Master Index of Archived Threads


Molto Minaya

Mark Healey Nov 13 2005 12:01 PM

This week's GN discusses the Mets GM... http://www.gothambaseball.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1403 Plus, take note of the last graph, as we'd like your questions and comments sent in at heals9@yahoo.com

Johnny Dickshot Nov 13 2005 12:51 PM

That link goes to last week's cloumn, here's the correct one: [url]http://www.gothambaseball.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1453[/url] The whole "this team is too Latin" thing is absolute garbage, and kudos to Omar for realizing it. "Diversity" is easily dismissed as feel-good liberal patronage but actually there's a strong business argument for populating the organization in a way that reflects the marketplace. Obviously it shouldn't be the end-all in a game where talent/performance is the real currency, but over time, diversity should position the org to win a greater share of talent/performance -- and fans -- in a competitive marketplace.

Mark Healey Nov 13 2005 01:43 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: That link goes to last week's cloumn, here's the correct one: [url]http://www.gothambaseball.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1453[/url] The whole "this team is too Latin" thing is absolute garbage, and kudos to Omar for realizing it. "Diversity" is easily dismissed as feel-good liberal patronage but actually there's a strong business argument for populating the organization in a way that reflects the marketplace. Obviously it shouldn't be the end-all in a game where talent/performance is the real currency, but over time, diversity should position the org to win a greater share of talent/performance -- and fans -- in a competitive marketplace. Thanks for posting the right link, JD, appreciate it.

Edgy DC Nov 13 2005 06:28 PM

While I understand I'm in the minority on this, I disagree that Baseball rumors = fun for fans. Not my type of fun, anyshizzle.

Yancy Street Gang Nov 13 2005 08:36 PM

I used to enjoy baseball rumors more when there were fewer of them. Now there seem to be so many it's hard to know which ones might represent a deal that has a chance of happening, and which ones just come from a sportswriter or fan's imagination.

Elster88 Nov 14 2005 09:12 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: which ones just come from a sportswriter or fan's imagination. You're kinder than I am about which body part people pull rumors from.

TheOldMole Nov 14 2005 10:09 AM

I'm kinda with Yancy on this. But then, I think sports talk radio is the worst thing ever to happen to sports.

Mark Healey Nov 14 2005 01:10 PM

Elster88 wrote: ="Yancy Street Gang"] which ones just come from a sportswriter or fan's imagination. You're kinder than I am about which body part people pull rumors from. Do you really think that sportswriters really do that? Put their jobs and reputations in jeopardy? :roll:

Yancy Street Gang Nov 14 2005 01:38 PM

I don't think it puts their job in jeopardy, and I doubt that it would really threaten their reputation either. A sportswriter could say, "Here's a great deal that the Mets should consider: Trade Smith to Cincinnati for Jones and Brown, then flip Brown to Toronto for Davis and Harris." Even though it's not presented as a rumor, it can quickly become one. I think such things do happen, and it adds to the rumor clutter out there.

Nymr83 Nov 14 2005 02:04 PM

Mark Healey wrote: ="Elster88"] ="Yancy Street Gang"] which ones just come from a sportswriter or fan's imagination. You're kinder than I am about which body part people pull rumors from. Do you really think that sportswriters really do that? Put their jobs and reputations in jeopardy? :roll: they most certainly do, they need to write about something and one writer's speculation becomes the next writer's "rumor" and the guy after that has "anonymous sources." Until someone has earned a reputation as an honest and reliable reporter who actually does have an inside link (and this rarely happens in sports writing as it may elsewhere) i can't give anything written without a stated source anymore credibility than the speculation on this board. the nature of trade rumors, even true ones, not turning into actual trades most of the time makes it easy and profitable for sports writers to simply start their own rumors, they don't lose much credibility if they're wrong because even the rumors with a source end up wrong most of the time too.

