PDA

View Full Version : Enough Already Paul


34 Inch Stick
07-09-2002, 10:14 AM
We heard and understood your feelings on the Frank topic on Sunday. What is the need to continue it on Monday. It is your first All Star game, enjoy it.

Whether you are correct or incorrect in making Sunday's statements to the media, even a non sensitive player would get upset with two days worth of headlines. Frank is not going anywhere and hopefully you will not either. You are moving from trying to motivate to causing trouble.

LongDistanceFan
07-09-2002, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
We heard and understood your feelings on the Frank topic on Sunday. What is the need to continue it on Monday. It is your first All Star game, enjoy it.

Whether you are correct or incorrect in making Sunday's statements to the media, even a non sensitive player would get upset with two days worth of headlines. Frank is not going anywhere and hopefully you will not either. You are moving from trying to motivate to causing trouble. what was said yesterday.

Jerry_Manuel
07-09-2002, 10:40 AM
This situation is going to get worse. You've got the Frank camp and the Konerko camp in the clubhouse right now. I'm sure that there's a lot of players who side with Konerko on this issue, but, if they plan on doing anything this year they have to be on the same page. There nowhere near it right now.

duke of dorwood
07-09-2002, 11:42 AM
And if the manager or GM dealt with it promptly, the players had an easy deferral for questions asked them by the media.

Fisk72
07-09-2002, 11:48 AM
Hey, I don't think it's like the media is portraying the situation. I don't think Konerko is going and spouting off about the situation. It's the reporters who are asking him questions. He's giving them straightforward answers. As you can see from one of the earlier threads, it's the media who's misconstruing quotes to make it appear worse than it is.

Paulwny
07-09-2002, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Fisk72
He's giving them straightforward answers. As you can see from one of the earlier threads, it's the media who's misconstruing quotes to make it appear worse than it is.

That's why in situations like this you don't offer an opinion. The press is always looking to "make" a story.

Vsahajpal
07-09-2002, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


That's why in situations like this you don't offer an opinion. The press is always looking to "make" a story.

Except Rick Reilly, he was only "helping" Sammy.

Jerry_Manuel
07-09-2002, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
Except Rick Reilly, he was only "helping" Sammy.

I don't have access to it since I'm not a member of aol, but Norman Chad ripped Reilly a new one.

CerberusWG
07-09-2002, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal


Except Rick Reilly, he was only "helping" Sammy.

....LOL. Gimme a break Sammy walked himself into that one.

Vsahajpal
07-09-2002, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I don't have access to it since I'm not a member of aol, but Norman Chad ripped Reilly a new one.

Reilly's Attempt to Get Sosa
Tested for Steroids Was Sad
SI Writer Tried to Manipulate Cubs Star

By NORMAN CHAD
AOL Exclusive

So suddenly Rick Reilly is Mike Wallace and Sammy Sosa is Richard Nixon.

Yeah, and Yasser Arafat is Winston Churchill.

Now, I don't know if Sammy Sosa is or is not on steroids any more than I know if my next-door neighbor is or is not on steroids. But I do know that the sportswriter in question -- good, old, defender-of-the-public's-right-to-know, I'm-just-trying-to-do-my-job-for-the-people Rick Reilly -- is a disingenuous punk at best and a journalistic crook at worst.

Well, as best I can tell, without knowing for sure.

Last week's baseball brouhaha centered around Sports Illustrated's Reilly challenging the Chicago Cubs' Sosa to get tested for steroids. Sosa reacted angrily, giving Reilly a juicy column, and subsequently, a tour across electronic America to explain his reportorial coup.

To which I say:

1. If I were Sosa, I might have reacted in the same manner.

2. If I were Reilly, I'd hope lightning can't strike while gazing into the mirror.

(Let me stop myself right here and confess that I do not like Rick Reilly. Don't trust him. He's the Jay Leno of sportswriting: lots of talent but panders to the public. Plus, I don't much like Sports Illustrated, a former employer of mine. Plus, some folks might figure that since I'm on the ESPN payroll, I'm just dissing SI because I'm an ESPN The Magazine guy. I don't like ESPN The Magazine, either. I don't even like saying "ESPN The Magazine." Screw 'em all.)

(By the way, do you think people actually get Sports Illustrated or ESPN The Magazine because they need the journalistic fix? People get SI just because of the free videos, people get ESPN The Magazine because of the fleece pullovers. Heck, if Ladies Home Journal offered a six-pack of Rolling Rock with every renewal, I'd be a lifetime subscriber.)

Reilly went after a story at Wrigley Field; there's nothing wrong with that. And he decided to set up Sosa to get the story; there's really nothing wrong with that. But in the aftermath Reilly shows how wrong he is -- by pretending he had a higher, loftier agenda, and, in the process, by convicting Sosa of acts unproven.

Reilly wrote down the name of a diagnostic lab in Elmhurst, Ill., and told Sosa he could be tested immediately. "You've said if baseball tests for steroids, you want to be the first in line, right?" Reilly asked Sosa. "Well, why wait?... Why not step up right now and be tested?"

Sosa then put Reilly's head on a batting tee and knocked it about 480 feet beyond the left-center field wall.

For starters, is it Sosa's responsibility to disprove allegations for which there is no actual evidence? No.

