PDA

View Full Version : Retained Coaches


Lip Man 1
10-03-2003, 10:43 AM
Again I'm posting this for information...thanks!

I heard back via e-mail from Ken Rosenthal again today regarding the retaining of the Sox coaching staff.

Remember it was discussed at WSI, that based on Williams' statements in the press conference that whether these coaches would be with the major league club next year was open to question.

For what it's worth Ken said he thinks they will be on the big league team in 2004.

Also his column on the Sox managerial situation will be out either Monday or Tuesday just FYI.

Lip

Randar68
10-03-2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Again I'm posting this for information...thanks!

I heard back via e-mail from Ken Rosenthal again today regarding the retaining of the Sox coaching staff.

Remember it was discussed at WSI, that based on Williams' statements in the press conference that whether these coaches would be with the major league club next year was open to question.

For what it's worth Ken said he thinks they will be on the big league team in 2004.

Also his column on the Sox managerial situation will be out either Monday or Tuesday just FYI.

Lip

FWIW, Rosenthal's opinion on this is no more valid than any of ours. It's completely at the discretion of who they hire as the manager. If they hire a guy like Ozzie, he'll need some coaches who are acclimated to the situation. If it's a guy like Cito or Torre, I'm sure they'll be free to install their own staffs.

Depends on what direction Kenny decides to go. Does not hurt to keep your options open by keeping some of the most valuable people in your organization.

southpaw40
10-03-2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
[B]Again I'm posting this for information...thanks!

Thanks for the information. As the off-season progresses, I will appreciate any source of news about the Sox that I can get.

kempsted
10-03-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Again I'm posting this for information...thanks!

I heard back via e-mail from Ken Rosenthal again today regarding the retaining of the Sox coaching staff.

Remember it was discussed at WSI, that based on Williams' statements in the press conference that whether these coaches would be with the major league club next year was open to question.

For what it's worth Ken said he thinks they will be on the big league team in 2004.

Also his column on the Sox managerial situation will be out either Monday or Tuesday just FYI.

Lip
Ken Rosenthal is not an authority on anything. I am an SN subscriber and I can say he gets things wrong at least 70% of the time and especially about the Sox. He had a whole thing on how Williams was definitely going to trade Colon at midseason.

Ken is another example of how much Sporting News has gone downhill. It used to be the baseball bible. Now baseball is an afterthought where they have a single analyst who is supposed to be an expert on all 30 teams.

That being said he may or may not be correct but he doesn't have any insider knowledge so don't use him as an authority.

Randar68
10-03-2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by kempsted
Ken Rosenthal is not an authority on anything. I am an SN subscriber and I can say he gets things wrong at least 70% of the time and especially about the Sox. He had a whole thing on how Williams was definitely going to trade Colon at midseason.

Ken is another example of how much Sporting News has gone downhill. It used to be the baseball bible. Now baseball is an afterthought where they have a single analyst who is supposed to be an expert on all 30 teams.

That being said he may or may not be correct but he doesn't have any insider knowledge so don't use him as an authority.


Stop attacking the media! DO you have a jealous grudge against all those who worked so hard to write crap with zero original thought?

:whiner:

Lip Man 1
10-03-2003, 05:18 PM
Kemp:

No place in this post did I command anybody to blindly follow what Ken said, nor have I said that anything he or any other "expert" said is gospel.

I post the material to provide information and promote discussion that's all. Why is that so difficult for you?

That's what this forum is all about... a place to promote and exchange ideas. Since there seems to be some folks here who believe in a "vast media conspiracy" against the White Sox, I'd think we'd all be happy with any news and information we can pick up, even if it turns out to be incorrect.

Or are you advocating that the only information that should be posted is if it agrees with what you say or think?

Lip

TDog
10-03-2003, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
...
Or are you advocating that the only information that should be posted is if it agrees with what you say or think?...

No, but some would consider that their ideal news source.

voodoochile
10-03-2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by TDog
No, but some would consider that their ideal news source.

