and the Cubs nor Cricketts have asked for permission to talk to Gillick ‘yet’ ..i know stuff goes on behind the scenes with agents & ‘runners’ relaying messages so im not saying the talks didnt happen but supposedly it didnt happen in a official capacity so Cricketts definitely had to deny/half ass deny the conversation(s) ..sorry i cant find the article on this, i’ll keep looking

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      That’s very interesting, and would be another explanation. Would love to see if if you can find it.

  • CubFan Paul

    i found it ..its a David Haugh piece (the guys who admits to not going to games or watching the cubs but always has critism)

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0721-haugh-cubs-pat-gillick-ch20110721,0,4056101.column

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Jinx. I just put up today’s Bullets post with that article in it. Thanks, CFP.

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+