STLtoday.com

Midrange Jay wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 06:45 am So, we pay to trade Gray and get a couple of mid level prospects. Now we have a 2-3 pitcher rotation compromised of guys who have never pitched a full season.

True about not pitching a full season but Bloom in his rebuild is seeking players with multiple controllable years.
That’s part of the value.. you are dealing off Gray 2 years left til retirement ? and Noot free agent 2 years from now.
Bloom will take a shot at 5 year controllable guy who mah ‘hit’ as starter.

NYCardsFan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 06:52 am Misleading thread title. Once again, this is not a “rumor,” it is mere speculation. There are no reports or claims in the article that the Giants actually ARE interested, and there are no sources cited. Why? Because it isn’t a “rumor,” it’s just the author speculating about trade ideas.

In future will just leave. ‘Rumor’ word out of title.
Won’t say ‘speculation’ in title either as 11 letters ..
will try to not mention either

ramfandan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 08:47 am

Midrange Jay wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 06:45 am So, we pay to trade Gray and get a couple of mid level prospects. Now we have a 2-3 pitcher rotation compromised of guys who have never pitched a full season.

True about not pitching a full season but Bloom in his rebuild is seeking players with multiple controllable years.
That’s part of the value.. you are dealing off Gray 2 years left til retirement ? and Noot free agent 2 years from now.
Bloom will take a shot at 5 year controllable guy who mah ‘hit’ as starter.

We still need 2 of those kind of pitchers with Gray staying.

Add a veteran like Max Scherzer as your fifth starter and Landen Roupp as your fifth starter

Too many fifth starters and not enough fourth starters methinks.

rockondlouie wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 08:36 am

ramfandan wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:38 pm Anyone else hear this tidbit ?
Link below to story:

https://aroundthefoghorn.com/sf-giants- ... -cardinals

Excerpt from article:

If the Giants were able to land him, they would be creating a solid top three starters in their rotation with Logan Webb, Robbie Ray, and Gray. Add a veteran like Max Scherzer as your fifth starter and Landen Roupp as your fifth starter and that is a pretty solid starting rotation to enter 2026 with.


The big thing with Gray will be determining how much of his contract the Giants would take on. The Cardinals are reportedly willing to pay down some of Gray's salary in trade talks which would be good for the Giants, but it may mean St. Louis will want more in a return.

Turning to the other bird the Giants would get in a trade with St. Louis, outfielder Lars Nootbaar seems like he would be a solid fit in right field. Nootbaar slashed .234/.325/.361 with 13 homers and 48 runs batted in.

Right field is an open spot for the Giants that they are likely not willing to entrust to young players like Drew Gilbert and Luis Matos. Nootbaar would give them a serviceable option out there.

speculated return for Gray/Nootbaar

What would it take for the Giants to get these players? Maybe trading top pitching prospect Carson Whisenhunt and outfielder Luis Matos as well as an additional prospect would get a deal done.

Been my guess rfdan:

Re: who is a match for Sonny Gray
Post by rockondlouie » 19 Oct 2025 09:08 am

SF Giants are my guess



BUT

Now I think my Mizzou brothers tie up and they'll sign Maxie instead........unless Buster wants to add two veteran hurlers.

Atlanta is another team that's come up in rumors too. Their rotation has question marks after Sale and Strider.

ramfandan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 08:55 am

NYCardsFan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 06:52 am Misleading thread title. Once again, this is not a “rumor,” it is mere speculation. There are no reports or claims in the article that the Giants actually ARE interested, and there are no sources cited. Why? Because it isn’t a “rumor,” it’s just the author speculating about trade ideas.

In future will just leave. ‘Rumor’ word out of title.
Won’t say ‘speculation’ in title either as 11 letters ..
will try to not mention either

This actually did come up in season. Somebody will always attempt to negate a topic.
The Giants have had interest in SG. I doubt the Nootbaar take, they will aim higher, IMO.

Susan Slusser is a good reporter for the Giants. Living out west I've seen her reports often.
What is not addressed is if SG has interest in SF. We could find out I guess soon.
I added a link that references her report back in September.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/09/ ... eason.html

Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 05:57 am

Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 05:39 am The Giants only have one really good prospect, and they aren't trading him for what the Cardinals are offering here. I wouldn't hate the returns being mentioned here, but also wouldn't be excited about them. Maybe that has a lot to do with who we are offering. I wonder if there are better teams to match up with for the Cardinals.

