Irresponsible Journalism

by Al Yellon on Jan 25, 2006 10:23 AM CST in Chicago Cubs News

Check out this ridiculous claim from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

The Phillies have talked with free agent catcher Mike Piazza about a possible fit in Philadelphia, a source said, but it seems Piazza might have more realistic options with the San Diego Padres or Chicago Cubs.

What on EARTH would make this writer -- Todd Zolecki is his name -- think that the Cubs would have any interest, or place, for Mike Piazza?

The Cubs have two catchers already. We can debate over whether Michael Barrett is a good defensive catcher or a liability, but at this stage of their respective careers, he's probably a better offensive threat than Piazza. Piazza, at age 37, probably shouldn't catch more than 1/3 of the schedule, and thus isn't well suited to anywhere but an AL team. (I can't imagine why the Padres would want him either.)

Talk about idle speculation. Hey, in 1998, the Cubs could have really used Piazza. Eight years later, it's ridiculous to even think that.

Tweet Comment 75 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Oops...

Al, I just posted a diary on this....a grand total of 1 minute after your entry. Feel free to delete it....

by Santos L Halper on Jan 25, 2006 10:27 AM CST reply actions

I did...

... hey, great minds think alike, right?

Ken Rosenthal's article linked in the Kearns/Dempster diary to the right, does mention that the Padres supposedly contacted Piazza about playing in San Diego. That, considering that SD's two catchers right now are pretty poor, at least makes some sense.

But Piazza has no spot for the Cubs. None. If the NL had a DH, maybe. But it doesn't.

by Al Yellon on Jan 25, 2006 10:29 AM CST up reply actions

All I can possibly...

...fathom is using him a bench player.

He might be able to spell Lee at first every once in a while, and could give the catching platoon a day off here and there, but, aside from that, I think you're absolutely right:

Piazza is an AL player all the way.

Any NL team that carries Piazza primarily as a catcher is going to have to ensure that they're carrying at least three players that can catch, because relying on that 37 year old body to stay healthy behind the plate is just begging for disaster.

by Santos L Halper on Jan 25, 2006 10:34 AM CST up reply actions

You said it!

I just read the same article, and immediately dropped in to see who had commented. You beat me to a diary by 2 minutes, Al! While I have similar reservations on Barrett's defense and ability to handle the pitching staff, he's far superior to Piazza in durability. Piazza will end up with the Angels - or, somewhere in the AL.

Plus, we all know what happened the last time the Cubs picked up a FA catcher from the Mets. Let's not go there.

People ask me what I do in the winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for Al's latest post on BCB!

by Dan @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Jan 25, 2006 10:32 AM CST reply actions

Minnesota...

... seemed a possible destination for Piazza, where he could DH and backup catcher and 1B, but the Twins don't seem interested.

by Al Yellon on Jan 25, 2006 10:38 AM CST up reply actions

Email this idiot...

at tzolecki@phillynews.com. It probably won't stop rampant unfounded speculation, but at least he'll be ashamed of his irresponsibility.

by The Boar on Jan 25, 2006 10:38 AM CST reply actions

i love how people

hear something they don't like and decide to kill the messenger.

fwiw, this zolecki guy works for a paper with an editor and a factchecking department. that means the crap he puts in his articles have two sources, each of which have spoken to the reporter and the factchecker.

that's a level of journalism that shames bcb (and 1060west and ivychat and every other cub blog).

does it mean nothing untrue makes the paper? no. mistakes get made. rules are bent. sources collaborate and lie.

but the odds of the cubs having shown some interest in piazza -- a phone call, say -- are much better for having been reported in the philly inquirer than it would have been if "al's sources" or mlbtraderumors.com had said as much.

by gaius marius on Jan 25, 2006 11:55 AM CST up reply actions

I agree.

And the sad part of the matter is that it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see the Cubs seriously interested in Piazza for reasons god only knows. It could be they're looking for a platoon partner for Jones in RF. Won't surprise me one bit. Maybe they think he can fill in for Wood until he comes back. Won't surprise me one bit. I think that dismissing this as simple idle speculation is more unfounded than the report itself.

by Maddog on Jan 25, 2006 12:17 PM CST up reply actions

same thought and then I said that was stupid

Piazza as a RF platoon. But if I were a AL team and he was willing to play for the minimum I could see him as a platoon DH and 3rd catcher.