Elster88 Nov 14 2005 02:07 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 14 2005 02:11 PM

It's also amazing to me how many "sources within the team" or "people close to the team" get quoted anonymously. And in the instance where it is a legitimate person with clout within the organization I can see this happening: ________________________ "Sportswriter": Manny Ramirez is apparently on the block, are the Mets interested in trading for him? Met Exec: (stiff from talking to annoying jackasses all day) I don't really want to comment on that, we're happy with our players right now, and any such rumors that a particular player might be traded could hurt team chemistry. "Sportswriter": Oh of course, but Manny swings a mean bat, who wouldn't love him in their lineup? (chuckling) Met Exec: (relaxing a little) Well, yeah, he's a great player who could benefit any team he plays for. Whenever you hear that a guy like that could be available your ears always perk up a little. The next day: New York Daily News reports that a person high up in the organizational structure of the Mets is always interested in trading for Manny and would love to have his bat in the cleanup spot in 2006 at Shea. ________________ Now is that something that you are also going to electronically roll your eyes at? Seems possible to me. Actually, my pet theory is that whenever a source close to the team is mentioned that it's either the guy who rakes the dugout mounds or the janitor that empties the trash in the traveling secretary's assistant's office.

Willets Point Nov 14 2005 02:10 PM

Don't forget HVAC Guy at Shea.

Mark Healey Nov 14 2005 03:09 PM

Well, I can assure you that I don't make anything up, because I do care about my reputation and my career. I also think you're nuts to suggest that anyone would do it, considering the consequences. As far as no higher ups talking to the media...you're kidding me, right? It happens all the time, which is why Omar is trying to keep thing very tight right now, and the Mets FO personnel has been warned not to talk to anybody.

Elster88 Nov 14 2005 03:14 PM

Mark Healey wrote: Well, I can assure you that I don't make anything up, because I do care about my reputation and my career. I also think you're nuts to suggest that anyone would do it, considering the consequences. True enough. While blanketly referring to the media, I realize there are probably many reporters/writers who will not use shaky sources to back up their article. But there have to be many who do. The sheer number of people trying to make it in that business makes me think that there have to be many people who will and have done anything to stand out. To think otherwise makes me think you are being a little naive. I have little to no actual experience in that industry, but I'd be more than a little surprised if it was the only one that escaped shady dealings. I'm also thinking you're way overstating how easy it is to lose your reputation and career, besided overestimating how many people have the integrity that you espouse.

Nymr83 Nov 14 2005 03:32 PM

Healey/Elster i think we need to seperate the "media" in general from "the sports writers." the consequences for a sportswriter making up rumors while quoting an anonymous source are not going to be severe even if they exist at all...the same is not true for other areas of reporting. sports-writing is more of an entertainment business than mst other reorting and they get a certain leeway to invent.

Elster88 Nov 14 2005 03:38 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2005 09:28 AM

Nymr83 wrote: the consequences for a sportswriter making up rumors while quoting an anonymous source are not going to be severe even if they exist at all.... Yup, I agree. I was trying to say this though looking back the way I said it might not make much sense. Nymr83 wrote: the same is not true for other areas of reporting. sports-writing is more of an entertainment business than mst other reorting and they get a certain leeway to invent. Is this really true? I doubt it. I read little of the newspapers except the sports section, but I imagine shaky sources exist everywhere, and that editors will put in the degree of editing necessitated by the newspaper. To say that people can easily be fired and face criminal reprecussions for slander, in any specific area, is pretty silly when you look at the "newspapers" on display at the checkout aisle of ShopRite. All dependent on who you're writing for. Edit: Spelling

Mark Healey Nov 14 2005 05:08 PM

Nymr83 wrote: Healey/Elster i think we need to seperate the "media" in general from "the sports writers." the consequences for a sportswriter making up rumors while quoting an anonymous source are not going to be severe even if they exist at all...the same is not true for other areas of reporting. sports-writing is more of an entertainment business than mst other reorting and they get a certain leeway to invent. Really? Not where I work.

Edgy DC Nov 14 2005 05:16 PM

You're taking things awful personal. Peeps here have cited examples of unchecked non-facts in Gotham Baseball's writing. Which is fine, as we all make mistakes and you've got a startup on your hands and are likely overburdened, but BS slips through everywhere and all the time in tthe competitive world of sportswriting. Editors publishing on a daily basis miss more than they'd care to admit.