Carson Whisenhunt may be their best pitching prospect at #7, but over 4 minor league seasons his career ERA is 4.19. In a short stint with SF, it was a tick over 5. Andre Pallante territory. If you decide to do that, ok, but understand who you are getting. Again, their system isn't very good.

The two prospects I mentioned could both miss. I was more excited about the OF prospect than Whisenhunt. But Whisenhunt pitched a bit in the majors last year and who knows, he might figure something out and be OK. If not, it was a huge salary dump. In my view, to make a trade like this work, it requires that the Cardinals acquire both the pitching prospect and the OF prospect. The Giants have 2 OF prospects that are potential power hitters, Bo Davidson or Dakota Jordan. I am fine with either, albeit, Davidson was closer to ML ready.

Ultimately out of the pile of pitchers the Cards have in their farm system and on the ML roster out of Doyle, Liberatore, Mathews, Henderson and Franklin, they need 2 of them to emerge as top 3 guys in the rotation and they can fill out the last top 3 spot via free agency. They also need the #4 and #5 guys to be rock solid. I think they have enough guys that are decent they will get 2 really good #4 and #5 guys. I am less certain they will get more than 1 guy who fits a 1 - 3 profile out of the entire group.

Similarily, they need to hit on a power hitting outfielder. Getting a guy like Davidson to add to the mix with Baez simply increases the chances one of them might be good. I am assuming Herrera will ultimately end up as our LF. Scott in CF is fine, unless Baez can replace him. I have no confidence in Walker and I see Burleson as the future 1B. They need another high end OF prospect. This trade seemed OK to accomplish that. But, I understand it could also fail and ultimately be a salary dump.

WaltsSuccessor wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 13:40 pm

rockondlouie wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 08:36 am

ramfandan wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:38 pm Anyone else hear this tidbit ?
Link below to story:

https://aroundthefoghorn.com/sf-giants- ... -cardinals

Excerpt from article:

If the Giants were able to land him, they would be creating a solid top three starters in their rotation with Logan Webb, Robbie Ray, and Gray. Add a veteran like Max Scherzer as your fifth starter and Landen Roupp as your fifth starter and that is a pretty solid starting rotation to enter 2026 with.


The big thing with Gray will be determining how much of his contract the Giants would take on. The Cardinals are reportedly willing to pay down some of Gray's salary in trade talks which would be good for the Giants, but it may mean St. Louis will want more in a return.

Turning to the other bird the Giants would get in a trade with St. Louis, outfielder Lars Nootbaar seems like he would be a solid fit in right field. Nootbaar slashed .234/.325/.361 with 13 homers and 48 runs batted in.

Right field is an open spot for the Giants that they are likely not willing to entrust to young players like Drew Gilbert and Luis Matos. Nootbaar would give them a serviceable option out there.

speculated return for Gray/Nootbaar

What would it take for the Giants to get these players? Maybe trading top pitching prospect Carson Whisenhunt and outfielder Luis Matos as well as an additional prospect would get a deal done.

Been my guess rfdan:

Re: who is a match for Sonny Gray
Post by rockondlouie » 19 Oct 2025 09:08 am

SF Giants are my guess



BUT

Now I think my Mizzou brothers tie up and they'll sign Maxie instead........unless Buster wants to add two veteran hurlers.

Atlanta is another team that's come up in rumors too. Their rotation has question marks after Sale and Strider.

Atlanta is a clean fit on the side of Atlanta's needs after a failed season when rotation
issues played a part. On the side of SG due to previous stated goals by him, and on the side of the
Cardinals with Atlanta having a few prospect pitchers that are over a season away.

SF, IMO, has less appeal to the Cards but who knows what others see.
I don't know if Sonny is still strict on his geographic desires or if it just more of a preference.

WaltsSuccessor wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 13:40 pm

rockondlouie wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 08:36 am

ramfandan wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:38 pm Anyone else hear this tidbit ?
Link below to story:

https://aroundthefoghorn.com/sf-giants- ... -cardinals

Excerpt from article:

If the Giants were able to land him, they would be creating a solid top three starters in their rotation with Logan Webb, Robbie Ray, and Gray. Add a veteran like Max Scherzer as your fifth starter and Landen Roupp as your fifth starter and that is a pretty solid starting rotation to enter 2026 with.


The big thing with Gray will be determining how much of his contract the Giants would take on. The Cardinals are reportedly willing to pay down some of Gray's salary in trade talks which would be good for the Giants, but it may mean St. Louis will want more in a return.

