Master Index of Archived Threads


Do reporters know nothing about negotiations?

RealityChuck Jan 26 2008 09:19 PM

Maybe it's because they don't actually have to negotiate things themselves, but this entire Santana madness seems so say, "no." Item: Steve Popper last Wednesday: ]So Mets, get it done. Give up four prospects. Give up five. Give up Fernando Martinez. Get it done. Item: Bob Klapisch today ]Colleague Steve Popper offered the Mets sound advice in Wednesday's Record, urging them to hurry up and trade for Johan Santana. Whatever it takes, is the message Omar Minaya needs to hear, because unless Santana is wearing a Mets' uniform by opening day, they can forget about winning the East in 2008. Get it done. Whatever it takes. So if the Twins want Wright and Reyes for Santana, do it. Right? Oh, and we can throw in Beltran, too, if they want it. That'll certainly get us Santana. Is that what they really want? Whatever it takes? And then, there's this: you negotiate from strength. Omar Minyana wants to give up as few prospects for Santana as he can, while the Twins want as many as they can get. So part of the negotiation dance is that Minyana will say, "we don't want him all that much." Thus the Twins have to wonder how much he means that. If Omar can convince them he's not interested enough to give up five prospects, but will trade four, then the team gets Santana and loses one fewer prospect. This is basic negotiation. See if the other guy blinks. But with reporters screaming at Omar to "get it done," the Twins are going to want more. The pressure is put on Minyana, forcing him to give up more prospects. If Popper and Klapisch were truly interested in seeing a better team instead of just running their mouths off, they'd know this sort of thing. Putting pressure on Minyana only means he's going to get a worse deal.

smg58 Jan 26 2008 09:26 PM

You'd make a lousy journalist talking that much sense.

AG/DC Jan 26 2008 10:20 PM

The dumber the Mets deal, the thicker Klapisch's next book. He knows what he's doing.

G-Fafif Jan 27 2008 03:20 PM

Reality Chuck is my hero for the rest of Sunday and probably well into Monday. His sharpest of analyses brought me back to the winter meetings about 15, 16 years ago. I can't remember the deal that was about to go down, but it was taking a little longer than expected. Some free agent was expected to sign somewhere and negotiations hit a snag and baseball reporters everywhere were getting impatient. This signing had to happen for other signings to happen, apparently, and it was ruining the media's mojo that they had to wait. "WHY DOESN'T THIS HAPPEN ALREADY?" I can remember Suzyn Waldman impatiently growling on WFAN (and she was by no means the only one). And I thought, this is December. The season doesn't start until April. Tons of money will be changing hands. Families will be affected. People have to decide where they are going to wind up living and working for several years based on this free agent's decision. So what if the guy takes an extra 48 hours? (The dude signed, FYI; life went on.) To bring it back to the present, the Twins have a lot at stake. The Mets have a lot at stake. Santana has a lot at stake. Other teams have a lot at stake. Other players have something at stake. Careers are at stake. They should all hurry up and Get It Done just so Steve Popper will have something to write about? Did anybody who covers baseball day-to-day for a living ever actually root for a baseball team before going pro? Because they tend to write a lot along the lines of "the Mets must do something, anything to placate their fans." Anybody who's been a fan doesn't want something, anything done. They want the right thing done. On November 30 the Mets did something, anything and traded Lastings Milledge for Brian Schneider and Ryan Church. I don't know too many Mets fans who were thrilled just because it got their team's name in the papers. I'm babbling a little far afield because Reality Chuck got me going. But never mind me. Kudos on a brilliant point, RC.

AG/DC Jan 27 2008 03:37 PM

="G-Fafif"]Did anybody who covers baseball day-to-day for a living ever actually root for a baseball team before going pro? Because they tend to write a lot along the lines of "the Mets must do something, anything to placate their fans." Anybody who's been a fan doesn't want something, anything done. They want the right thing done. On November 30 the Mets did something, anything and traded Lastings Milledge for Brian Schneider and Ryan Church. I don't know too many Mets fans who were thrilled just because it got their team's name in the papers. Two notable letters from Marty Noble's recent mailbag, who has been taking a lot of "Why aren't they dealing?" questions: Are you the Marty Noble who graduated from P.S. 28 in the Bronx in 1960. And if you are, how can you be writing about the Mets? You were a big Yankees fan and the biggest Mickey Mantle fan. -- Alan T., New Rochelle, N.Y. One in the same, Alan, though I don't believe there was a "graduation." Anyway, my family moved to New Jersey in 1959, when you and I were in fifth grade. I was a Yankees fan. And I remain a fan of those Yankees teams. I came to know Mickey, and that was quite special. But this job requires objectivity. It's not too hard to come by. I learned early in my career to put aside my childhood allegiance. Now I root for compelling games and against rain delays. Mr. Noble, you don't seem to take a hard or harsh stand on many things -- Randolph's role in the Mets' collapse, Jose Reyes' terrible September, Carlos Delgado's awful season, Guillermo Mota's pathetic pitching. Why not? -- Alex D., Lincoln Park, N.J. I'm not sure it's my place to take a stand -- hard, harsh, soft or otherwise -- on anything. What I do when I cover a game is write what I've seen through my eyes (and glasses), which have seen a lot of baseball. I can say this: most baseball situations are not as black and white as most people think. Almost everything is gray -- which is to say, there are extenuating circumstances. If a shortstop or second baseman arrives too late at second base for a double-play relay, is he wrong or was he shading too far? Did he misread the catcher's signal? Did the catcher give the wrong signal or did the pitcher throw the wrong pitch? If you condemn Reyes' September, Mota's performance and Delgado's season, doesn't that reduce the onus on Randolph? I didn't recognize the gray when I began covering baseball. There was a sense then that everything was good or bad, hot or cold, Ron Guidry (25-3) or Brian Kingman (8-20). A more moderate perspective developed with time, I'm glad to say. Yes, Delgado had a poor, not awful season -- for him. But he drove in 87 runs in 139 games. Awful? I think not. Disappointing? For sure. Saying the Mets collapsed is saying what happened. Is more needed? The word collapse exists for circumstances like the Mets endured in September. Does "awful collapse" make it clearer? Not to me. My first boss at Newsday said a player who has two hits in 20 at-bats is batting .100 , not "only .100." I agreed with that. Was the Mets' collapse the worst ever? How do we compare seven games ahead with 17 to play with what the Phillies endured in 1964 -- 6 1/2 games ahead with 12 to go? If I provide the numbers and some sense of perspective, the reader can determine which is worse. I measure the impact of the words before I type them. Words commonly used often are misused. Case in point: obviously. What's obvious to one may be a revelation to another. If I use moderate words, then when I do appear to "take a stand," it has the desired impact. The game has few absolutes, so I try I avoid words such as "never" and "always" and use "seldom" and "often" instead. I seldom use the word "great." It is overused, I think. Readers request opinions in the mailbag, so I provide them. But a "hard stand?" Seldom, but not never. Thanks for the question.

