Comments on: Jim Riggleman is Awesome

By: Paul B

Paul B — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:21:20 +0000

I had been thinking, in recent weeks and long losing streak notwithstanding, that it wouldn’t be a bad thing if Riggleman was brought back to manage next year.

I don’t agree with everything he does, but at least he knows what a platoon is and how to use one (unlike McLaren or Hargrove). He’d probably be a neutral-impact manager over the course of the year, which, again, would be an improvement. He also seems less inclined to put up with bad players just because they are veterans.

Stuff like this bruhaha sort of reinforces the thought. Of course, the new GM may decide to bring in someone else, but if not it wouldn’t be the end of the world.

As to who to believe, I’m in the camp with those who side with Riggleman and JJ as opposed to Mr X (especially if Mr X turns out to be the Buffet or the Bus).

By: galaxieboi

galaxieboi — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:06:34 +0000

Oo! Here's my favorite so far. from ESPN: "People takes shots at people in the paper. You get a feeling for who those people are and you try to eliminate those people." (Emphasis mine) I hope this isn't just tough talk. There should be some cracking of skulls over this.

By: JoeM

JoeM — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:48:29 +0000

I definitely have to say that I really like Riggleman at least in comparison to everyone else they’ve paraded around the last few years.

By: scraps

scraps — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:49:05 +0000

NO reporter gives up their sources…ever. If they did, soon they’d have no sources! No?

If you’re talking about anonymous sources, it’s true that if you reveal them you’ll have fewer anonymous sources in the future.

But most stories aren’t anonymously sourced, for damned good reasons, as noted above. I’m not criticizing Baker for refusing to reveal his source; I’m criticizing him for going with this story with nothing but an anonymous source. Once he made that decision, sure, he’s stuck with it.

By: Wolfman

Wolfman — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:32:31 +0000

I don’t understand the Baker animosity either. He’s a good reporter that’s actually quite interesting to listen to as well. NO reporter gives up their sources…ever. If they did, soon they’d have no sources! No?

This whole Mariner fiasco just keeps getting worse and worse. I really hope the rumors are true and the Japanese ownership may be selling. Get rid of Lincoln and Armstrong immediately! After all, the fish rots from the head down!

By: pinball1973

pinball1973 — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:22:21 +0000

I see much more about Riggleman, of whom I expected something pretty lame, coming in as he did and all, than I could ever have expected to like.
If a new FO and a reasonable GM decided to keep him on as manager it wouldn’t either bother or surprise me much at all.

By: JMHawkins

JMHawkins — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 07:58:02 +0000

I won't accuse Baker of making up quotes either, but I will accuse him of stirring the pot and egging on the player(s) who are saying these things. If Baker wasn't willing to provide an anonymous venue for players to trash their teammates, this wouldn't be happening. Anonymous sources are BS. Responsible journalism has no place for anonymous sources of unverified info. Some whistleblower wants to anonymously tell a report that Senator Stickyfingers is taking bribes? Fine. The reporter needs to go find evidence. If he can independantly corroborate the charge with evidence that can be examined by other people, then he can run the story. If all he has in an anonymous source, then all he has is a claim he can't back up. A claim nobody else can validate one way or the other. In short, all he has is BS. All he has is BS.

By: scraps

scraps — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:50:04 +0000

Teej, no offense taken.

By: Teej

Teej — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:39:40 +0000

I’m not accusing Baker of making up quotes.

Didn’t mean to imply that. My bad.

By: scraps

scraps — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:37:13 +0000

I’m not accusing Baker of making up quotes. I’m saying that the identity of the source is crucial to the credibility of the quote. Justifying the use of uncredited sources requires matters of real impact on lives, real danger for sources. Yes, some sports journalism might require anonymous sourcing — an investigation into gambling, say. This is just a matter of team personality conflicts. It is gossip. This is not a case where anonymity is “necessary”.

I very much doubt that Baker would deny he’s responsible for what he writes. Do you think it’s a defense of Baker to imply that he’s a mere conduit? He’s a professional. He is responsible for what he chooses to report, and how.