Turning to the other bird the Giants would get in a trade with St. Louis, outfielder Lars Nootbaar seems like he would be a solid fit in right field. Nootbaar slashed .234/.325/.361 with 13 homers and 48 runs batted in.

Right field is an open spot for the Giants that they are likely not willing to entrust to young players like Drew Gilbert and Luis Matos. Nootbaar would give them a serviceable option out there.

speculated return for Gray/Nootbaar

What would it take for the Giants to get these players? Maybe trading top pitching prospect Carson Whisenhunt and outfielder Luis Matos as well as an additional prospect would get a deal done.

Been my guess rfdan:

Re: who is a match for Sonny Gray
Post by rockondlouie » 19 Oct 2025 09:08 am

SF Giants are my guess



BUT

Now I think my Mizzou brothers tie up and they'll sign Maxie instead........unless Buster wants to add two veteran hurlers.

Atlanta is another team that's come up in rumors too. Their rotation has question marks after Sale and Strider.

Yep, makes sense to given proximity to Nashville home.

ICCFIM2 wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 14:00 pm

Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 05:57 am

Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 05:39 am The Giants only have one really good prospect, and they aren't trading him for what the Cardinals are offering here. I wouldn't hate the returns being mentioned here, but also wouldn't be excited about them. Maybe that has a lot to do with who we are offering. I wonder if there are better teams to match up with for the Cardinals.

Carson Whisenhunt may be their best pitching prospect at #7, but over 4 minor league seasons his career ERA is 4.19. In a short stint with SF, it was a tick over 5. Andre Pallante territory. If you decide to do that, ok, but understand who you are getting. Again, their system isn't very good.

The two prospects I mentioned could both miss. I was more excited about the OF prospect than Whisenhunt. But Whisenhunt pitched a bit in the majors last year and who knows, he might figure something out and be OK. If not, it was a huge salary dump. In my view, to make a trade like this work, it requires that the Cardinals acquire both the pitching prospect and the OF prospect. The Giants have 2 OF prospects that are potential power hitters, Bo Davidson or Dakota Jordan. I am fine with either, albeit, Davidson was closer to ML ready.

Ultimately out of the pile of pitchers the Cards have in their farm system and on the ML roster out of Doyle, Liberatore, Mathews, Henderson and Franklin, they need 2 of them to emerge as top 3 guys in the rotation and they can fill out the last top 3 spot via free agency. They also need the #4 and #5 guys to be rock solid. I think they have enough guys that are decent they will get 2 really good #4 and #5 guys. I am less certain they will get more than 1 guy who fits a 1 - 3 profile out of the entire group.

Similarily, they need to hit on a power hitting outfielder. Getting a guy like Davidson to add to the mix with Baez simply increases the chances one of them might be good. I am assuming Herrera will ultimately end up as our LF. Scott in CF is fine, unless Baez can replace him. I have no confidence in Walker and I see Burleson as the future 1B. They need another high end OF prospect. This trade seemed OK to accomplish that. But, I understand it could also fail and ultimately be a salary dump.

I've watched Whisenhunt in Sac and in Reno.
He's a guy who needs very good control o/w he gets in extra trouble.
He can't just challenge the batter, JMO.
Pitch sequencing will help him, as would a better third pitch.
All possible with a 25 y/o so if the Cards see a fix, it isn't a terrible return.

renostl wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 13:56 pm

ramfandan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 08:55 am

NYCardsFan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 06:52 am Misleading thread title. Once again, this is not a “rumor,” it is mere speculation. There are no reports or claims in the article that the Giants actually ARE interested, and there are no sources cited. Why? Because it isn’t a “rumor,” it’s just the author speculating about trade ideas.

In future will just leave. ‘Rumor’ word out of title.
Won’t say ‘speculation’ in title either as 11 letters ..
will try to not mention either

This actually did come up in season. Somebody will always attempt to negate a topic.
The Giants have had interest in SG. I doubt the Nootbaar take, they will aim higher, IMO.

Susan Slusser is a good reporter for the Giants. Living out west I've seen her reports often.
What is not addressed is if SG has interest in SF. We could find out I guess soon.
I added a link that references her report back in September.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/09/ ... eason.html

No one is trying to "negate a topic" (whatever that means), just pointing out that a "rumor" is not the same thing as a blogger offering open speculation about potential trade ideas. If you read the article linked in the OP, there is absolutely NO attempt by the author to claim or report that the Giants actually have an active interest in (let alone pursuit of) either Gray or Nootbaar, it's just some guy speculating on potential trades.