Nymr83 Jan 27 2008 04:20 PM

you guys are leaving out one obvious thing... when the journalist rags on omar to make a deal and then omar gets pressured into giving up more than he would have later on (or the twins up their asking price seeing all the pressure on omar) this HELPS the journalists, because then they get to write columns on omar "giving too much" when the deal does happen

AG/DC Jan 27 2008 04:34 PM

Oh, I see that fine. AG/DC wrote: The dumber the Mets deal, the thicker Klapisch's next book. He knows what he's doing.

Nymr83 Jan 27 2008 04:39 PM

didnt see that part, you hit the nail right on the head there

Vic Sage Jan 28 2008 10:26 AM

]If Popper and Klapisch were truly interested in seeing a better team instead of just running their mouths off, they'd know this sort of thing. Putting pressure on Minyana only means he's going to get a worse deal. Chuck, you are proceeding from a false assumption. The media has no vested interest in a seeing the local team get better. Their only interest is in having a story to tell. They sell stories. To tell compelling stories, they need conflict. So, if they've reported a rumor of a trade as fact, then the trade either has to happen or fall apart for the story to continue. This waiting around stuff is a story killer. The outcome of the trade, similarly, is not important either. If its great or a disaster, it furthers the story. Even if it turns out a good trade for both sides, their is some mileage to be gained. But they don't care who wins. They just don't want a rain delay, as Mr. Noble aptly said.

RealityChuck Jan 28 2008 12:55 PM

Vic Sage wrote: ]If Popper and Klapisch were truly interested in seeing a better team instead of just running their mouths off, they'd know this sort of thing. Putting pressure on Minyana only means he's going to get a worse deal. Chuck, you are proceeding from a false assumption. The media has no vested interest in a seeing the local team get better. Their only interest is in having a story to tell. They sell stories. To tell compelling stories, they need conflict. So, if they've reported a rumor of a trade as fact, then the trade either has to happen or fall apart for the story to continue. This waiting around stuff is a story killer. The outcome of the trade, similarly, is not important either. If its great or a disaster, it furthers the story. Even if it turns out a good trade for both sides, their is some mileage to be gained. Oh, I agree. But if they are presuming to tell a general manager how to run his business, then the assumption is that they are giving this advice to improve the team. (If they don't want the team to get better, why give advice?) They can write a column afterwards no matter what ("Mets make smart move for Santana" or "Did the Mets give up too much for Santana?" -- I guarantee you'll see that one if the trade happens). But a good sportswriter will stick to the pros and cons of the issue instead of spouting nonsense in order to fill a column. The problem with Santana now is that there is no news, so columnists are stuck with speculation. That's OK, but the total lack of sense in their suggestions is what set me off.

Mark Healey Jan 31 2008 06:54 AM

]Did anybody who covers baseball day-to-day for a living ever actually root for a baseball team before going pro? Because they tend to write a lot along the lines of "the Mets must do something, anything to placate their fans." Anybody who's been a fan doesn't want something, anything done. They want the right thing done. On November 30 the Mets did something, anything and traded Lastings Milledge for Brian Schneider and Ryan Church. I don't know too many Mets fans who were thrilled just because it got their team's name in the papers. Greg, to the first part of the question, yes, there is. But I think what many don't realize that is that most of the time, while independent folks like all of us are writing columns, blogs and posts, etc., we are free to express our own opinions. Many times, a columnist is directed by an editor to "write something snarky about the Mets today, etc."...other than Lupica, Madden and Gergen, I don't know many guys that have a "no-edit" clause in their contracts. For the record, I liked the Milledge deal and when the Mets get Santana, the point will be moot.

metirish Jan 31 2008 07:06 AM

So that's why Madden's columns suck to the high heavens.

Mark Healey Jan 31 2008 07:24 AM

metirish wrote: So that's why Madden's columns suck to the high heavens. I may not agree with Bill on many, many things, but I think he's earned a little more respect than that, you rascal!