Mark Healey Nov 14 2005 07:26 PM

Edgy DC wrote: You're taking things awful personal. Peeps here have cited examples of unchecked non-facts in Gotham Baseball's writing. Which is fine, as we all make mistakes and you've got a startup on your hands and are likely overburdened, but BS slips through everywhere and all the time in tthe competitive world of sportswriting. Editors publishing on a daily basis miss more than they'd care to admit. HUH? Making mistakes in copy and fabricating information are apples and oranges. Suggesting that a writer "pulls stuff out of his ass" or :makes things up" is very serious charge and one that should not be made lightly. Getting facts wrong is not a crime of intent, but funny how you managed (yet again) to bring that to the table. Making up a rumor to "entertain" readers is unethical and counter-productive (because then non one will believe you). Oh and btw, making a distinction between journalists and sports writers is not only biased, but insulting. That's elitist, high hat, and bullshit...

G-Fafif Nov 14 2005 10:28 PM

I knew of a guy in another industry, not sports, who would publish blind items like "major shakeup coming at big company". And when, eventually, a big company experienced a major shakeup, he could write, "as first reported here..." If you read "Worst Team Money Can Buy," you'll see Bob Klapisch and John Harper were caught in a vicious cycle of "One Met said" during their time on the beat. They each had their sources who could feed them inside stuff but didn't want to be identified. The question then became did they not use unidentified material and risk being beaten all together on this story or that or did they swallow the anonymity and keep the juicy bits coming? Obviously they went the latter route. Sources say lots of things at lots of times. Everybody has an agenda. Players and front office people have their reasons for floating trial balloons. Reporters and editors have reasons for wanting to run what they say even if it has to go without attribution. If readers suddenly revolted and said, "we don't want unsubstantiated information in our hands," then the various media outlets would print nothing until it was official. But the market doesn't work that way, especially today when not only is the score of last night's game long known before the paper comes out but ten rumors have made their way around the Web before the game even starts. I don't think any responsible reporter invents sources, not when there are so many people willing to talk in the first place. The rest comes down to discernment on the part of the reporter and the editor in terms of what to use and when to use it.

Edgy DC Nov 14 2005 11:10 PM Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2005 09:16 AM

]HUH? Making mistakes in copy and fabricating information are apples and oranges. Suggesting that a writer "pulls stuff out of his ass" or :makes things up" is very serious charge and one that should not be made lightly. More like apples and pears. ]Getting facts wrong is not a crime of intent, but funny how you managed (yet again) to bring that to the table. I don't know what that last part means. But it seems relevant to me. ]Making up a rumor to "entertain" readers is unethical and counter-productive (because then non one will believe you). Agreed. At least I won't believe you. Though I think Greg makes a case that there is an appetite for unsubstatiated rumors in the marketplace. I also think getting facts wrong in a way that suits a thesis is counterproductive because then no one will believe you. At least I won't. You can argue with Elster about sportswriters running with a rumor by floating an idea by a team official, getting a non-committal magic quote, and then placing the magic quote in a context that makes it appear to lend substance to the rumor. But I think it happens all the time, particularly in the off-season. At least twice in recent years, sports pages have gone with a rumor of the Mets seriously considering taking on John Rocker, sending the gullible into a lather. Dickshot then did what he does best, and posted a journalism lesson called "Magic Quote in Captivity," and indeed, that week several stories ran citing New York Met interest in Player X, Player Y, and John Rocker, each citing the same ambiguous statement from an upper-level management source, something along the lines of "We're willing to consider any move we think might help the team." I could be wrong, but I slept pretty soundly secure in thinking that the Mets were indeed not looking to add John Rocker. ]Oh and btw, making a distinction between journalists and sports writers is not only biased, but insulting. That's elitist, high hat, and bullshit... Agreed that it's bullshit. You can take that up with Nymr. He's got an agenda of his own. The only agenda I'm trying to advance is fairness and accuracy in reporting.