Like Fox News for Republicans... :D: (it's a joke...)

TDog
10-03-2003, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Like Fox News for Republicans... :D: (it's a joke...)

The thought came to mind, but I didn't want to be sent to the parking lot.

kempsted
10-07-2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Kemp:

No place in this post did I command anybody to blindly follow what Ken said, nor have I said that anything he or any other "expert" said is gospel.

I post the material to provide information and promote discussion that's all. Why is that so difficult for you?

That's what this forum is all about... a place to promote and exchange ideas. Since there seems to be some folks here who believe in a "vast media conspiracy" against the White Sox, I'd think we'd all be happy with any news and information we can pick up, even if it turns out to be incorrect.

Or are you advocating that the only information that should be posted is if it agrees with what you say or think?

Lip
I was merely adding my thought to the discussion. Your headline reads "I am posting this info again !" as if we were not listening to the fact you had the answer. Post what Ken say, post what Moronti says, I don't mind. But you try to post these tidbits ad if coming from Ken it is somehow more info than coming from you Lip. I take you and Ken to have equal authority on the internal workings of the Sox. None.

Again I am not knocking you from posting it. I was merely putting in my .02 that Ken doesn't have an inside track on the White Sox so take it with a grain of salt. So no it is not difficult for me, nor does it appear to be difficult for me from anything I posted.

Hangar18
10-07-2003, 11:51 AM
Whatever Does happen in regards to the Coaching Staff, I hope the SOX wont pull a DevilRays move, and get rid of their PITCHING COACH, who they decided to make MGR, even though he was Best Suited for Pitching COach duties. The Cubs, pulled one of their Bum-Searching-Thru-Dumpster-And-Finds-A-Rolex moves and Hired Rothschild immediately afterwards. NIce way to get a Free Pitching Coach

Lip Man 1
10-07-2003, 12:26 PM
Kemp:

I post that "disclaimer' because in the past I have been ripped (perhaps by you?) because supposedly I'm trying to blow my own horn.

So should I not post what I'm being told? or go ahead and get ripped for having a big ego by posting it?

This is the best solution that I can come up with to protect myself. If you have a better solution please feel free to let me know.

The bottom line is that these folks DO have more inside information then you, I or any of the stat heads ever will have.

Funny how when comments agree with what people think there's no problem, but woe to all if those comments disagree with them.

Just because Rosenthal or Mariotti or whomever says something you don't like, is no reason not to post those comments. Again that's what this board is all about a free exchange of ideas and comments.

Lip

soxin03
10-07-2003, 12:27 PM
or CNN, MSNBC, PBS, C-SPAN, ABC, CBS, NBC, HEADLINE NEWS, TIME, NEWSWEEK, OR WEEKLY WORLD NEWS AND REPORT for the Democrats.

xil357
10-07-2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Since there seems to be some folks here who believe in a "vast media conspiracy" against the White Sox, I'd think we'd all be happy with any news and information we can pick up, even if it turns out to be incorrect.

Or are you advocating that the only information that should be posted is if it agrees with what you say or think?

Lip,

I don't have the authority or the desire to in any way censor what you say. I appreciate that you pass on info to us. It would hope that everyone who does have access to info would pass it on to the rest of us. What sounds like a cacophony of competing voices (often times in the form of hot air) is really just the sweet symphony of an information-based democracy at work.

You continue to accuse some of us of believing in a "vast media conspiracy." Because I feel that I am one of the ones lumped in that group I feel duty-bound to reply.

What to many of us feels like a media conspiracy really is not covert or insidious, but the way in which the completely logical and understandable developments play out makes it seem like what we would call, for lack of a better term, a conspiracy.

Yes, the White Sox PR department in general and Rob Gallas and JR in particular have made many, many big blunders and gaffes. They deserve to be an entire chapter or case study in a graduate-level public relations textbook of "how not to run your PR operations." This has fostered enmity among the Chicago print and broadcast media personnel.

