But, if you look at the timeline, hours had passed and it was already public knowledge what was going on. It's impossible in this day and age of tweets, emails, and texts that both guys didn't know what the other was doing. That probably says a lot more about Jock and Price and their understanding of technology than it says about CTrent.
Bryan Price dropped 77 F-bombs in a 5-minute media session (now with audio!)
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Gagliano said:
Now you know why I hedged my comments with all sorts of squishy language. ("From what I'm able to gather ...")
I checked a few stories being written by the Cincy media, saw on B-Ref that he played 6 games and assumed that the pinch hitting references meant he had done so in the past. Now I know the story I read was just sloppy writing.
Maybe the beat writers are that bad after all ...
Price hadn't yet told the player he was being sent down when the reporter tweeted it. That was the issue for him. I'm guessing the reason it had become public knowledge was because the reporter on the flight tweeted it first. If the reporter isn't on the flight along with the player being called up, it doesn't become public knowledge prematurely.Gagliano said:
.
"We don't need to know that Tucker Barnhart's in the f****** airport when we haven't spoken to Kyle Skipworth. I think we owe that f******* kid the right to be called and told that he's going to be sent down as opposed to reading that Tucker Barnhart is on his way from Louisville."
Yes, that's true. But anyone who understands technology would know that if you tell one guy to start heading to St Louis, you better tell the other guy at the same time. If it's 3AM in the morning, then text him and tell him to call as soon as he wakes up. It's kind of silly to expect the media and even baseball forums to somehow keep this all under wraps until Price makes an announcement.
Price's rage against Rosencrans is what's really audacious. He tells the reporter before the game that despite Mesoraco's injury, he's available for use as a pinch hitter, which was a lie that Rosencrans reports. Then, in a clear situation where Mesoraco would have been useful as a pinch-hitter, he's not used. After the game, Rosencrans asked Price whether he considered using him, and Price says "Uh, no." Not a lie, certainly, but an answer that "certainly doesn't help the Enquirer." Rosencrans then reports that Mesoraco wasn't even with the team, which is both newsworthy and truthful, but also, why the fuck should Rosencrans want to do anything to help out Price when he has just lied to him, causing him to write a steaming pile of bullshit a day earlier?
Price has apologized. He stands by the content of his message, but not the potty mouth aspects.
I have no problem if he wants to be Belichick-like with the media, but there's a way to do it. No one deserves 77 f bombs except, apparently, towing company employees.
I have no problem if he wants to be Belichick-like with the media, but there's a way to do it. No one deserves 77 f bombs except, apparently, towing company employees.
Comfortably Lomb said:
I'm struggling to find a connection between our posts so I have questions. One--what does your post here have to do with Bryan Price thinking it's at least partially a beat reporter's responsibility to keep the Reds' (well, Price's) best interests at heart? What do you mean when you say "traditional" sports media? That just means newspapers, right? Do you think the change in delivery system from newspaper/ radio to TV/ internet really changes the internal dynamic of the relationship that Price was challenging this reporter on? So, since sports media is a "glorified advertising arm of the sporting world," per what I wrote (since you quoted it), how should the beat writer have handled that situation?
Given what we know about this specific interaction, leaving your media hot take aside for a moment, do you really think this beat writer needs a "wake up call"?
There's a relationship in place, and it is not there to make anything easier for Bryan Price. There are moments of discretion a beat reporter should use to preserve that relationship for everyone involved, but at no point is anyone or should anyone be making Bryan Price's job easier or "helping" him--by definition that is not what a reporter is there for, and he was moved to eruption defending the idea that he is there for that. That was my point. Your idea about the waning benefit of "traditional" media to a sports franchise is debatable, but it also has nothing to do with what we're discussing because this isn't some gaze-into-the-horizon moment. Beat reporters are still there because they're still deemed a benefit despite some inconvenience--the nature of the inconvenience is evolving, but that's the relationship and the root of the confrontation. Traditional sports media is not "marching towards oblivion," unless you're defining "traditional" sports media to be the stuff that's dying off. The delivery system is changing, the internal relationship really isn't.
I agree. But it really wasn't the technology, per se, that tripped them up here. It was the chance encounter of the reporter and player being on the same flight. Granted, technology has changed to where things like this get tweeted immediately, but I also know that teams generally don't like to tell players they're being sent down until they have absolutely have to.Gagliano said:
So, in this case, even though the transaction was planned and the player was en route from the Minors, had some other player arrived at the clubhouse four hours before the game that night and revealed he had an injury -- or if someone got hurt warming up pregame or a pitcher throwing a side session developed an injury serious enough for the DL -- then they wouldn't have to send the originally-intended player down. By waiting, it spares the team having to mess with the player's head by telling him, "pack your bags," then having him unpack, or god forbid, he's already left the premises heading back to Louisville, or wherever.
