The Lueke Situation
I generally prefer to stay away from gossip. I’m not an investigative journalist, and we’re not here to try and dig stuff up. But, given what has come out in the last few weeks, and given Carmen Fusco’s firing today, this is something I feel compelled to write about. And yet, I don’t necessarily feel qualified to do so. I generally write from a place where I believe I have some steady ground to stand on. I like the evidence to be on my side, and I like to be able to point to facts to support my opinions. On this issue, those are unfortunately few and far between. Here is a timeline of what we know to be factually true about the Josh Lueke acquisition.
July 10th – The Mariners traded Cliff Lee to the Texas Rangers for Justin Smoak, Blake Beavan, Josh Lueke, and Matt Lawson.
That’s it. That’s the entirety of what we know. We don’t know what happened leading up to the deal being completed, and we don’t know what happened after the trade was completed.
What we do have are public comments from people, all of whom have their own agendas, that we can choose to place degrees of trust in or not. I’m going to try not to tell you who to trust and who not to trust, because I don’t know who is telling the truth. Neither do you. We can make guesses, but that’s all they are, and we need to realize that. Among the quotes that we can choose to put stock in, we have the following, all courtesy of Geoff Baker:
July 11th
Chuck Armstrong tells The Seattle Times that he was “not aware” of Lueke’s legal problems before the trade was completed.
In the same article, Jack Zduriencik says: “We had a degree of information and we have flown Josh in for a face-to-face. We were satisfied with the interview and it’s an issue that’s behind us”
September 1st
Rick Adair tells The Seattle Times that he told Jack Zduriencik everything he knew from his time in Texas: “”I told him everything I knew about every prospect I was asked about, including Lueke, including any court case.”
Chuck Armstrong, on whether he ordered Zduriencik to send Lueke back to Texas: “We tried that on Friday night, but then, on Saturday morning, the Rangers said, ‘No, we’ve already notified the players. The deal stands as is.’ ”
Jon Daniels, on whether that statement is true: “We offered several times to reacquire Lueke in a separate transaction — an offer originally made the same night the deal was announced. That offer stands.”
Jack Zduriencik, on Lueke’s future in Seattle: “He’s part of our organization, he understands our policies, he understands that there’s a short leash … and believe me, we do not take it lightly. I think he understands that from us and here we are. We’re moving forward and he’s pitching for us.”
Obviously, some of those statements are mutually exclusive. You can’t believe everyone is telling the truth, since their statements conflict. There are half-truths and potentially even outright lies in there somewhere. How do we identify which statements to believe? There’s no magic formula – we can’t sick Jack Bauer on these guys and extract a confession. The best thing we can do is use common sense and understand the limitations of our knowledge, refraining from drawing conclusions that outstrip what we can know.
Let’s put the story that has gained traction in the last few weeks to the common sense test first.
The Mariners didn’t know about Josh Lueke’s past issues and found out about the true extent only after the deal was completed. At that point, the Rangers wouldn’t take Lueke back as the deal was done.
That wouldn’t be how they would phrase it, of course, but that’s essentially the story that is most often repeated, and it’s somewhat pushed forward by the company line that is being peddled by the organization. Does any of that make sense logically, though? In order to believe that story, you’d have to believe that the Mariners knew less about a player that they were trading for than I did. Forget the ridiculous “they didn’t google him” thing that has somehow become part of the narrative – there was no googling required. Josh Lueke’s history was, as Rick Adair stated, common knowledge among anyone who followed the Texas Rangers or the minor leagues with any kind of diligence. Jay Yencich, in his post reviewing the prospects the Mariners received – this was published on our blog within an hour of the deal being finalized, by the way – talked about Lueke’s history.
It would take a ridiculous leap that is beyond reason to believe that the Mariners were unaware of Lueke’s past. Did they know everything about the situation and what happened? Maybe, maybe not. Did the people who knew communicate well enough to the upper management? Maybe, maybe not. We don’t know the full extent of what they knew and when, but it is outside of the realm of common sense to believe that the front office – one that had been negotiating with Texas for several weeks – did not know about Josh Lueke’s past. I think we can essentially reject the notion of ignorance as just overly implausible.
So, why does the company line push forward this notion? It could be because its the one that someone in the organization decided would appease sponsors and allow the team to try to treat it as a finished story and one that they could move on from, with Josh Lueke remaining in the organization. Both of Jack’s quotes above, as well as the fact that the Mariners haven’t taken the Rangers up on their public standing offer to take Lueke back (assuming that Daniels is telling the truth on that), point to the Mariners wanting Lueke in the organization. Somewhere, the decision was apparently made that they would rather have Lueke than not, baggage and all. There is nothing forcing them to keep him around. If he was seen by the management of this club as a bigger liability than an asset, he wouldn’t be closing for the Tacoma Rainiers in the PCL championship series.
