Lets disect the post: So basically trying to make himself seem genuine in order to get people to actually believe his post. Even if he is a troll, wouldn't he put a disclaimer up to protect himself because he knows we are all smart enough to not take everyone at their word? Yet he only produced one name that he used at ESPN, and he said he only "lurked there" and barely posted. Who is he? The janitor? The assistant to the traveling secertary? How does someone other then a high-ranking official know about a trade that hasn't even been completed? Did they send out a memo to all the employees that they were about to trade their marquee name to the team they are in the middle of playing? Doesn't his friend have anything better to do then find out transactions a mere hours before they are revealed and tell them to supposed Cubs fans? "Hey man, I know you are a Cubs fan and all, but I figured I'd let you know that THE joe randa is signing with the reds. I figured you should know a few hours before you read it as a blurb at the bottom of the daily transactions page. again, a low ranking official is giving 48 hour notice about a trade, and violates a confidentiality agreement I'm sure he signed before working, to tell his Cub fan friend so that he could post it all over the internet Sure, you knew you were going to get banned anyways. C'mon guys, I understand the excitement, but how can you take a guy at his word and make a 30+ page thread spewing over the possibility of Dunn. I understand what your saying satex, but isnt someone making his first post FAR MORE LIKELY to be feeding us hogwash then someone with 10,000 plus non-bannable posts? While what you dissected may disprove this poster's potential credibility, the fact is that he/she made a compelling statement that could still ring true (why would hendry or o'brien say anything backing this up beforehand?) this, along with the personnel moves the Reds made today somewhat makes it seem credible. We really won't know until the trade deadline. There are too many variables to consider to back up the "48 hour" timeframe originally reported. I guess I'm trying to keep an open mind concerning this thread. Until, it's officially shot out of the water for good.