That's always been the mindset, including the Red Sox. 99.9% of the time, it's not an issue. This one was a unique happenstance that caught them off-guard, and Price did a long, slow burn over it.
Yes, it was luck, but it could have happened a hundred other ways too. Let's say a SoSHer was at Logan tomorrow at 5AM and saw Swihart standing there with a ticket to Tampa in his hand. You think that just maybe that might get around the internet in a hurry? And then let's say Sandy Leon gets a text from a friend in Boston asking him why Swihart is on his way to Tampa? Times have changed.
But I have no idea how the Sox handle it. Are both players notified immediately to prevent these things? I know it used to be harder, but at a minimum you would think Farrell would text Leon and say, "Hey Sandy, call me as soon as you get this, ok?"
But I have no idea how the Sox handle it. Are both players notified immediately to prevent these things? I know it used to be harder, but at a minimum you would think Farrell would text Leon and say, "Hey Sandy, call me as soon as you get this, ok?"
I 2007-08, when I saw it firsthand, the technology really wasn't an issue. I don't know if their handling of it has changed.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
DrewDawg said:
Price is under fire primarily for the ham-handed (and that's putting it generously) way he delivered his epic rant, and the complete lack of public grace or ability to handle the media that it revealed. And deservedly so. But if he had, more gently, made a public statement to the effect of, "it hurts the team, and by extension the fans, when reporters don't exercise judgment in reporting on minor / nagging injuries, because it enables our opponents to better plan against us", I think it would have come off fairly well.
To answer your question, I think the line is based on a balancing of "extent to which there is public interest in this fact/story" and "extent to which revealing that fact/story would harm the subject that it is my job to cover as a local sports reporter". The former can overwhelm the latter as a consideration, sure, but there's also only a limited world in which the latter matters - primarily around injuries, extramarital affairs / similar shenanigans, and other such public-embarrassment issues. And in that world, I think most reporters are justifiably cautious about reporting what they hear without a compelling reason to do so.
Price's rant was amusing in a Jim Mora "Playoffs?!" sort of way, and I agree with the thread consensus that it reflects very poorly on his abilities as a manager. But I don't think his underlying point, to the extent that his incoherence framed any sort of point, was all that off-base.
Average Reds said:
I think your POV is well-phrased and I'll buy it. I'll also point out that the real question Price ought to wish reporters would ask themselves isn't "How does this benefit the Reds?" but rather, "does this hurt the Reds?". Because so long as it doesn't hurt the Reds, and the reporter thinks it's interesting or newsworthy, then nobody should give a fuck (much less 77 fucks) whether it benefits the team or not.
To further MDL's point, suppose the beat reporter knows the team's signs for steal, hit and run, etc.; should he/she publish them? By the absolutist statements made by some in this thread, the answer is yes.
A player being unavailable due to injury is news. A team's signs are not news. Thanks for playing.
To further my own point, if I learned the Red Sox's signs, I wouldn't publish them. But I would use my understanding of them to work up a pretty good feature on how signs are created/deployed, which would shed light on the process without revealing the actual signs. And I'd get a nice pat on the back from my bosses until the next news story I got beat on, because I kept it to myself out of some twisted loyalty to the team and not my readers.
To further my own point, if I learned the Red Sox's signs, I wouldn't publish them. But I would use my understanding of them to work up a pretty good feature on how signs are created/deployed, which would shed light on the process without revealing the actual signs. And I'd get a nice pat on the back from my bosses until the next news story I got beat on, because I kept it to myself out of some twisted loyalty to the team and not my readers.
MentalDisabldLst said:
Reporting on the composition and readiness of the roster is probably about 33% of the job description of a local reporter. Billy Hamilton was not in the lineup last week; it's the reporter's job to report on why. Either he was a DNP because he's not playing well, tired, or injured. The public has an interest in knowing which, the reporter has a right to report which, and the manager has no reason to discourage it but for some vague nonsense that it hurts the team that the opponent knows (what most already knew) that Hamilton was nursing a sore finger.
We're not talking about reporting troop movements here; every team has reporters who do the same things the Reds' reporters do, which includes letting the team's fans know what a player's injury status is. If Billy Hamilton (or Bryan Price) told Rosencrans or another reporter off the record that his finger was sore, and that was the only way he knew about it, then Price would have a legitimate gripe when the reporter printed it. But that's not alleged to have happened here. Getting pissed when someone reports an accurate fact about why a player is out of the lineup is Crazytown. And so is getting pissed that a reporter writes a story about a player not even being with the team. After you lied to that reporter's face.