But, as we all learned in our introduction to mass communication courses, while journalists can not possibly be expected to be completely objective because they are human beings, the canons of journalism dictate that they remain as fair, impartial and balanced as possible. Their biases should not be apparent in their work unless they are paid to give us their opinion, such as print columnists and radio/TV commentators.

So, even if JR intentionally urinated and defecated on Paul Sullivan, as a journalist he should remove himself from that situation to fairly report on the Sox. Likewise if Teddy Greenstein was provided caviar and Dom Perignon daily, and free valet parking at the Cell, etc., all at White Sox expense, he still should perform his job without letting the fact that he was being "comped" influence his reporting.

Editors and page designers must adhere to this, as well, if they want to be considered professionals.

That being said, I believe that the coverage of the Sox provided by most beat reporters for both the Sun Times and Trib is, on the whole, fair and balanced. Coverage of the Rangers in Dallas-Fort Worth is a lot like the coverage of the Sox in Chicago.

However, the media love-affair circle jerk for the Cubs demonstrates that there is a pro-Cubs bias in the Chicago media. If it was only columnists that would be one thing. But beat reporters like Mike Kiley slant their news to be as pro-Cubs as possible. Editors for both the Trib and Sun Times choose the Cubs to be on the front, four-color Sports page more frequently than they choose the White Sox. And it isn't only this year when the Cubs have made the playoffs. It was in 2001 and 2002, and in previous years when neither team was in first place. TV sports reporters and producers more frequently choose to go to the Cubs first, and their commentary reflects pro-Cubs bias.

Moreover, regardless of Mike Downey's and Rick Morrissey's repeated and pointed claims to the contrary, Tribune Company's ownership of the Cubs is a blatant conflict of interest.

Yesterday, the Cubs made the front news page (above the fold!) and the front sports page in The Dallas Morning News. This year, the Cubs have been on the front news page of The Dallas Morning News more frequently than have the Rangers! That is a clear and present example of a pro-Cubs bias in the Dallas media. We see similar examples in the national print and broadcast media.

Lip, your disdainful rhetoric makes it seem as though people who believe that the media is decidedly pro-Cubs might as well believe in ET and the Tooth fairy and must belong to the Flat Earth Society.

There is a pro-Cubs media bias. It is obvious. Those who deny it are the ones sticking their heads in the sand. Because it is plainly obvious to anyone who bothers to open their eyes, it is NOT A CONSPIRACY. It is neither covert or clandestine, and it is not illegal. But it is yet another sign that the news media, the oxygen of democracy, is being compromised in favor of the almighty dollar.

Randar68
10-07-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by xil357
Lip,

I don't have the authority or the desire to in any way censor what you say. I appreciate that you pass on info to us. It would hope that everyone who does have access to info would pass it on to the rest of us. What sounds like a cacophony of competing voices (often times in the form of hot air) is really just the sweet symphony of an information-based democracy at work.

You continue to accuse some of us of believing in a "vast media conspiracy." Because I feel that I am one of the ones lumped in that group I feel duty-bound to reply.

What to many of us feels like a media conspiracy really is not covert or insidious, but the way in which the completely logical and understandable developments play out makes it seem like what we would call, for lack of a better term, a conspiracy.

Yes, the White Sox PR department in general and Rob Gallas and JR in particular have made many, many big blunders and gaffes. They deserve to be an entire chapter or case study in a graduate-level public relations textbook of "how not to run your PR operations." This has fostered enmity among the Chicago print and broadcast media personnel.

But, as we all learned in our introduction to mass communication courses, while journalists can not possibly be expected to be completely objective because they are human beings, the canons of journalism dictate that they remain as fair, impartial and balanced as possible. Their biases should not be apparent in their work unless they are paid to give us their opinion, such as print columnists and radio/TV commentators.

So, even if JR intentionally urinated and defecated on Paul Sullivan, as a journalist he should remove himself from that situation to fairly report on the Sox. Likewise if Teddy Greenstein was provided caviar and Dom Perignon daily, and free valet parking at the Cell, etc., all at White Sox expense, he still should perform his job without letting the fact that he was being "comped" influence his reporting.