Furthermore, if you read the original Slusser article to which you refer (https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/gian ... m=referral), you'd see she did not report that the Giants had a specific interest in Gray, only that he "might" be "a potential trade target" who was "precisely the type of starter the Giants are likely to target this season" (emphasis added). In other words, Slusser herself was also speculating about a potential trade for Gray, not reporting that the Giants were actually targeting or pursuing him. Even the MLBTR blog to which you linked liberally uses words like "may," "potential," "could," and "likely," but does not (re-)report that the Giants ARE interested in or pursuing Gray, probably because they knew that's not what Slusser wrote.

NYCardsFan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 14:40 pm

renostl wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 13:56 pm

ramfandan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 08:55 am

NYCardsFan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 06:52 am Misleading thread title. Once again, this is not a “rumor,” it is mere speculation. There are no reports or claims in the article that the Giants actually ARE interested, and there are no sources cited. Why? Because it isn’t a “rumor,” it’s just the author speculating about trade ideas.

In future will just leave. ‘Rumor’ word out of title.
Won’t say ‘speculation’ in title either as 11 letters ..
will try to not mention either

This actually did come up in season. Somebody will always attempt to negate a topic.
The Giants have had interest in SG. I doubt the Nootbaar take, they will aim higher, IMO.

Susan Slusser is a good reporter for the Giants. Living out west I've seen her reports often.
What is not addressed is if SG has interest in SF. We could find out I guess soon.
I added a link that references her report back in September.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/09/ ... eason.html

No one is trying to "negate a topic" (whatever that means), just pointing out that a "rumor" is not the same thing as a blogger offering open speculation about potential trade ideas. If you read the article linked in the OP, there is absolutely NO attempt by the author to claim or report that the Giants actually have an active interest in (let alone pursuit of) either Gray or Nootbaar, it's just some guy speculating on potential trades.

Furthermore, if you read the original Slusser article to which you refer (https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/gian ... m=referral), you'd see she did not report that the Giants had a specific interest in Gray, only that he "might" be "a potential trade target" who was "precisely the type of starter the Giants are likely to target this season" (emphasis added). In other words, Slusser herself was also speculating about a potential trade for Gray, not reporting that the Giants were actually targeting or pursuing him. Even the MLBTR blog to which you linked liberally uses words like "may," "potential," "could," and "likely," but does not (re-)report that the Giants ARE interested in or pursuing Gray, probably because they knew that's not what Slusser wrote.

Negate
Nullify, make ineffective. Deny the existence of something.

Of course, it is exactly what you are doing here again.

I read the report from Slusser does

Gray is, “on the Giants’ radar” and “very much a potential target” for the club this offseason.

sound familiar?

renostl wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 15:21 pm

NYCardsFan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 14:40 pm

renostl wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 13:56 pm

ramfandan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 08:55 am

NYCardsFan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 06:52 am Misleading thread title. Once again, this is not a “rumor,” it is mere speculation. There are no reports or claims in the article that the Giants actually ARE interested, and there are no sources cited. Why? Because it isn’t a “rumor,” it’s just the author speculating about trade ideas.

In future will just leave. ‘Rumor’ word out of title.
Won’t say ‘speculation’ in title either as 11 letters ..
will try to not mention either

This actually did come up in season. Somebody will always attempt to negate a topic.
The Giants have had interest in SG. I doubt the Nootbaar take, they will aim higher, IMO.

Susan Slusser is a good reporter for the Giants. Living out west I've seen her reports often.
What is not addressed is if SG has interest in SF. We could find out I guess soon.
I added a link that references her report back in September.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/09/ ... eason.html

No one is trying to "negate a topic" (whatever that means), just pointing out that a "rumor" is not the same thing as a blogger offering open speculation about potential trade ideas. If you read the article linked in the OP, there is absolutely NO attempt by the author to claim or report that the Giants actually have an active interest in (let alone pursuit of) either Gray or Nootbaar, it's just some guy speculating on potential trades.

Furthermore, if you read the original Slusser article to which you refer (https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/gian ... m=referral), you'd see she did not report that the Giants had a specific interest in Gray, only that he "might" be "a potential trade target" who was "precisely the type of starter the Giants are likely to target this season" (emphasis added). In other words, Slusser herself was also speculating about a potential trade for Gray, not reporting that the Giants were actually targeting or pursuing him. Even the MLBTR blog to which you linked liberally uses words like "may," "potential," "could," and "likely," but does not (re-)report that the Giants ARE interested in or pursuing Gray, probably because they knew that's not what Slusser wrote.