I don’t know who made that call, when it happened, or who all was involved in the conversation. But, I think we can look at fact that they traded for Lueke, and that he’s still in the organization, and make some assumptions about how the organization views the respective costs and benefits of employing him. And, since those calculations have been made, it doesn’t take much of a leap to believe that those calculations were probably made before the deal was consummated. Do we know that? No, but it makes the most sense, right? Could I be wrong? Of course. But, gun to my head, that’s my interpretation, based on what appears to be common sense to me.
So, that brings us to yesterday, and Carmen Fusco’s firing. How does that fit into all of this? We don’t really have any additional facts to go off of. It certainly seems suspicious that Fusco loses his job a few weeks after the Times story comes out. As Larry Stone noted today, Jack and Carmen go back a long, long way, and their friendship extends outside of the game. The safe assumption is that Jack did not fire his long time friend. I have a hard time buying any explanation of the move other than upper management deciding that someone had to get fired because of how this has played out, and Carmen Fusco was the unlucky fall guy. I don’t know that to be true, but it’s the only explanation that makes sense to me. If you want to punish the GM for how this was handled without actually firing him, making Fusco the fall guy is probably the most severe action they could have taken.
There’s no doubt that this situation has been handled poorly all the way around. The M’s screwed up, plain and simple, and they’ve perpetuated the mistake with public comments that could best be described as cryptic and unsatisfying. The organization deserves to take heat for the debacle that this has become. I would guess that, given a chance for a do-over, they’d go back and take the Yankees package. Acquiring Lueke set off a series of events that they didn’t see coming (presumably – if they knew this would happen and went through with it anyway, they’re insane), and they should have seen a good deal of this coming. You can’t acquire a guy with who plead no contest to a terrible crime and hope no one notices.
We can argue about whether they should have been willing to acquire Lueke in the first place. I don’t know where I stand on that, honestly. And, really, that’s another issue, even though its connected to this one. This story is about what the M’s knew and what they’re being honest about. The organization’s lack of transparency has been disappointing, and it’s a big black mark on everyone involved. This whole thing is, quite simply, an organizational failure. It probably cost Carmen Fusco his job. It might cost more people their jobs before this thing is over with. It might cost Jack Zduriencik his job. He’s done a lot of good things since he’s gotten here, but this is clearly not one of them. I think he’d admit that. Mistakes were made. Pretty big ones, at that.
But, at the end of the day, we don’t really know what exactly went on. We weren’t there, and the only thing we have are statements made in self interest. So, we can speculate, but we have to acknowledge that’s all it is. Beware of conclusive statements – there simply isn’t enough in the public arena to build a foundation that would support dogmatic claims. It’s up to you who and what you want to believe. It’s up to you whether you want to root for Josh Lueke, or an organization that employs him. You can make your own choices about who is credible and what statements pass the smell test. I’ve got my theories, but that’s all they are. That’s all any of us have.
I can’t believe some people are trying to pin this on Geoff Baker! That’s ludicrous – it makes about as much sense as those folks who blamed Abu Graib not on the guards but on the reporters who broke the story. (No, the “crime” isn’t remotely comparable but the lack of logic certainly is)
Baker is doing his job. Whether or not you hate his take on the team, on what they need to do to fix the team, etc. – he’s doing what he’s paid to do, and frankly I think he’s doing a good job with regard to this story.
The Mariners ownership, over the years, (I think) has shown a strong interest in the character of its players. It’s especially tried to stand against violence against women, which unfortunately is an issue that comes up too frequently with many young, talented, yet immature (or socially mal-developed) professional athletes. I don’t know what the truth is regarding this particular story, but as others are saying it’s pretty obvious the end issue is the team sees Lueke as a special talent, and unfortunately he’s also been a person of problematic character (an understatement) – and the team can’t figure out how to handle this dichotomy, especially given that he’s met the legal requirement regarding punishment for his crime.
Unfortunately I can’t make up my mind which way I think on this issue. I’d need to know more regarding what’s happened with Lueke post-crime – does he seem remorseful? Has he been in counseling? Etc. etc…
Am I the only one here who *wants* to see Lueke pitch for the Mariners? In the two TV games I saw him pitch for Tacoma, he was outstanding. I compare him to J.J. Putz when he pitched for Tacoma, except that Lueke has a better breaking ball, with more separation in velocity from the fastball.