Editors and page designers must adhere to this, as well, if they want to be considered professionals.

That being said, I believe that the coverage of the Sox provided by most beat reporters for both the Sun Times and Trib is, on the whole, fair and balanced. Coverage of the Rangers in Dallas-Fort Worth is a lot like the coverage of the Sox in Chicago.

However, the media love-affair circle jerk for the Cubs demonstrates that there is a pro-Cubs bias in the Chicago media. If it was only columnists that would be one thing. But beat reporters like Mike Kiley slant their news to be as pro-Cubs as possible. Editors for both the Trib and Sun Times choose the Cubs to be on the front, four-color Sports page more frequently than they choose the White Sox. And it isn't only this year when the Cubs have made the playoffs. It was in 2001 and 2002, and in previous years when neither team was in first place. TV sports reporters and producers more frequently choose to go to the Cubs first, and their commentary reflects pro-Cubs bias.

Moreover, regardless of Mike Downey's and Rick Morrissey's repeated and pointed claims to the contrary, Tribune Company's ownership of the Cubs is a blatant conflict of interest.

Yesterday, the Cubs made the front news page (above the fold!) and the front sports page in The Dallas Morning News. This year, the Cubs have been on the front news page of The Dallas Morning News more frequently than have the Rangers! That is a clear and present example of a pro-Cubs bias in the Dallas media. We see similar examples in the national print and broadcast media.

Lip, your disdainful rhetoric makes it seem as though people who believe that the media is decidedly pro-Cubs might as well believe in ET and the Tooth fairy and must belong to the Flat Earth Society.

There is a pro-Cubs media bias. It is obvious. Those who deny it are the ones sticking their heads in the sand. Because it is plainly obvious to anyone who bothers to open their eyes, it is NOT A CONSPIRACY. It is neither covert or clandestine, and it is not illegal. But it is yet another sign that the news media, the oxygen of democracy, is being compromised in favor of the almighty dollar.


One of the best posts I have ever read. Don't expect Lip to respond.

Hangar18
10-07-2003, 02:12 PM
Hey, I know LIP puts me in that AREA 59 or HANGAR 18 Group
if you will, but I dont mind. Its his opinion, and I do like for
everyone to share whats on their minds

voodoochile
10-07-2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Hey, I know LIP puts me in that AREA 59 or HANGAR 18 Group
if you will, but I dont mind. Its his opinion, and I do like for
everyone to share whats on their minds

If there is a bias and I agree there is one, the question becomes, why does it exist?

Some of the factors that come to mind seem natural:

1)The Tribune owns the flubbies and puts them on their nationally televised cable network all the time thus leading to a large national fan base just like the Braves enjoy to some extent.

2)There are more flubbie fans at present and newspapers are in the business of making money so they write articles that will sell their newspapers.

3)JR has gone out of his way to tick off a whole mess of media people treating them like dirt and failing to reach out to market his team.

4)JR's blunders over the last 2 decades have crushed the Sox fan base thus leading to the larger amount of flubbie fans (or people who identify with that label) than Sox fans. That leads back to #2.

So, is it a conspiracy to kill the Sox or to market the more popular flubbies and reap the benefits thereof?

I have a problem with the perception that the media wants the Sox to die. I don't see it, and I don't believe it. Again, 90% of the Sox problems are of their own making. If they can correct those problems and prove they care about winning more than money, they may stand a chance to gain back some of their lost fanbase. Until that happens though, complaining about the media seems a secondary problem to me.

Paulwny
10-07-2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


I have a problem with the perception that the media wants the Sox to die. I don't see it, and I don't believe it.