Negate
Nullify, make ineffective. Deny the existence of something.

Of course, it is exactly what you are doing here again.

I read the report from Slusser does

Gray is, “on the Giants’ radar” and “very much a potential target” for the club this offseason.

sound familiar?

No, that is not what I am doing here--I am saying that the word "rumor" in the thread title is a misleading and inaccurate description of the linked article. The article is not a "rumor" of anything. The author of the article makes NO attempt whatsoever to assert, insinuate, claim, or report that the Giants are actively interested in, targeting, or pursuing Gray specifically. Which, or course, makes the Slusser article from September moot in this particular discussion, even under your questionable reading of it.

As for your claims about the Slusser article itself, every player is "on the radar" and a "potential target" of every team that is looking to change its roster in relevant areas--it's a figure of speech. She says Gray "might" be a "potential trade target"--why use subjective words like "might" and "potential" if her article were reporting that he actually WAS? I don't think any reasonable reading of Slusser's article would conclude that she was reporting anything specific regarding what the Giants were actually doing/planning/thinking. She was speculating about a bunch of potential trades that she thought would make sense given the Giants' needs. In fact, she named multiple players that she said were the "type" of starter that the Giants "likely" would be interested in, including Gray.

But here, let me give you an example of what a "rumor" looks like: "The Giants are targeting/interested in Sonny Gray in (potential) trade talks with the Cardinals." If that statement has an identified source(s), it's a "report." If it has no identified source(s), it's a "rumor." But Joe Blogger saying "I think the Giants should trade for Sonny Gray" is neither a "report" nor a "rumor" of anything, it is mere speculation--the kind that posters on this forum engage in daily. If a random CardsTalk poster starts a thread saying the Giants should trade for Sonny Gray, is that a "rumor" that the Giants are targeting Gray? I think you know the answer.

NYCardsFan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 14:40 pm

renostl wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 13:56 pm

ramfandan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 08:55 am

NYCardsFan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 06:52 am Misleading thread title. Once again, this is not a “rumor,” it is mere speculation. There are no reports or claims in the article that the Giants actually ARE interested, and there are no sources cited. Why? Because it isn’t a “rumor,” it’s just the author speculating about trade ideas.

In future will just leave. ‘Rumor’ word out of title.
Won’t say ‘speculation’ in title either as 11 letters ..
will try to not mention either

This actually did come up in season. Somebody will always attempt to negate a topic.
The Giants have had interest in SG. I doubt the Nootbaar take, they will aim higher, IMO.

Susan Slusser is a good reporter for the Giants. Living out west I've seen her reports often.
What is not addressed is if SG has interest in SF. We could find out I guess soon.
I added a link that references her report back in September.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/09/ ... eason.html

No one is trying to "negate a topic" (whatever that means), just pointing out that a "rumor" is not the same thing as a blogger offering open speculation about potential trade ideas. If you read the article linked in the OP, there is absolutely NO attempt by the author to claim or report that the Giants actually have an active interest in (let alone pursuit of) either Gray or Nootbaar, it's just some guy speculating on potential trades.

Furthermore, if you read the original Slusser article to which you refer (https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/gian ... m=referral), you'd see she did not report that the Giants had a specific interest in Gray, only that he "might" be "a potential trade target" who was "precisely the type of starter the Giants are likely to target this season" (emphasis added). In other words, Slusser herself was also speculating about a potential trade for Gray, not reporting that the Giants were actually targeting or pursuing him. Even the MLBTR blog to which you linked liberally uses words like "may," "potential," "could," and "likely," but does not (re-)report that the Giants ARE interested in or pursuing Gray, probably because they knew that's not what Slusser wrote.

Yep. Reading is fundamental

NYCardsFan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 16:52 pm

renostl wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 15:21 pm

NYCardsFan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 14:40 pm

renostl wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 13:56 pm

ramfandan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 08:55 am

NYCardsFan wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 06:52 am Misleading thread title. Once again, this is not a “rumor,” it is mere speculation. There are no reports or claims in the article that the Giants actually ARE interested, and there are no sources cited. Why? Because it isn’t a “rumor,” it’s just the author speculating about trade ideas.

In future will just leave. ‘Rumor’ word out of title.
Won’t say ‘speculation’ in title either as 11 letters ..
will try to not mention either

This actually did come up in season. Somebody will always attempt to negate a topic.
The Giants have had interest in SG. I doubt the Nootbaar take, they will aim higher, IMO.

