A Convention Cartoon, And Some News

by Mike Bojanowski on Jan 13, 2006 8:44 AM CST in Cartoons

Maybe Jim Hendry hasn't told Dusty Baker yet what Mike Kiley has been beating us over the head with for weeks now, but according to Baker in this Tribune Q&A session, Todd Walker is still the Cubs' starting 2B:

Q: Speaking of trades, who's your starting second baseman, Neifi Perez or Todd Walker?

A: Right now Todd Walker is our second baseman. He's here. I've heard a lot of speculation [about a trade], but right now we have about 10 weeks before we start. Let us do our thing and we'll be ready by Opening Day.

And, a cartoon take on the Cubs Convention:

(Click on thumbnail to view full-size in new browser window. If you are using IE, you may have to click the lower-right corner of the image in the new window to expand it to its full size; in Firefox click anywhere on the image.)

Tweet Comment 53 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I certainly prefer Walker to Neifi

As a starter. What in the world has Walker done that has made him seem not wanted or trade bait? There are a lot of worse 2nd basemen out there. Did he side with the evil Stoney in 2004? I can't quite put a finger on the problem.

by LT on Jan 13, 2006 9:20 AM CST reply actions

It is mysterious

why he is being shoved aside. My latest speculation, of course unfounded, is that the organization is very high on Cedeno, and that it thinks that Walker, either through poor defense or bad attitude, will somehow harm Cedeno's development.

by TC Cubby on Jan 13, 2006 9:33 AM CST up reply actions

the only reason

is because the Cubs were pursuing a SS and Walker's option at $2.5MM was cheap, so he is a valuable trade commodity. Since we haven't done anything about SS, Walker is more than likely to stay.

by socalbob on Jan 13, 2006 10:09 AM CST up reply actions

I hope you're right...

... Walker's offense would be a great help, and he's not THAT bad defensively.

by Al Yellon on Jan 13, 2006 10:11 AM CST up reply actions

He's a Cancer

That's not that hard to figure out when you look at a player like him who's put up good numbers and how you recognize how many different teams he's been on, in such few seasons.

by SoBlueCal on Jan 13, 2006 12:04 PM CST up reply actions

he's wodd talker

and i doubt anything can shut him up. but they need his stick badly in that lineup. if they go with neifi, it's a killer.

by gaius marius on Jan 13, 2006 2:14 PM CST up reply actions

Unless somehow

Hendry could try and be creative and package Walker in a trade and get Lugo and put Cedeno at 2B.

Would I rather have Cedeno at SS and Walker at 2nd? Sure, I suppose. I'm not the biggest Todd Walker is the greatest ever club member, but his Left handed bat would be nice in this line-up. But then again, there has to be a reason why so many teams spit him out like expired milk, besides his Defense.

by SoBlueCal on Jan 13, 2006 2:43 PM CST up reply actions

This is very sloppy

journalism--I can't tell whether these are quotes from Baker, or just van Dyck paraphrasing or coming up with his own answers. He talks about Baker's upbeat mood, and uses a Q and A format, suggesting that it was some sort of live interview. But he doesn't use quotations, and writes (ambiguously) that the answers are "gleaned from Thursday's gathering." Plus, I don't see any of these quotes in the other papers (though I only read online), and I assume that the other reporters are following Baker around, so it makes me wonder if van Dyck is making the answers up as he goes.

by TC Cubby on Jan 13, 2006 9:29 AM CST reply actions

If that's the case...

... then van Dyck should be fired. "Making up answers"? Journalists have been canned for less.

by Al Yellon on Jan 13, 2006 10:05 AM CST up reply actions

No quotes were used.

Dave van Dyck wrote "...here is how Baker will answer the tough questions..." (bold is my emphasis)

Not only were no quotes used in his piece, which would indicate he was using someone else's words, but he wrote that Baker "will" answer them this way. Not that Baker "did" answer them this way.

He added "gleaned from Thursday's gathering"

This means, at least to me anyway, that when Baker was questioned on Thursday, he answered questions like the ones van Dyck asked in his column in this fashion.

I do not believe van Dyck was writing this piece as if Baker had said this, but rather he wrote it based upon some of Baker's answers on Thursday noting that he "will" answer them in this fashion as he did on thursday.

Just my 2 cents.

by Maddog on Jan 13, 2006 11:46 AM CST up reply actions

horrid journalism...

I don't understand this new concept in sports journalsim of fake news. It's sort of reminiscent of those ESPN fake GM news conferences, which really sucked.

Journalists should stick to what journalism is, FACTS, not some crystal ball type premonition on what people "might" say or think.

People who write a column on possible trades or what could be beneficial for a team, that's one thing. But when people start writing about what people are going to say? That's a slippery slope into sensational journalism.

by DTJchris on Jan 13, 2006 12:05 PM CST up reply actions

Honestly,

does journalism stick to the facts anymore? I can't find a single source on any issue where only facts are given. Journalism has become part factual information and part story-telling, which inevitably leads to the type of crap we saw today from van Dyck. Anytime you allow the journalist the freedom to remark on what he/she is reporting you have then taken the facts out of journalism and replaced it with opinion pieces based loosely on the facts that this author has decided to tell you about.