Probably not all the Chi. media however the Trib could reap huge profits with the sox gone.
When they're the only game in town the trib can return to their old form by lowering pay roll, becoming less competative and raising seat prices, as they return to being the lovable losers.

xil357
10-07-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile

I have a problem with the perception that the media wants the Sox to die. I don't see it, and I don't believe it. Again, 90% of the Sox problems are of their own making. If they can correct those problems and prove they care about winning more than money, they may stand a chance to gain back some of their lost fanbase. Until that happens though, complaining about the media seems a secondary problem to me.

It is not a secondary problem to me because the media is where EVERYONE gets their information. By definition, media is the means of conveying information from one party to another. So, WSI and the Internet are a part of the same media system as the Trib, Sun Times, NY Times, the networks, local stations, Clear Channel, etc. WSI freely acknowledges that it is completely biased, utterly petty, etc.

However, as a society we rely on the professional media to give us the truth, based on facts, that is not slanted by the opinions, feelings and biases of the reporter or his or her editors or higher-ups. Unfortunately the media system of today no longer upholds those canons of journalism, instead seeking after profits by upholding "conventional wisdom" to maximize audience share.

If the Tribune and Sun Times just acknowledged their biases I would have no reason to complain. Same thing with the local Chicago TV stations. But the fundamental basis on which they claim and demand to be accepted a serious news outlets is their alleged fairness, balance, and lack of bias. They are lying to us through their teeth. I resent it utterly because most of society just buys it because we have been conditioned to accept it.

Perhaps as much as 90% of the Sox PR problems trace back to their own actions, such as the White Flag Trade, et. al. But it is in the past. We as fans can remember and stay pissed off and make our choices accordingly. But journalists, if they are professionals and take their jobs seriously and honestly, by their own self-adopted canons, must distance themselves from their own disillusionment and their own lemming mentality and report the news fairly, accurately and with as little bias as possible.

The fact that the Paul Sullivan, who calls himself Sox fan, is disappointed in the White Flag trade, should NOT IN ANY WAY skew his coverage. But I think it influences his negativity when he is on the Sox beat, and when he is on the Cubs beat he buys the company line and promotes the Cubs, even in allegedly unbiased game reports.

Maybe this is parking lot material, but when the oxygen on which our democracy thrives is poisoned with the foul stench of the rotten greed of a corporate-owned media system, democracy as a whole suffers and eventually will die. The pro-Cubs bias in the media is just a symptom of this larger and indeed primary problem.

I believe that the Tribune Company wants the Sox to go away and die, because the Sox are a direct form of competition in their own back yard. Capitalism is cutthroat and ruthless, survival of the fittest. Tribune Corp. wants more than anything a monopoly. The media is a huge cartel, of which Tribune is a player along with Disney, Sony, Viacom, Fox, etc. Trib Corp. would be happy if they could own all of Chicago's newspapers, TV stations, radio stations and all of Chicago's baseball teams, because then they would have no competition for local news or for dollars spent on baseball-related tourism. And I believe that their wish for the Sox (and other forms of competition) to die influences every fiber of their being and every ounce of their news coverage. It may not readily be apparent in every story. But it is there. The CEO and his underlings would be irresponsible to their corporation, indeed, the sources of their own incomes and food and shelter for their families, if they didn't want to eliminate the competition and improve their profits.

Put it the other way. If I am JR, I want the Cubs to be contracted and to have the White Sox have a monopoly on baseball in Chicago. If I am a Sox fan I want the Cubs to disappear forever.

So isn't it natural for Tribune Corp. to want the Sox to go away and die? Isn't it natural for the Tribune to publish stories that will decrease the value of the Sox and publish stories that increase the value of their corporate brother, the Cubs?

Lip Man 1
10-07-2003, 11:53 PM
Xil:

Extremely well thought out and provocative. I can't argue with your thoughts.

I would add however as you mentioned, these are human being, shaped and influenced by forces around them. As Voodoo correctly put it when the Sox dump on the media how do you expect them to feel? Phil Rogers in his WSI Interview made the charge that "the Sox don't return phone calls..."