Susan Slusser is a good reporter for the Giants. Living out west I've seen her reports often.
What is not addressed is if SG has interest in SF. We could find out I guess soon.
I added a link that references her report back in September.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/09/ ... eason.html

No one is trying to "negate a topic" (whatever that means), just pointing out that a "rumor" is not the same thing as a blogger offering open speculation about potential trade ideas. If you read the article linked in the OP, there is absolutely NO attempt by the author to claim or report that the Giants actually have an active interest in (let alone pursuit of) either Gray or Nootbaar, it's just some guy speculating on potential trades.

Furthermore, if you read the original Slusser article to which you refer (https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/gian ... m=referral), you'd see she did not report that the Giants had a specific interest in Gray, only that he "might" be "a potential trade target" who was "precisely the type of starter the Giants are likely to target this season" (emphasis added). In other words, Slusser herself was also speculating about a potential trade for Gray, not reporting that the Giants were actually targeting or pursuing him. Even the MLBTR blog to which you linked liberally uses words like "may," "potential," "could," and "likely," but does not (re-)report that the Giants ARE interested in or pursuing Gray, probably because they knew that's not what Slusser wrote.

Negate
Nullify, make ineffective. Deny the existence of something.

Of course, it is exactly what you are doing here again.

I read the report from Slusser does

Gray is, “on the Giants’ radar” and “very much a potential target” for the club this offseason.

sound familiar?

No, that is not what I am doing here--I am saying that the word "rumor" in the thread title is a misleading and inaccurate description of the linked article. The article is not a "rumor" of anything. The author of the article makes NO attempt whatsoever to assert, insinuate, claim, or report that the Giants are actively interested in, targeting, or pursuing Gray specifically. Which, or course, makes the Slusser article from September moot in this particular discussion, even under your questionable reading of it.

As for your claims about the Slusser article itself, every player is "on the radar" and a "potential target" of every team that is looking to change its roster in relevant areas--it's a figure of speech. She says Gray "might" be a "potential trade target"--why use subjective words like "might" and "potential" if her article were reporting that he actually WAS? I don't think any reasonable reading of Slusser's article would conclude that she was reporting anything specific regarding what the Giants were actually doing/planning/thinking. She was speculating about a bunch of potential trades that she thought would make sense given the Giants' needs. In fact, she named multiple players that she said were the "type" of starter that the Giants would be interested in, including Gray.

But here, let me give you an example of what a "rumor" looks like: "The Giants are targeting/interested in Sonny Gray in (potential) trade talks with the Cardinals." If that statement has an identified source(s), it's a "report." If it has no identified source(s), it's a "rumor." But Joe Blogger saying "I think the Giants should trade for Sonny Gray" is neither a "report" nor a "rumor" of anything, it is mere speculation--the kind that posters on this forum engage in daily. If a random CardsTalk poster starts a thread saying the Giants should trade for Sonny Gray, is that a "rumor" that the Giants are targeting Gray? I think you know the answer.

We disagree.
Again, you are attempting to negate an opinion by falling back on "every player is on everybody' radar
and everybody is a potential target".

I read the Chronicle in real time back in September when the article came out.
The reason I remember it was because I was surprised by it. One that SF had any interest
in Gray as a SP, and two most importantly as I pointed out earlier, it does not take
anything into account of IF SG has any interest in SF.

This thread did start with as much or more substantial reports that happen on 11/19. It is labeled as rumor, thus
not making a claim to it being a report even in an environment that it could attempt to. and has traces
that go back to September even before the run amuck gossip lines that hot stove brings.

This is a chat line. Opinions happen and should be why we come here. Explore other opinions and to relay your
own. Perhaps it enlightens. Not to read someone with a pretentious attitude over what can be posted.

Disagreeing is fine, snark isn't needed when doing so.

OK, last post on this: Again, while I think your reading of the Slusser article is wrong, it is nonetheless wholly irrelevant to the question of whether the use of the word “rumor” (with all that connotes) in the thread title is an accurate description of what’s in the linked article. On that question, the answer is clear: there is no “rumor” of anything contained in the article—it is merely the author’s open-ended trade speculation. I never said it “couldn’t” be posted (your words), I simply suggested it be titled in a way that isn’t misleading. If that “negates” anything, it is simply the materially inaccurate (and I suspect entirely inadvertent/mistaken) use of the word “rumor” in the thread title.