Irresponsible Journalism
Check out this ridiculous claim from the Philadelphia Inquirer:
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.
75 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Oops...
:)
by Santos L Halper on Jan 25, 2006 10:27 AM CST reply actions
I did...
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.
All I can possibly...
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!
Plus, we all know what happened the last time the Cubs picked up a FA catcher from the Mets. Let's not go there.
by Dan @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Jan 25, 2006 10:32 AM CST reply actions
Minnesota...
Email this idiot...
by The Boar on Jan 25, 2006 10:38 AM CST reply actions
i love how people
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.
same thought and then I said that was stupid
Pertaining to the Cubs...
by greggie44 on Jan 25, 2006 12:18 PM CST up reply actions
I don't know, but...
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.
The Phillies part...
by greggie44 on Jan 25, 2006 1:00 PM CST up reply actions
wow
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...
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.
really?
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...
it's not the apocalypse
by gaius marius on Jan 26, 2006 7:23 PM CST up reply actions
Couldn't disagree more, Gaius Marius
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...
by KenBrett34 on Jan 25, 2006 2:40 PM CST up reply actions
Probably not, the best phrase, I admit,
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...
by KenBrett34 on Jan 25, 2006 3:57 PM CST up reply actions
Irresponsible Journalism
by mike bornemann @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Jan 25, 2006 10:39 AM CST reply actions
This type of article...
by greggie44 on Jan 25, 2006 11:12 AM CST reply actions
The problem for Piazza is....
This Is Why ...
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
It's worse...
by greggie44 on Jan 25, 2006 11:49 AM CST up reply actions
lamest joke ever
I hope its a joke
Heres a more responsible article about Piazza
by dan the fan on Jan 25, 2006 11:56 AM CST reply actions
lol
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"?
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.
because it *is* faux news
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 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.
Further....
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!)
so do
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
by gaius marius on Jan 26, 2006 9:28 AM CST up reply actions
Piazza...
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Jan 25, 2006 12:41 PM CST reply actions
For the sake of discussion
Gaius
Take a walk or something and work off that bad mood.
by FukudomeAtLarge on Jan 25, 2006 1:01 PM CST reply actions
piazza
by DAKUBS on Jan 25, 2006 1:20 PM CST reply actions
Good one
by greggie44 on Jan 25, 2006 1:41 PM CST up reply actions
Not sure
by csb059 on Jan 27, 2006 7:57 AM CST up reply actions
the couple
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
by TR on Jan 25, 2006 3:21 PM CST reply actions
Here's the article I alluded to over in the diary
For what it's worth...
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.
It's not what he says...
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.
agreed
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.
by gaius marius on Jan 26, 2006 9:35 AM CST up reply actions
That last statement is...
totally disagree
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
and I'm
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
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?
It's
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
what
and
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.
hmm
by priorpwnz on Jan 28, 2006 7:52 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah right
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
try
by csb059 on Jan 29, 2006 9:06 AM CST up reply actions
no
what does this have to do with you?
that's just semantics
by csb059 on Jan 29, 2006 10:18 AM CST up reply actions
its not
again, what does it have to do with you??
actually
by csb059 on Jan 29, 2006 5:06 PM CST up reply actions
and
by csb059 on Jan 29, 2006 5:09 PM CST up reply actions
I have, in fact...
Now, saying someone comes across as an "arrogant SOB" isn't exactly nice either.
Can't we all just get along?
you're
by csb059 on Jan 30, 2006 7:11 AM CST up reply actions
which is the same thing as saying
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 SoBlueCal on Jan 25, 2006 11:22 PM CST reply actions

by 


