To me as a journalist and I knew someone was making my job harder to do naturally I'd hold some resentment against them (and I admit to this in this past). When Ken Williams on his first day as Sox GM blames the media for most of the negativity surrounding the Sox you're damn right I'm going to get pissed off about that because he is sladering my profession and I dislike that intensly.

The answer to this problem is simple (well I know it's hard to pull off for the Sox) and that's TO WIN AND WIN CONSISTENTLY. because if the Sox are winning they can not be ignored. It would mean the job of any editor, reporter, or producer if they did so.

Two final points if I may. You'll admit that some folks (including some on this web site) go way overboard on this Sox vs. Cubs vs. media thing. I get a mental impression in my mind that they sit there with a ruler measuring the column inches. (By the way Bill Veeck apparently did exactly this at one time!)

It reminds me of when I got an angry call from a fan complaining that for the week I gave :35 more seconds of air time to one local college over the other. I couldn't believe the guy took a stop watch to all my shows and timed them but he did. Basically I told him that he needed to get a life.

The final point is that contrary to public opinion the media WANTS the Sox to win. The Sox winning means higher ratings on WGN because they show about 40 games a season, the Sox winning means they can charge more for advertising ditto for the Tribune. The Sox winning means higher ratings for Fox Sports Chicago and ESPN Radio 1000. The Sox winning also means more readers and participants here at WSI.

The media can't wait for the Sox to start winning big because in the end, they'll make a killing financially off it. Having the Sox around increases their chances of making money because they basically are hedging their bets. The Cubs can't guarantee that they will be winning every season or drawing tons of fans. For example Wrigley was basically empty until 1984.

Just some points to consider.

Lip

soxtalker
10-08-2003, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Xil:

Extremely well thought out and provocative. I can't argue with your thoughts.

I would add however as you mentioned, these are human being, shaped and influenced by forces around them. As Voodoo correctly put it when the Sox dump on the media how do you expect them to feel? Phil Rogers in his WSI Interview made the charge that "the Sox don't return phone calls..."

To me as a journalist and I knew someone was making my job harder to do naturally I'd hold some resentment against them (and I admit to this in this past). When Ken Williams on his first day as Sox GM blames the media for most of the negativity surrounding the Sox you're damn right I'm going to get pissed off about that because he is sladering my profession and I dislike that intensly.

The answer to this problem is simple (well I know it's hard to pull off for the Sox) and that's TO WIN AND WIN CONSISTENTLY. because if the Sox are winning they can not be ignored. It would mean the job of any editor, reporter, or producer if they did so.

Two final points if I may. You'll admit that some folks (including some on this web site) go way overboard on this Sox vs. Cubs vs. media thing. I get a mental impression in my mind that they sit there with a ruler measuring the column inches. (By the way Bill Veeck apparently did exactly this at one time!)

It reminds me of when I got an angry call from a fan complaining that for the week I gave :35 more seconds of air time to one local college over the other. I couldn't believe the guy took a stop watch to all my shows and timed them but he did. Basically I told him that he needed to get a life.

The final point is that contrary to public opinion the media WANTS the Sox to win. The Sox winning means higher ratings on WGN because they show about 40 games a season, the Sox winning means they can charge more for advertising ditto for the Tribune. The Sox winning means higher ratings for Fox Sports Chicago and ESPN Radio 1000. The Sox winning also means more readers and participants here at WSI.

The media can't wait for the Sox to start winning big because in the end, they'll make a killing financially off it. Having the Sox around increases their chances of making money because they basically are hedging their bets. The Cubs can't guarantee that they will be winning every season or drawing tons of fans. For example Wrigley was basically empty until 1984.

Just some points to consider.

Lip

Great points.

I'm always sceptical of complaints -- even when I'm tempted to feel this way -- of overwhelming bias in the media. National sports announcers will occasionally talk about how fans of both sides of a big game will accuse them of being biased for the other side. I remember hearing my fellow fans talking about such slights by the play-off announcers during the Bulls big years. Looking back, it seems incredible that we'd think that way; the Bulls were an national and international favorite among the fans.