Reilly explained to another disingenuous punk, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Jay Mariotti, "I just wanted him to do something good for baseball and something good for Sammy. I thought it was a great PR idea."

Oh, please.

It wasn't public relations, it was manipulation.

(Unfortunately, I know how sportswriters think. This is somewhat of a curse, like fellow proctologists always knowing what's on each other's mind.)

If Reilly truly were looking to help Sosa and help baseball, he would've approached the player and simply said, "Hey, I've got a great idea. If you want, you go get tested, you come back clean and I write a column that makes you look great and gives baseball a boost."

If Sosa agreed, fine. If Sosa balked, well, Reilly would just write one of his post-Sept. 11-firefighters-are-really-terrific columns instead.

But Reilly did what most reporters do -- he interviewed Sosa for a while, to build trust and make him more comfortable, and then he waited until the right moment (or the last moment) to drop his steroid-test bomb on him.

Or, put another way, like most anglers with a hook and line, Reilly was looking to land the big fish. He did.

Now, Reilly wrote in his SI piece, "I doubt Sosa is on steroids."

But afterward, Reilly told Mariotti, "Before last week, I thought Sammy was clean... But now, after his reaction, I don't know. This puts some doubt in my mind."

And he told ESPN, "When you get your chance and don't do it, it makes you suspicious."

(Wow. If I'm ever arrested and Reilly's on the jury, I've got to figure I'm going upstate to the Big House before the defense even rests.)

So let me see if I have this correct:

Reilly thought Sosa was clean. He then asked him to go exonerate himself. When Sosa declined, Reilly let us know that this man accused of nothing had refused Reilly's insistence to prove that he wasn't doing anything wrong, and therefore, we must be more skeptical of the slugger that the sportswriter was only trying to help.

If Reilly or anyone came into my place of work -- assuming I had a place of work -- and shoved a piece of paper under my nose and told me to go prove I'm clean, I have a feeling my response would not be, "Let's do lunch!"

Besides, who wants to have his blood or urine examined at midday on the spur of the moment?

I don't know why Sosa scoffed at Reilly's ploy. He may not like needles. He may not like peeing into a cup. He may not like doctors' offices. He may not like fighting rush-hour traffic into Elmhurst.

He may just take offense to some disingenuous punk pulling a publicity stunt before batting practice.

Similarly, I'd like to help Rick Reilly. That's why I'm willing to pay for a lie-detector test to put to rest the many rumors about Reilly's professionalism. Because plenty of people wonder -- didn't Reilly once do a TV commercial in which he endorsed a beer that he doesn't even drink? Has Reilly ever fudged the facts in any story he's written? Has he ever massaged a quote or perhaps even fabricated a quote?

Give me a call, buddy. I'll set up the polygraph.

Jerry_Manuel
07-09-2002, 01:38 PM
Thanks Vic.

Spiff
07-09-2002, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal


Reilly's Attempt to Get Sosa
Tested for Steroids Was Sad
SI Writer Tried to Manipulate Cubs Star

By NORMAN CHAD
AOL Exclusive

weak.

Jerry_Manuel
07-09-2002, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Spiff
weak.

Don't be hating on Norman, Spiff.

Kilroy
07-09-2002, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Don't be hating on Norman, Spiff.

If its weak, then its weak. Saying so doesn't mean one's hating...

Iwritecode
07-09-2002, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Don't be hating on Norman, Spiff.

Norman's obviously a Cub fan or at least has jumped on the I love Shammy bandwagon. So we have good reason to hate him.

pudge
07-09-2002, 07:30 PM
Reilly is an idiot though. Of course so is Sosa. I just can't decide which one is more obnoxious.

MisterB
07-10-2002, 12:54 AM
C'mon, the guy called Moronotti a disingenious punk too, so he can't be all bad... :D:

RKMeibalane
07-10-2002, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
C'mon, the guy called Moronotti a disingenious punk too, so he can't be all bad... :D:

Maybe so, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Moronotti sucks. Anyone who tries to defend Sammy Sosa must be a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

alohafri
07-10-2002, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by Fisk72
Hey, I don't think it's like the media is portraying the situation. I don't think Konerko is going and spouting off about the situation. It's the reporters who are asking him questions. He's giving them straightforward answers. As you can see from one of the earlier threads, it's the media who's misconstruing quotes to make it appear worse than it is.

Not only that, but I would be willing to bet that all of these quotes are from the same interview and they are just pulling them out a little bit at a time to prolong this thing. Look, the Cubs are playing like the early 1970s Bears under Abe Gibron and the Sox are above them in the standings as of now. The press needs to do something to drag the Sox below their darlings. Cub controversy doesn't sell newspapers, but Sox controversy does.

Keystone Combo
07-22-2002, 02:37 AM
Paul Konerko's great season he is enjoying gives him no special right to turn to a reporter and take information that comes from within the clubhouse to the media, no matter the question and no matter being right or wrong.

Unfortunately no one has enough respect, (don't blame them), for Jerry Manuel's desire to keep the team problems in the clubhouse.

Shouldn't have done it Paul and you shouldn't keep talking about it now. Bad taste in everybody's mouth about players who take internal problems outside to the media especially. This is a problem that should be handled by KW and JM...... so shut up and keep hitting the ball.