Nymr83 Nov 14 2005 11:50 PM

]Agreed that it's bullshit. You can take that up with Nymr. He's got an agenda of his own. its not bullshit at all, sports writers are not held to the same standard of checking facts, only reporting rumors with reliable sources, etc that other journalists are. internet "sports writers" have an even lower standard than that if they are accountable to nobody but themselves (that is to say if they are their own editors, own the website, or otherwise have no fear of losing anything if proven to be outright lying. the bottom line is this- good, nationally known reporters have EARNED the right to have the reader believe them when they quote an anonymous source, but when some guy nobody has heard of does it he doesn't have the credibility for me (anmd i hope most readers) to believe he really has the inside source he claims to. oh and please wise one, explain to us what my "agenda" (in relation to sportswriters/journalists/unsubstatiated rumors....ie this thread) is.

Johnny Dickshot Nov 15 2005 12:28 AM

Rescued, Lazarus-like: Nov. 7 2002 ]The Magic Quote I’m risking getting cashiered from the Newspaper Guild for what I’m about to say. It’s a secret, so keep it to yourselves. But here goes: Every sportswriter needs a Magic Quote. In Journalism School, they teach you how to get one: Just specific enough to be intriguing and just vague enough to be applied with variety. In captivity, it’s worth its weight in Pulitzers. Yesterday, Pete Caldera of Newsday bagged himself a Magic Quote. And believe me, he’s gonna use it often. Here it is, courtesy of Steve Phillips: ”I think we'll be more open to anything right now. Anything's got to be on the table right now for consideration.” Caldera’s heart must have done a little dance as he heard this one. As he scribbled the words into his little notebook, he instinctively circled them, underlined them, and wrote a star next to them. This, he recognized, was a keeper. He couldn’t wait. Today, The Magic Quote was at the heart of a story speculating the Mets might trade for lefthanded buffoon John Rocker. Note how Caldera deftly used the Magic Quote’s vagueness to make the idea of adding John Rocker to a team in need of offense and reticent to employ poor citizens seem positively sensible and, perhaps, even likely: The Mets' off-season priority is to add offense, but all areas of the disappointing 82-80 club are under consideration. "I think we'll be more open to anything right now," Mets general manager Steve Phillips said Tuesday. "Anything's got to be on the table right now for consideration. You tend not to get [a player] after a great season. You tend to get them after an off season where they've struggled, and hope they bounce back." The true magic thing about The Magic Quote, however, is that its use is limited only by the imagination of the scribe in possession of it. Think for a moment of the possibilities in front of Caldera right now: ALBERT BELLE COULD BE COMING TO SHEA As the Hot Stove season heats up, the Mets will try to address their offense in creative ways. One such possibility would be to goad malcontent felon Albert Belle out of retirement. "I think we'll be more open to anything right now," Mets general manager Steve Phillips said Tuesday. "Anything's got to be on the table right now for consideration.” * * * Or perhaps: METS TO FACE CONTRACTION? As the Hot Stove season heats up, the Mets are looking at any means to avoid another disappointing finish. One such possibility would be to fold the team. "I think we'll be more open to anything right now," Mets general manager Steve Phillips said Tuesday. "Anything's got to be on the table right now for consideration.” * * * Maybe even: METS CONSIDERING RITUAL SACRIFICES As the Hot Stove season heats up, the Mets are considering options to trim payroll. One such possibility would be to kill Robin Ventura and Todd Zeile as a means to save salary. "I think we'll be more open to anything right now," Mets general manager Steve Phillips said Tuesday. "Anything's got to be on the table right now for consideration.” See how The Magic Quote makes each of these stories not only possible to write but read with that necessary twinge of “believability”? You capture a Magic Quote and the world’s your oyster.

duan Nov 15 2005 05:02 AM

this isn't about Gotham Baseball or any of the other sites here, but there's a real issue with how people treat 'unnamed sources'. One of the biggest issues you find in Ireland is that the police (in particular but lots of other people besides) feed journalists lines for their own agenda, those journalists are too lazy/inexperienced/gullible to be able to actually see through it. The explosion of the media means that everyone needs to find their own angle from somewhere and people tend to be all too willing to listen to someone 'give them an informal briefing' without carefully dissecting what they're saying afterwards. Sure there are people that you reach a level of trust with that goes past that, but fundamentally if someone's NOT prepared to be quoted what they're telling you has layers to it - layers that may not always be obvious to the journalist.