INTERIOR - Cincinnati Enquirer Newsroom
Editor: Rosencrans, were you in the locker room the other day?
Rosencrans: Yeah, why?
Editor: Was Joe from the Herald there?
Rosencrans: Yeah.
Editor: Was Garber from Redleg Nation there?
Rosencrans: Yeah, boss, everybody was there. Why?
Editor: I already knew that. You know how I knew?
Rosencrans: No, how?
Editor: Because they all reported that Mesoraco's locker was unoccupied. Why didn't you?
Rosencrans: Well, uh, because the Reds (soon-to-be-ex) Manager thinks that kind of stuff puts the team at a competitive disadvantage. Plus, he told me that Mesoraco was available, so I didn't want to embarrass him.
Editor: Yeah, well the next time you don't report something like that, you'll beat him out the door.
SCENE.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Forgive me WBV if I don't take on faith your assertion that when the team's interests and the local reporters' interests collide, in a long-term cohabitation situation like a baseball beat, that the reporter always sides with the interests of the newsroom over the team.
I'm perfectly willing to take Buffalo Head's assertion on that, though, since he lived it. BH, which of the following would you publish if you learned them as a beat reporter:
1. The team's 3rd baseman's wife is in the hospital
2. The team's 3rd baseman is cheating on his wife
3. The team's 3rd baseman is unavailable because of a court appearance in which he is not a suspect
4. The team's 3rd baseman has a pulled calf that doesn't prevent him playing, but means he's unlikely to field bunts cleanly
5. The opposing team's 3rd baseman has a pulled calf that doesn't prevent him playing, but means he's unlikely to field bunts cleanly
6. The team's young backup catcher is getting sent down for 2 weeks, nominally because he hasn't been hitting, but really because he went on an all-night bender and wasn't in game shape and they're punishing him for unprofessional behavior
7. The next day's starting pitcher has been unable to throw his changeup for a strike and the pitching coaches have told him not to throw it
I'm perfectly willing to take Buffalo Head's assertion on that, though, since he lived it. BH, which of the following would you publish if you learned them as a beat reporter:
1. The team's 3rd baseman's wife is in the hospital
2. The team's 3rd baseman is cheating on his wife
3. The team's 3rd baseman is unavailable because of a court appearance in which he is not a suspect
4. The team's 3rd baseman has a pulled calf that doesn't prevent him playing, but means he's unlikely to field bunts cleanly
5. The opposing team's 3rd baseman has a pulled calf that doesn't prevent him playing, but means he's unlikely to field bunts cleanly
6. The team's young backup catcher is getting sent down for 2 weeks, nominally because he hasn't been hitting, but really because he went on an all-night bender and wasn't in game shape and they're punishing him for unprofessional behavior
7. The next day's starting pitcher has been unable to throw his changeup for a strike and the pitching coaches have told him not to throw it
Yeah, we're talking about whether an injured baseball player was in the park and available to play. This isn't revealing the plans for Normandy. Coaches are insane, control freaks.
And honestly, the "point" here is that it is completely unacceptable for a front office employee of a franchise to unleash a tirade like that. If it came from anyone other than the manager in a press conference setting the person would be fired by now.
And honestly, the "point" here is that it is completely unacceptable for a front office employee of a franchise to unleash a tirade like that. If it came from anyone other than the manager in a press conference setting the person would be fired by now.
Why pretend about a hypothetical situation in which a reporter might sit on something as evidence that the manager was justified in believing he should have done so in a situation that isn't hypothetical, and in which we actually have the facts, and in which the manager is so badly and obviously incorrect in his impression of what the prime goal of a beat reporter is? Who cares if the rule isn't without exception? We're very obviously not in one of the exceptions, and the manager is incorrectly stating the rule in the first place.
MakMan44 said:
Perhaps if you think the other catcher is available, you don't bring in a specific reliever because they can PH for one catcher and throw the other one in the game. If you know that other catcher is at home eating Cheetos, you realize that may not be possible.
I know you have plenty of baseball knowledge Mak--you're not saying that knowing who is and is not available for the opposition is not important are you?
Rosencrans isn't embedded with the Army in Kabul, he's with the Reds in Cincinnati. Shame on Price if he thought that he could get something so obvious past the guys that are with the team every day. It's the writer's job to ask these exact questions. That's what they get paid by the news outlet to do. They do not get paid by the Reds at all. Again, they have no allegiance to the Reds and they shouldn't have any allegiance to the team that they're covering. For Price not to understand that, that says way more about him than Rosencrans.