Bill Veeck planted them during the depression, ivy on the walls.

by Ivy Walls on Jan 25, 2006 12:27 PM CST up reply actions

Pertaining to the Cubs...

...I don't think he even needs a source. He just thinks that Piazza has a better chance of selling his services to the Padres or Cubs. It's his opinion that Piazza has something to offer these clubs that they might need. And he is only comparing this to the Phillies situation.

by greggie44 on Jan 25, 2006 12:18 PM CST up reply actions

I don't know, but...

...my take on what little he said was that he was speaking from information he had received. Whether or not it's good information...who knows?

But come on, people. Can anybody on here honestly say they are going to be surprised if the Cubs sign Mike Piazza? I wouldn't even be surprised if they signed the guy to a 3-year deal for $21 million. We're talking about the Cubs. The very same team who gave Jacque Jones 2 more years than he deserved and about $12 million more than he deserved.

by Maddog on Jan 25, 2006 12:44 PM CST up reply actions

The Phillies part...

...is based on a source. The rest is his two cents.

by greggie44 on Jan 25, 2006 1:00 PM CST up reply actions

wow

I wouldn't even be surprised if they signed the guy to a 3-year deal for $21 million. We're talking about the Cubs.

and i thought I was supposed to serve as the resident pessimist designate! ;)

by gaius marius on Jan 25, 2006 3:20 PM CST up reply actions

I don't call it pessimism...

...I call it realism. I don't think the Cubs are going to be nearly as bad as you do in 2006 though I do not see them as contenders and not even close really, but nothing the Cubs do in the offseason is surprising to me. Think about it. We have to go back to 1987 when we signed a top-tier free agent still in his prime and the only reason that happened was because he wanted to play for the Cubs so bad he handed them a contract and told the Cubs to write in his contract. We haven't had an above average position player and maybe not even an average one come up through our system since Mark Grace. Until recently we couldn't really develop pitching either. When you aren't signing top free agents and you aren't developing talent that leaves a lot of players left to sign and none of them being that great it means that guys like Piazza get signed all the time by this organization.

Thankfully it appears this was more of a joke than anything, but don't count it out just yet. There's still time and until he inks his name on another team's contract i'm not convinced Mike Piazza won't be the part-time CF/back-up back-up at SS with the Cubs.

by Maddog on Jan 25, 2006 4:35 PM CST up reply actions

really?

I don't think the Cubs are going to be nearly as bad as you do in 2006

i'm rather inclined to see them a mid-to-high-70s team (in terms of win totals). i'll be a bit surprised if they lose as many as 90.

you think better?

by gaius marius on Jan 26, 2006 9:26 AM CST up reply actions

I saw...

one of your comments say 80-win team. I was surprised and was going to reply to say you were being a teeny bit more hopeful, but for some reason I didn't.

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

by sparkles721 on Jan 26, 2006 4:05 PM CST up reply actions

it's not the apocalypse

at least at first glance. i'll sit down closer to april and figure out what i really think -- but right now, i think they're about the same in terms of quality as last year, maybe somewhat worse.

by gaius marius on Jan 26, 2006 7:23 PM CST up reply actions

i'll take

whatever action you like if you think the cubs will be worse than last year.

by tomas21 on Jan 26, 2006 9:31 PM CST up reply actions

Couldn't disagree more, Gaius Marius

Having worked in the journalism industry, one of the first things taught is "Always provide evidence." The reader needs examples, explanation, and extra information with which to make an informed opinion about the story and thus verify its credibility. The reader shouldn't be expected to believe a story simply because it's coming from a big paper, unless ample evidence is made to support its truth.

As for fact-checking, do you think a fact-checking department seriously would have time for a story like this? How many people do you think work in such a department? Usually, it's about three or four people for the entire paper who have to sift through thousands of facts every day. Since Zolecki's article said two "possible" clubs "might" have interest in a player, there's no fact-checking needed, as there is nothing that need be proven as fact.

Frankly, there's nothing to convince me from this article that Zolecki isn't just name-dropping. If he were to say something like "Sources close to Piazza indicate he is talking with the Cubs and Padres, although the status of those negotiations is unclear", I might give him a little more creedence. But he sounds as if he simply was trying to beat a deadline here and simply pulled a few names out of a hat.

by The Boar on Jan 25, 2006 1:54 PM CST up reply actions

I'm curious...

...what do you mean by "journalism industry"? I mean it's a term I've never heard before. I used to be a reporter for a wire service; what did/do you do and for whom did/do you work? No need for specifics, just generalities like I gave.

by KenBrett34 on Jan 25, 2006 2:40 PM CST up reply actions

Probably not, the best phrase, I admit,

but that's how I tend to think of it.

I worked on the copy desk of a newspaper in an average-size city and also for a publishing firm that published media-related texts, periodicals, and studies.

by The Boar on Jan 25, 2006 2:58 PM CST up reply actions

There were many reasons...

...I got out of reporting, but I'd have to say "industry" was in the top 10. Too many stories from friends who worked in newsrooms where the bottom line ruled with an iron fist. TR in the comments below makes great points (and I must say that I read baseball blogs often to get my mind off "real" news, so I apologize for going off on a tangent), and I believe many newsrooms are stretched way too thin.

by KenBrett34 on Jan 25, 2006 3:57 PM CST up reply actions

Irresponsible Journalism

are you calling it beause we don't think its a good idea or because you know for a fact that it is untrue?

by mike bornemann @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Jan 25, 2006 10:39 AM CST reply actions

Sports Journalism?

Just proves my point that the term "Sports Journalism" is an oxymoron.

by DaveinHouston on Jan 25, 2006 10:43 AM CST reply actions

This type of article...

...is here because people like us read it. We devour all we can during this time of year. Before calling it irresponsible,I would consider the words "it seems", "might have", and "realistic" that appear in it. Unless Piazza has stated he is staying the in NL, I find it strange that no AL clubs were mentioned. He could catch 60 games and dh.

by greggie44 on Jan 25, 2006 11:12 AM CST reply actions

The problem for Piazza is....

He's still asking for $7-8 million per. NO ONE will pay him that to catch 60 games, or be a part-time DH/bench player, etc...

"...Someday we'll look back on this and it will all seem funny"

by Speedywheels on Jan 25, 2006 11:24 AM CST reply actions

This Is Why ...

... we should never take sports columnists seriously. At all. Ever.

They are all talking out of their ass (with Phil Rogers and Paul Sullivan being the most obvious local examples). They have no interest in getting a story right. There is not even a mandate or a pretense to do so. That's for the sports reporters to try to do.

Sports columnists are not sports reporters, so their job is to try to make an impact. That's a big difference versus getting a story right. It's all about their opinion, nothing more. And as we all know, you could fit the validity of most sports columnists' opinion into a shot glass, and have ample room left for a full ounce of whiskey (which likely constitutes the breakfast of most sports columnists).

And, if we step back and regard this intellectually, we all know this to be true. So why bother getting mad about it? Laugh at it instead. We all know better than to take what they say seriously anyway, right?

You can get valid, highly considered, well thought-out baseball opinion from better sources, such as Hardball Times, or Baseball Prospectus, or Baseball Primer -- or Bleed Cubbie Blue -- and just read sports colunists for a laugh. That's all they're worth.

Chuck

by chasfh on Jan 25, 2006 11:24 AM CST reply actions

It's worse...

...when these columnists are confined to one sport like Rogers. Columnists like Barry Rozner have the whole spectrum to work with and it shows in the quality.

by greggie44 on Jan 25, 2006 11:49 AM CST up reply actions

lamest joke ever

maybe it was a typo and what he meant was that the cubs would be interested in pizza.

cubscast.com chicagosportscasts.com

by cubscast on Jan 25, 2006 11:34 AM CST reply actions

I hope its a joke

I would rather see the Cubs spend money on pizza.

"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want somebody else to go chase it.

by 10 14 23 26 on Jan 25, 2006 11:51 AM CST reply actions

Heres a more responsible article about Piazza

sorry forgot the linkhttp://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060124&content_id=1300076&vkey=hotstove 2005&fext=.jsp

by dan the fan on Jan 25, 2006 11:56 AM CST reply actions

lol

and then, having killed the messenger, you subscribe to a more desirable propaganda.

you take a faux news piece from mlb.com -- the corporate organ of baseball, which, unlike the philly inquirer, has no interest at all, ethical or financial, in printing truth -- and take it to be "more true" because it doesn't include information you find distasteful.

i am laughing my ass off. it's no wonder we elect the politicians we do.

by gaius marius on Jan 25, 2006 12:01 PM CST up reply actions

A "faux news piece"?