Johnny Dickshot Nov 15 2005 08:14 AM

We're all over the place in this thread. Nymr's contention that there's some ethical division between journos working in News and Sports depts at newspapers is entirely too broad to be accurate; that said, perception is reality as far as readers are concerned and if that's the case, shame on the papers creating and reinforcing that perception. The idea that Intrernet journos are even worse is probably true in a lot of cases, but not because they're necessarily more ethically inferior to their print brethren (though many are); just that as of now there are few places on the net that have the going-in crediblity of a print product behind it. That's generally why Klapisch, a 15+ year vet working for a 100,000+-circ daily with 100+ years of equity behind it gets off easier dropping anonymously-sourced bombs than say, a guy with a couple seasons covering the Cyclones for a free weekly self-publishing on the Internet (not that the latter doesn't necessarily work just as hard and just as well as the former). Perception is reality. Using anonymous sources is generally bad practice but has to be done from time to time. Seeing as it raises questions as to hidden agendae and accountability (yours and theirs); broadcasts to other potential sources that you're willing to do it; and about a million other related ethical quandries, it prolly oughta be used very carefully. Making a spelling error and making stuff up ARE apples and dogs, but related in the sense that doing one subtly (sometimes loudly) announces you're capable of doing the other, perception-wise.

Elster88 Nov 15 2005 09:22 AM Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2005 09:26 AM

Mark Healey wrote: Suggesting that a writer "pulls stuff out of his ass" or :makes things up" is very serious charge and one that should not be made lightly. When I referred to pulling from the ass, I meant what I already said: Using a shaky source or quote to lend credibility to a story. I thought it was obvious that I didn't mean making things up out of thin air. But after I realized some were taking offense, I clarified this remark with my following posts. I also already said that I wasn't referring to anyone in particular with this statement. Stop being so pissed off by an off-the-cuff remark that I have clarified three or four times now. Again, I don't see how you can argue that this (using a shaky source/quote to lend credibility to a story) doesn't happen all the time. Mark Healey wrote: Oh and btw, making a distinction between journalists and sports writers is not only biased, but insulting. I agree here, as I already said in my reply to Nymr. All journalists are capable of being ethical or shady without risk of being fired, dependent on the magazine or newspaper they write for. _____________________________ This post had the designation 125) Ed Charles

Elster88 Nov 15 2005 09:24 AM

I never read JD's article before, but it's pretty much exactly the scenario I envisioned. *pats self on the back*

Nymr83 Nov 15 2005 10:43 AM

the article johnny dickshot posted about the "magic quote" makes my point very well. a sports journalist can take that quote and apply it to anything and everything and use it completely out of context with impunity. if a journalist on more serious topics (say, politics) were to take a George Bush/Bill Clinton quote and start applying it to crazy things they'd get in some trouble or at least not be taken seriously afterwards. edgy, i'm still waiting to hear what my "agenda" is.

Elster88 Nov 15 2005 11:05 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2005 11:07 AM

Never mind.

Edgy DC Nov 15 2005 11:05 AM

Sorry, I missed what you had asked. I meant to disassociate myself from charges of letting my agenda, such that it is, color my positions. In this case, I think your point is well taken, but you, as you tend to do, speak broadly, when a narrower statement woulld lend more credit to your point. Yes, you're right, sportswriters seem to be held to a lower standard by their readers (quite regrettably, in my opinion), but they shouldn't be held to a lower one professionally. That's not an agenda, just your style. I was just driving home different points and I didn't want Mr. Healy dovetailing mine with yours. Very sorry. Your point wasn't truly bullshit, but the way he seemed to be summing it up (that sportswriters and other journalists should be held to different ethical standards), I disagree with. They shouldn't. I really shouldn't be jumping upon any bandwagon that starts throwing bullshit around. Maybe I was trying to suck up to Mark after disagreeing with him on so many other points in my post.

Nymr83 Nov 15 2005 11:09 AM

i agree they shouldnt be held to a different standard but i contend that they most certainly are.