You never answered the question.
It's worthy of repeating that Rosencrans didn't report that Mesoraco wasn't there until after the game.
The Reds had already said his hip was bothering him and was day to day, and hadn't played for a week. He wasn't visible in the dugout or during bp. The Cardinals knew he wasn't in the park, and they knew Mes wasn't going to come running out of the clubhouse in the 9th to win the game. It baffles me why Price had a cow over this, but it probably had a lot to do with losing five straight after starting 4-0.DrewDawg said:
Sorry, I meant more along the lines of knowing it the day before hand. You're going to find all this out on the day of the game anyway.DrewDawg said:
I guess theoretically, there's the chance that you could call up a reliever or someone else if you know their starting catcher isn't going to come in late. Feels really unlikely to me.
EDIT: Actually that wasn't your point. I still think any good manager is going to figure out during the game that a particular player in/isn't the park, but yeah, you're right, there's some advantage to knowing that the day before.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
What Price doesn't understand could fill many volumes, clearly. Not arguing that.
That aside, I think our difference of opinion comes down to how much you think a reporter ought to consider preserving his long-term relationship with his #1 source when it comes to reporting on something. This isn't business journalism, there's not always going to be another company, another CEO out there... this is the one team he's got. If he can run Price out of town, great, but if he can't, he's made an enemy. If sports reporting was less chummy, it'd probably look more like the White House Correspondents pool, with managers acting like glorified press secretaries giving non-answers all the time and stonewalling behind the scenes too. But in the current system, the likes of Rosencranz probably get more (and better) info by respecting a manager's wishes a majority of the time on what not to report.
I can see your side of it, too, I just think a smart beat reporter will be more choosy about this stuff in general. Maybe in this specific case with Mesoraco, that's an absurd ask because Rosencranz had already been Guildenstern'd (that one's for you, Monbo). I realize this isn't Nam - there are rules! - and there's no, like, moral reason to not report on this stuff. I just think it's bad business for the beat reporters to do so.
Well, perhaps if this managing thing doesn't work out for Pryce he can land a role in a Planes, Trains and Automobiles sequel...
MentalDisabldLst said:
Was just curious what you're basing the first statement on, and from what experience you're drawing your ideas regarding smart beat reporter dos and don'ts.
The fact is, no one would be so dumb as to suggest a beat reporter shouldn't be judicious on occasion with the way he treats the relationship with those he's covering. None of that is relevant to the actual meat of the story, which is that Bryan Price had a meltdown because he's under the mistaken impression that the beat reporter has some obligation to him in that instance, which he does not.
I've personally never been a beat reporter, so I know I have no way of knowing whether one is going to get more info by respecting a manager's wishes a majority of the time, or whether a smart beat reporter would do this or that. So, since that's out the window, better to focus instead on what I do know--that Bryan Price is one of a very short line of guys who couldn't stomach the inconvenience he's expected to deal with, to the point of a meltdown, and that it was driven by his incorrect view that a disagreement on the results of that expected judicious nature would warrant a response like he gave.
This is a fun collection of baseball communication skills.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/apr/22/the-joy-of-six-baseball-managers-gone-wild
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/apr/22/the-joy-of-six-baseball-managers-gone-wild
This is reinforced by the fact that Elia was ranting to protect his players instead of bitching about how reporters doing their jobs make his job harder.Buffalo Head said:
Elia's rant is like watching Ali in his prime.
This wouldn't be an issue if every beat writer would just follow the noble lead of SoSH's beloved Globe scribe, Nick Cafardo, the king emeritus of passive team coverage.
We've found out over the last 50 years, that Rock Hudson and many other Hollywood celebrities weren't exactly keeping their private lives sealed tight like we'd thought.
Hollywood gossip columnists knew far more than they ever reported, because they knew it could damage someone's career. Homsexuality, Affairs, Drugs, etc .
Now, some didn't give up that info for free, when a writer would have an article ready to go to press, the subgect's agent would offer up details on a lesser star to keep them from running the story.
I'm not saying blabbing about a bench with a bat short is equivalent to outing someone, but there comes a time when a writer needs to know when to shut the hell up and not tweet every god damn tidbit that pops up on their iphone.
And said writer may not get a scoop from the team the next time
Hollywood gossip columnists knew far more than they ever reported, because they knew it could damage someone's career. Homsexuality, Affairs, Drugs, etc .