And why is that? All that article did was quote various sources, and named them, for teams that allegedly had interest in Piazza.

The Philly Inquirer quoted no source for the alleged Cub interest in him.

Tell me, gaius, do you ever compliment anyone? Do you ever read anything other than the stuff you write and agree with it?

You find fault in just about every single thing you read here, even when there isn't. Laugh your ass off if you like, but you're just plain wrong here.

by Al Yellon on Jan 25, 2006 1:05 PM CST up reply actions

because it is faux news

And why is that?

it was written by a fellow working for mlb.com. now, this article may be true in part or in general -- but mlb.com is not a news service. it's a trumpet for mlb. and it will behave a such.

you should expect as much truth about baseball out of mlb.com as you do truth about government out of george bush or truth about pharmaceuticals out of pfizer's press releases.

Tell me, gaius, do you ever compliment anyone?

actually, the most common type i put into the subject line in my comments here is just "agreed". i agree with a lot of things people say here, sometimes even when they're saying it in making a case i disagree with. but folks tend to remember the controversy about ten times better than the concord, i figure.

by gaius marius on Jan 25, 2006 3:29 PM CST up reply actions

not true

"actually, the most common type i put into the subject line in my comments here is just "agreed"

actually, the most common thing you put in your subject line is "lol", usually in a condescending, laughing at you kind of way. you rarely agree with anyone unless they are reiterating a point you've already made.

by tomas21 on Jan 25, 2006 5:11 PM CST up reply actions

Further....

... whether you believe in stuff on mlb.com or not, and I agree that in general the stuff there is "mouthpiece" stuff, the article linked basically just reported stuff that was on other sites, with citations.

I didn't have a problem with that and can't see why you would.

(This is addressed to gaius, not tomas -- sorry if the threading doesn't quite work!)

by Al Yellon on Jan 25, 2006 5:44 PM CST up reply actions

so do

the white house press secretary and pfizer's press release department.

i agree with you about this particular article, which is hardly red herring stuff, but i thought the chain of events too priceless not to note.

by gaius marius on Jan 26, 2006 9:30 AM CST up reply actions

agreed

that could be true. but score one more for "agreed". :)

by gaius marius on Jan 26, 2006 9:28 AM CST up reply actions

Piazza...

will probably sign with the Orioles. He wants to be in the american league.

by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Jan 25, 2006 12:41 PM CST reply actions

For the sake of discussion

If the cubs staff were really rebelling against Barrett and the cubs were thinking about trading Barrett, I could see them getting Piazza and him being the backup to Blanco. Blanco goes 3 days and Piazza goes 2. That would offset a little bit the lost offense.

by JonH on Jan 25, 2006 12:59 PM CST reply actions

Gaius

You need to chill man. All I've ever read is you attacking people and seething negativity.

Take a walk or something and work off that bad mood.

by FukudomeAtLarge on Jan 25, 2006 1:01 PM CST reply actions

piazza

The perfect place for him would be with a team like the White Sox BEFORE they got Thome ... play a little 1st, catch a little, and DH. He still got some big hits left in him.

by DAKUBS on Jan 25, 2006 1:20 PM CST reply actions

Good one

If he stays away from all the bumps and bruises of catching (or minimizes them), I agree with you on the hitting. It must be the salary demands pushing off AL clubs so far.

by greggie44 on Jan 25, 2006 1:41 PM CST up reply actions

Not sure

he can play 1B. The Mets tried this and it was an abysmal failure. Back-up C and DH sure, 1B only if the game goes 18 innings and the team runs out of players.

by csb059 on Jan 27, 2006 7:57 AM CST up reply actions

the couple

of small newspapers and wire service I worked at didn't have any fact checking department. It was up to the reporter to find a second source to verify what the first had said. if the Editor had a problem with the sources, it was up to him or her not to run the story or to send the reporter back out to find a better source.

As the sign at the City New Bureau used to read (before it was killed by the Tribune Company, that is) "If your mom says she loves you, check it out!"

I don't know how big a paper has to be before it has a fact checking department. A magazine like The New Yorker has such a department, but it's still up to the writer to verify facts that get a red flag from that department. It doesn't do the correcting, it just finds mistakes.

I doubt any such rules are in place for anything we read on these sports sites.

And I agree with KenBrett. I've always heard journalism referred to as a business, not an industry.

by TR on Jan 25, 2006 3:02 PM CST reply actions

and speaking or irresponsible, Al

Did you give this guy a call and ask him about his sources, before calling him irresponsible? I know your blog isn't journaism but when you start calling professionals irresponsible it might be nice to at least pick up the phone and check it out. Maybe he's lazy, maybe he should have reworded it as was mentioned above and maybe the Cubs are idiots inquiring about a player they have no use for.

by TR on Jan 25, 2006 3:21 PM CST reply actions

Here's the article I alluded to over in the diary

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-060125cubspiazza,1,4283106.story?col l=cs-cubs-headlines

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" -Homer J. Simpson

by Whitebacon on Jan 25, 2006 6:28 PM CST reply actions

For what it's worth...

...Gaius is unfairly picked on by many of the commenters who continuously argue he is attacking others when he disagrees.

I've agreed with him on many things and disagreed with him on many things and to my recollection, Gaius has never once made any personal attacks towards me.

I think these Community Standards or Guidelines are wonderful, but the problem it creates is that everybody is a judge. I think people need to use a bit of common sense when dealing with these things. Unless Gaius blatantly attacks someone, why bring it up? It sounds to me that people continue to harp on his negativity as their lone argument as to how Gaius is personally attacking others.

I know that I saw the same kind of vehement disagreements that Gaius routinely makes the other day when the rumors about Prior and Wood that were posted on his site coming from numerous people here and over at his site. It seems to me that you people are mistaking disagreeing with personal attacks.

If you don't like what he has to say, don't read it.

That's my 2 cents on the matter anyway.

by Maddog on Jan 25, 2006 6:52 PM CST reply actions

It's not what he says...

... it's how he says it; his tone has at times been condescending.

He was called a name the other day by another poster and I put an end to that. I don't want us to be judging, and I have asked him, and others, privately, to STOP the condescending attitudes.

That's the problem I have.

by Al Yellon on Jan 25, 2006 7:03 PM CST up reply actions

Fair enough.

by Maddog on Jan 25, 2006 10:07 PM CST up reply actions

agreed

It sounds to me that people continue to harp on his negativity as their lone argument as to how Gaius is personally attacking others.

and thank you for the recognition.

his tone has at times been condescending.

i am convinced, after years of this internet thing, of two things:

i can't control anyone's interpretation of my comments, no matter how ridiculous;
people in general are predisposed to see what they wish or need to see, rather than what is, no matter how ridiculous.

i think there are a number of reasons this place generally considers lines of inquiry to be attack and rational argument to be condescension. but, if i bring them up, i'll be accused of attacking and condescending -- so i won't, just this once. :)

by gaius marius on Jan 26, 2006 9:35 AM CST up reply actions

That last statement is...

in itself condescending, wether it was intentional or not is another question.

by Imtrejo on Jan 26, 2006 10:53 AM CST up reply actions

totally disagree

"That last statement is...
in itself condescending"

I can't find any reason to believe that.

by csb059 on Jan 27, 2006 8:01 AM CST up reply actions

i'm convinced

that arrogance is invisble to those who possess it. so don't feel bad, you're not alone.

by tomas21 on Jan 26, 2006 10:56 AM CST up reply actions

and I'm

convinced that anger has blinded many of you here and once a comment has Gaius Marius below it, you turn red-faced and blow up, no matter what the content.

Take a step back and try to read things objectively without assuming that Gaius is speaking directly to you.

by csb059 on Jan 27, 2006 8:04 AM CST up reply actions

the difficulty is

Take a step back and try to read things objectively without assuming that Gaius is speaking directly to you.

that a lot of people read something i write about people in the abstract, and -- perhaps without being fully cognizant of it, and certainly without me knowing it -- see something of themselves in it, assume i'm talking about them, and attack whilst believing themselves to be defending.

the frequency of the occurrence is a strong indicator to me that many of the things i'm saying apply.

by gaius marius on Jan 27, 2006 10:04 AM CST up reply actions

are you sure?

are you sure that those of us that respond to you are upset with you because we see ourselves in you, and not because you come across as an arrogant, condescending s.o.b., something you seem to be oblivious to (as most such people are).

by tomas21 on Jan 27, 2006 3:24 PM CST up reply actions

It's

become obvious to me that you don't fully read his comments.

Your quote "are you sure that those of us that respond to you are upset with you because we see ourselves in you"

Please show me where this was stated? Your replies are starting to make you look foolish. You should abandon the constant attacks, it's become absolutely silly.

by csb059 on Jan 28, 2006 3:18 PM CST up reply actions

which

is more foolish, standing up to he who often insults those here, or defending him?

by tomas21 on Jan 28, 2006 6:15 PM CST up reply actions

when your

attacks address points never stated you look foolish.

by csb059 on Jan 29, 2006 9:07 AM CST up reply actions

what

did freud say--sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

by tomas21 on Jan 27, 2006 3:25 PM CST up reply actions

and

which is more likely, the ten or so people here who have commented that they are offended by your condescending posts are actually revelaing their own insecurities (which i think you have said before its impossible to do any character evaluation over the internet), or that you are the arrogant, condescending person that many here feel you are?
fret not, you wouldn't be the first to not realize they are a jerk. you might be one of the first if you DID realize it.

now back to baseball. i forget, are you predicting a 70 something win team or a mid-80s win team--you've said both, depending on which point you're trying to make.

by tomas21 on Jan 27, 2006 4:21 PM CST up reply actions

hmm

Freud said a lot of things -- spending a good amount of time saying them while on crack.

2006 -- AC036097 -- Eamus Catuli!

by priorpwnz on Jan 28, 2006 7:52 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah right

"He was called a name the other day by another poster and I put an end to that."

Sure you did (insert sarcasm), except that Tomas has continued to call Gaius names since. You haven't even come close to putting a stop to it.

by csb059 on Jan 28, 2006 3:24 PM CST up reply actions

Be specific, please.

What names have been called?

by Al Yellon on Jan 29, 2006 4:23 AM CST up reply actions

try

"arrogant, condescending s.o.b." which is right in the comments onthis post.

by csb059 on Jan 29, 2006 9:06 AM CST up reply actions

no

i said he came across like that, i didn't call him that.
what does this have to do with you?

by tomas21 on Jan 29, 2006 9:52 AM CST up reply actions

that's just semantics

and actually my coversation was with Al. So what does this have to do with you?

by csb059 on Jan 29, 2006 10:18 AM CST up reply actions

its not

semantics, and it has to do with me because you're talking about me. isn't that obvious?
again, what does it have to do with you??

by tomas21 on Jan 29, 2006 12:24 PM CST up reply actions

actually

tomas, my conversation with Al is about him stating he enforces the community guideines, but in actuality he doesn't. Your recent comments are just a fresh example of how these rules are basically bogus and are apllied at Al whim.

by csb059 on Jan 29, 2006 5:06 PM CST up reply actions

and

it is perfectly fine that these rules are applied at Al's whim, for it is his site. But stating that they are evenly enforced on everyone is humorous and just not true.

by csb059 on Jan 29, 2006 5:09 PM CST up reply actions

I have, in fact...

... enforced them when necessary, and in fact, I specifically asked tomas to stop after he made a specific comment.

Now, saying someone comes across as an "arrogant SOB" isn't exactly nice either.

Can't we all just get along?

by Al Yellon on Jan 29, 2006 7:08 PM CST up reply actions

you're

asking the wrong guy. I didn't state that someone comes across as an arrogant condesending SOB.

by csb059 on Jan 30, 2006 7:11 AM CST up reply actions

which is the same thing as saying

enforced them when necessary

that the rule is your whim. you deem the contingency of necessary; you deem when you will and will not apply the rule.

i don't mind, personally -- i've got thick enough skin to tolerate the stranger types here -- but i think the charade is silly, and your need to give the illusion of law where none exists is somewhat more revealing than you might wish it to be.

by gaius marius on Jan 30, 2006 1:27 PM CST up reply actions

Could this writer

by having said that "more realistic options with the San Diego Padres or Chicago Cubs" that the Phillies after talking ot Piazza, now have Zero intererst? Naming 2 random teams (I don't care what anyone said in this thread prior, but THERE IS ZERO chance that Piazza will end up with the Cubs, fortunantely) would be irresponsible Journalism.

by SoBlueCal on Jan 25, 2006 11:22 PM CST reply actions