In short, while people criticize talk radio (sports and politics) it's just as factual as anything you'll ever get in a paper or on television. You just have to look for the facts and filter out the annoying commentary.

by Maddog on Jan 13, 2006 12:33 PM CST up reply actions

it never did

by gaius marius on Jan 13, 2006 2:18 PM CST up reply actions

sports 'journalism'

died a long time ago, i think everyone who's been watching espn for longer than a day knows that. i think i get more reliable analysis and news from good old BCB and the rest of the sports blogs with no sponsors to satisfy (i hope) or synergies to exploit. whenever you have an analyst busted for coke possession remaining on the crew despite the fact that he hid it from his superiors shows that there is no standard of excellence in sports reporting any more and there isn't likely to be. fat sportswriters running their ignorant mouths doesn't count as 'journalism' it counts as 'opinion.'

by dholl @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Jan 13, 2006 3:00 PM CST up reply actions

Agreed

Compare this to Bruce Miles' column in the Daily Herald. Miles does a clearly fake Q&A, even poking fun at "Neifi saved us last year" and other Baker-isms.

If the Trib article is a legit interview, they need to make that more clear. If it isn't, well, Al said it.

by cubzfan on Jan 13, 2006 11:12 AM CST up reply actions

FWIW...

... here is Miles' column -- clearly done in a tongue-in-cheek fashion.

by Al Yellon on Jan 13, 2006 11:25 AM CST up reply actions

Is this the same???

Question: What other products from the Cubs farm system can we expect to see in Chicago this season?

Expected answer: Angel Guzman, Ryan Theriot, David Aardsma, JOSE REYES and Felix Pie.

Who is Jose Reyes....Im fairly knowledgeable on Cubs specs and ive never heard of Reyes.

by cubsfan2883 on Jan 13, 2006 12:46 PM CST up reply actions

well

if Aardsma and Theriot make it to Wrigley, than suffice to say we are looking at battling for 5th place with Cincy and Pitt.

by socalbob on Jan 13, 2006 12:48 PM CST up reply actions

Many Believe

that Aardsma was the real steal (ala Murton) in the Hawkins deal... he hasn't ever lived up to expectations hopefully he pans out.

by cubsfan2883 on Jan 13, 2006 12:57 PM CST up reply actions

true

I'm pointing to the fact that IF he makes it to Wrigley this year, then it will be a rather poor campaign.

by socalbob on Jan 13, 2006 1:00 PM CST up reply actions

Just in case....

anyone was wondering Reyes is a Catcher who hit .250 with an obp of .314 with 3 hrs and 50 rbi's at AA W.T. last year.

by cubsfan2883 on Jan 13, 2006 12:59 PM CST up reply actions

If letting them do "their thing"

includes starting Neifi and his .298 OBP and batting him anywhere above 7th in the order, then the plug should be pulled on "their thing". "Their thing" sucks.

by TR on Jan 13, 2006 9:30 AM CST reply actions

But

it's worked so well for the team.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Jan 13, 2006 9:49 AM CST up reply actions

Doesn't mean anything

Even if Hendry had a deal worked out to trade Walker today, Dusty would still have to say that. I don't think it means anything one way or the other.

by JohnM on Jan 13, 2006 10:15 AM CST reply actions

disagree

what it shows is to the Dusty bashers that he is has NO PLANS TO START NEIFI. Neifi is a back-up role player and that's all.

by socalbob on Jan 13, 2006 10:19 AM CST up reply actions

He is just following protocol

Walker was the starter last year and never lost the job. He is still on the roster. To say anything other than "Walker is the starter today" is against the code.

If Walker isn't traded after all, the protocol also says he's the starter in Spring Training.

by JohnM on Jan 13, 2006 11:14 AM CST up reply actions

I love Baker's comments

about the teams poor fundamental play "My teams don't play like that". Oh yes they do, for the past two years actually.

by SonnyJ9 on Jan 13, 2006 10:59 AM CST reply actions

one of his greatest talents

is deferral and denial of responsibility.

by gaius marius on Jan 13, 2006 2:21 PM CST up reply actions

Cartoon

I love it. I can't wait until my two daughters are screaming at the TV with me. It will drive my wife NUTS!!!!

by tcjhawk on Jan 13, 2006 11:04 AM CST reply actions

One of your best

cartoons to date. Kudos.

by RobG @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Jan 13, 2006 1:23 PM CST up reply actions

the article says

"For those who can't make the convention this weekend, here is how Baker will answer the tough questions from fans, gleaned from Thursday's gathering"

"WILL answer the quetions." :GLEANED from Thursday's gathering."

This is not an interiew. This is pure and admitted speculation.

by kjk on Jan 13, 2006 11:06 AM CST reply actions

That just doesn't seem right...

... if it is, the article is fabricated and van Dyck should be fired.

by Al Yellon on Jan 13, 2006 11:09 AM CST up reply actions

I don't know ...

... how else to read that sentence. To me, it says, "Based on bits and pieces of information I gathered Thursday, this is what [I believe] baker will say over the weekend."

by kjk on Jan 13, 2006 11:22 AM CST up reply actions

You can read it as

here is how Baker will answer the questions, because I asked Baker yesterday the same questions that you'll hear this weekend, and here is what he said yesterday.

The key difference between van Dyck and Miles is that Miles' article said "expected answer", while van Dyck's merely said "A".

Sure this is picky, but this is the same media that quoted Corey Patterson as saying "It's just a game", when he said "It's just the game", a misquote that wa the straw that broke the camel's back for many fans with Patterson.

by TC Cubby on Jan 13, 2006 12:22 PM CST up reply actions

Derek Smart

over at Cubtown (http://cubtown.baseballtoaster.com/) took it as an interview transcript. I think the very fact that we are having this discussion shows how misleading the article is.

by TC Cubby on Jan 13, 2006 12:26 PM CST up reply actions

why

would he say "gleaned," then? if it's true that this was an interview, why does he use a word that means "pieced together from bits of information?"

by kjk on Jan 13, 2006 12:33 PM CST up reply actions

That's a good point,

but the word glean means to gather pieces, not gather them together and fabricate something with them.
Definitions aside, my main problem is that a Q & A format is typically produced after a one-on-one interview, where the reporter wants the subject to speak in his or her own words. If you're going to use this format to speculate, you should make it dang clear that you are not quoting your subject. Miles' article does this; van Dyck's article only does this if you drag out your dictionary and look up the word "glean."

It wouldn't surprise me at all to see some of these paragraphs sprout up later as quotes from Baker'.

by TC Cubby on Jan 13, 2006 12:42 PM CST up reply actions

Why?

What did he do that nearly every single other journalist doesn't do? You, yourself, placed 4 quotes from 4 different papers that speculated what one quote meant and it was 4 different things. The problem isn't with the author, it's with the ethical standards, or lack thereof, that there is in journalism today.

by Maddog on Jan 13, 2006 1:10 PM CST up reply actions

I like the cartoon...

it's awesome. I'm happy for Mark.

This is sad. I will never get the chance to the "For Kids Only" stuff as a kid.

I also eat probably the same amount of crap that Mark has on the plate in the drawing. I love food.

I hope everyone that's going to the convention has fun!

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Jan 13, 2006 12:24 PM CST reply actions

Sloppy reading on our part

van Dyck is presenting us with his version of how Baker will answer the fan questions this weekend. He put it into a q & a format because Baker will be in a q & a session. The words he puts into Baker's responses are based on (a) Baker's comments from Thursday, (b) past Baker responses, and (c) the forum in which Baker will find himself in this weekend. Baker will be at the convention for public relations. He will show enthusiasm for the upcoming season while alluding to the need to improve. He won't disparage any players.
This column by van Dyck is clearly an opinion piece.

by greggie44 on Jan 13, 2006 1:19 PM CST reply actions

No,

the article was not based on "(b) past Baker responses". The article only mentions the Thursday interview or press session. We don't know if the "answers" are 90% from Baker, or 90% from van Dyck.

by TC Cubby on Jan 13, 2006 1:38 PM CST up reply actions

media manipulation

he says very clearly: "For those who can't make the convention this weekend, here is how Baker will answer the tough questions from fans, gleaned from Thursday's gathering"

that means these aren't baker's answers to anything.

what this is is what the tribune wants baker to say. another of the advantages of being a media conglomerate that controls the primary press of the team it owns is that they get to revise baker's comments before they even happen.

by gaius marius on Jan 13, 2006 2:27 PM CST up reply actions

This isn't that hard...

I think you're off base here.

This is a sampling of Baker's actual answers to questions put to him during the Thursday press conference. A sampling, hence "gleaned." He means he gleaned a few answers from the conference, and isn't presenting the whole thing.

He didn't present it as an interview because it wasn't, it was a press conference, and he probably didn't ask all the questions.

Finally, "how Baker will answer the tough questions" means that the reporters asked questions that fans are likely to also ask this weekend. We can assume Dusty will answer them the same way when asked them again.

How do I know all this? I suppose I'm not 100% sure of it, but it seems pretty clear and obvious to me.

-Chuck

by Chuckles on Jan 13, 2006 7:45 PM CST up reply actions

Between the lines...

...Gaius' comments hit the nail right on the head. This is public relations. The existence of this q & a in the article is hidden sarcasm about the whole situation.

by greggie44 on Jan 13, 2006 8:54 PM CST up reply actions

The angle of my comment...

...is to put the material in it's context. And then put my post in it's context. The caricature of Baker's future responses are indeed based on the writer's views of past Baker responses in similar situations. And see Gaius' response here to understand the tone of van Dyck's piece.

by greggie44 on Jan 13, 2006 3:21 PM CST up reply actions