Now, some didn't give up that info for free, when a writer would have an article ready to go to press, the subgect's agent would offer up details on a lesser star to keep them from running the story.
I'm not saying blabbing about a bench with a bat short is equivalent to outing someone, but there comes a time when a writer needs to know when to shut the hell up and not tweet every god damn tidbit that pops up on their iphone.
And said writer may not get a scoop from the team the next time
hbk72777 said:
This may be the most dishonest garbage in this thread.
- If you are not making the comparison - and I agree that you shouldn't, because it's preposterous and offensive on its face - your analogy is worthless.
- This situation has nothing to do with blabbing about a short bench or tweeting "every god damn tidbit that pops up on their iphone."
To the extent that Price has a managing job for much longer, I suspect that he's about to understand that he just made his job exponentially harder.
Not quite the point of this thread, but I can understand the frustration of the manager (or head coach, or whomever) with reporters and media types. I say this as someone once in the media. They know reporters have jobs to do. But nobody - and I mean NOBODY - likes it when YOUR job makes MY job harder. Nobody likes it when someone else's job means more headaches for you doing yours.
There is also, in my mind, a difference between people who are beat reporters and guys like CHB. There do seem to be people in the media who have a sole purpose of undercutting your team, of working against you, etc. I imagine it's hard to want to treat those guys well.
Just imagine you at your job, and there's someone there every day asking you questions about your job, writing stories about how you do, but who always seem to take a negative angle on you and your work. I don't know how you're expected to play nice with folks like that.
Again, not the exact situation here, but I bet for some people who run sports teams, it's hard to separate the various media types.
There is also, in my mind, a difference between people who are beat reporters and guys like CHB. There do seem to be people in the media who have a sole purpose of undercutting your team, of working against you, etc. I imagine it's hard to want to treat those guys well.
Just imagine you at your job, and there's someone there every day asking you questions about your job, writing stories about how you do, but who always seem to take a negative angle on you and your work. I don't know how you're expected to play nice with folks like that.
Again, not the exact situation here, but I bet for some people who run sports teams, it's hard to separate the various media types.
ivanvamp said:
The indisputable fact that the media sucks does not change the fact that dealing with the media is a very important part of a manager's job.
No one is claiming this is easy, but these dynamics have been in place for what? 100 years or more? It's baffling that Price is mystified by it.
Average Reds said:
Oh I get it, believe me. It's part of the deal and he obviously was WAAAAAAY out of line. There are obviously much better ways of handling the media than that. Though for us fans, this is far more entertaining.
EDIT: And the dynamics have changed some, with twitter, etc. When all that existed was newspapers, a manager generally had time to talk to a player before a story came out in the next morning's edition. Now a player is far more likely to hear about something pertaining to himself before a manager gets to talk to him than ever before. And that has to rankle a manager/coach. Though you're largely right.
MuzzyField said:
This is dead-on. I empathize with all the complaints about the media, used to read Fire Joe Morgan religiously and love to goof on Cafardo in the Cafardo-is-awful thread just like everyone else.
But nobody in a money-making sports institution has the right to complain about any media coverage ever. Till the end of time. (Okay, if you want to imagine a scenario where a columnist calls for a student's athletic scholarship to be revoked because he missed a field goal or something, but aside from something that ventures into egregious and inappropriately personal ...)
Professional and big-time college sports programs get the equivalent of free multipage advertising EVERY SINGLE DAY in the local paper for example (or fill in the blank with TV, internet, social media etc.). Remove this relationship with the Cincinnati Enquirer for the past half-century and Bryan Price would be making about $40,000 a year and working a side job in the winters.
If looking at this from a lens of a non-public work environment, one would hope their manager would fight to keep private their health and personal issues private.
It's a small sample size (courtesy the 2 win Brewers), but the Reds are now in the midst of a 3 game winning streak and are back above .500.
The tirade may appear to be a disaster, but it will be interesting to see how the players respond positively on the field, as some of them may see his actions as vigorously defending them. Obviously there are a lot of other considerations, but I would suggest folks like working for someone who is willing to put up a fight for them.
It's a small sample size (courtesy the 2 win Brewers), but the Reds are now in the midst of a 3 game winning streak and are back above .500.
The tirade may appear to be a disaster, but it will be interesting to see how the players respond positively on the field, as some of them may see his actions as vigorously defending them. Obviously there are a lot of other considerations, but I would suggest folks like working for someone who is willing to put up a fight for them.
Thank you...figures that the quick Google view I pulled up truncated that part! Perhaps I should go into a profanity laden tirade now.Gagliano said: