A company called Cleveland-Cliffs makes and sells iron ore. Iron ore is a type of rock that has metal inside it, which people use to make things like cars and buildings. Sometimes, big companies buy and sell parts of this company to make money. The article talks about what these big companies think about Cleveland-Cliffs and how much they want to pay for it. Some big companies think Cleveland-Cliffs is doing very well and might be worth more money in the future. They are willing to spend a lot of money to buy parts of this company. Other big companies don't think Cleveland-Cliffs will do as well, so they don't want to spend too much money on it. The article helps people who own or want to own part of Cleveland-Cliffs understand what is happening with the company and its value. Read from source...

1. The title of the article is misleading and clickbait-ish, as it implies that only "the big money" knows what to think about Cleveland-Cliffs's options, while in reality there are many other factors and opinions that influence the market sentiment. A more accurate and informative title could be something like:

"Cleveland-Cliffs's Options: What Are The Big Money Players Doing And Why?"

2. The article relies heavily on insider trades data, which is not a reliable indicator of future performance or market expectations. Insiders may have various reasons to buy or sell shares that are unrelated to their confidence in the company's prospects, such as personal financial needs, tax implications, diversification strategies, etc. A better way to gauge the big money's thinking would be to look at institutional ownership patterns, analyst ratings, earnings estimates, and other fundamental metrics that reflect the overall perception of the company's value and potential.

3. The article does not provide any context or background information on Cleveland-Cliffs, such as its history, industry, products, competitors, challenges, opportunities, etc. This makes it hard for readers to understand the company's role in the steel industry and how its options strategy relates to its business model and goals. A more thorough introduction would help readers appreciate the relevance and significance of the options data presented later in the article.

4. The article uses vague and subjective terms such as "bullish", "bearish", "neutral", etc., without explaining what they mean or how they are derived. For example, it says that "some big money players are bullish on Cleveland-Cliffs's options" but does not specify which options, how many contracts, at what strike prices, and for what time periods. A more transparent and objective way to describe the options activity would be to use quantitative and statistical methods, such as open interest, implied volatility, delta neutrality, etc., that can measure the demand and supply of the underlying asset and the expected price movements.

5. The article mixes personal opinions and emotions with factual information, which undermines its credibility and objectivity. For example, it says that "many investors are disappointed by Cleveland-Cliffs's recent performance" but does not provide any evidence or analysis to support this claim. It also uses words like "stunning", "amazing", "shocking", etc., to express its surprise and awe at the big money's actions, which implies that it has a bias towards sensationalism and exaggeration. A more professional and balanced way to write about the options market would be to acknowledge the uncertainties and risks involved in trading