The fastball is 95-97, with plenty of movement, and small sample size notwithstanding, Lueke threw about 5-1 strikes to balls in the one- and two-inning stints I watched.
I don’t minimize what he did, but I also remember that this is the team (and yes, Armstrong was here then) that traded for Al Martin, whose history with women wasn’t exemplary either.
I applaud that Jack Z. will take a chance on players with less than squeaky-clean pasts (Ian Snell, Milton Bradley), and I’d like to see this guy get a chance, too. The history of major league baseball is replete with offenders who got a second chance and made the most of it.
Tek, thanks for the laugh.
I’m still waiting for an explanation on why Chone Figgins was never disciplined. Here’s some food for thought from an October 25th, 2008 Larry Stone article in the Seattle Times (via Wikipedia) quoting Jack Zduriencik:
“I’d love to have guys with good makeup and good character, committed to the city and the ballclub. But when all is said and done, talent wins.”
I believe the M’s knew about and looked past the issue with Lueke. They saw a guy who could slide right in Mark Lowe’s spot. He has been and continues to be lights out at the minor league level.
It’s not an excuse and doesn’t make it right but I think they thought his potential outweighed the risk of the bad PR.
One thing we know is….this FO remains incompetent.
It’s a case of “it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission” coming back to nip Jack in the rear.
I think the guy spent weeks orchestrating the best possible baseball deal for an asset everyone knew would be traded—suffering the Griffey fallout all the while—and didn’t want Chuck Armstrong’s non-baseball sensibilities to get in the way. Jack either downplayed the information he had or was ignorant about its significance.
(Funny thing, though. As long as Jack and Lueke are employed by the Mariners, “forgiveness” is still on the table.)
That’s my theory. Although the Ichiro thing sounds plausible.
ivan,
I totally agree. I want to see him pitch in a Mariner uniform. He has electric stuff and can really help the bullpen for the next few years.
The unfortunate part is after this mess, and a rebuilding year next year, I am willing to bet they let Z go by 2012, just when it will get interesting and all the talent he acquired is MLB ready.
A very frustrating situation to a very frustrating year. In a year when many of us had such high hopes this is just some more salt in the wound. I would be quite upset if Z looses his job after the season even though I think he didn’t handle this situation very well.
I don’t know how transparent baseball front offices are throughout the rest of the league, but I too wish that this FO was more transparent in how things were run this year. From Griffey to Figgins to Wak to this, it seems that the fans were simply expected to believe in the club without much to go with.
A while back after Wak was fired, Buster Olney stated that many people in the M’s scouting were looking to jump ship because they didn’t like the direction of the club. Do you think this was in anyway related?
Except for a catastrophic injury to one core guys, this has really been the worst case scenario for the team this year. It cannot end fast enough.
greski,
I don’t see it related. I think this is mainly about the Leuke situation and that they needed a fall guy. Case closed. (No Aardsma jokes please)
Is it time to change “In Z We Trust” to “In Z We Trusted”?
One could completely believe that the GM in this case was Bavasi and not Jack.
First off, Geoff Baker is doing exactly what he gets paid to do. A big story falls right into his lap, is he supposed to ignore it? Baker wrote that article a few days after Rick Adair made his public comments. So Baker wasn’t just bringing this up for the sake of blog hits, he had new information that contradicted the original story of the M’s.
[let’s not go there]
This isn’t excusing, in any way Luekes’ actions, merely saying he deserves a second chance. He faced the justice system, even pled “no-contest” and served his short sentence. He should be allowed to resume his life, and career.
Yes, Baker is doing what he is supposed to do. He is doing his job. But don’t get it twisted. He is definitely a trouble maker and starting all of this. You cannot deny that.
Lubin_cubin
I don’t particularly like Geoff Baker, but to say Baker started all of this is wrong and delusional. Lueke started this with his actions. Jack Z perpetuated the problem with insufficient research, and/or transparency. Baker compiled conflicting public statements and posted it online. Exactly where did Baker start the problem when he had no part in the court case, or in acquiring Lueke without due diligence?
Good post, Dave, and one that echoes many of my thoughts on this. Random observations/reactions to the thread:
* The quotes have enough wiggle room between the lines so that everybody could be telling a mostly true version of their “truth.” Most telling is that Armstrong talks about the deal being done, and Jon Daniels has only ever talked about being willing to do a *separate* transaction, and never says what Texas has offered or would be willing to offer. Of course, this puts the Mariners’ credibility on domestic abuse issues squarely in the crosshairs, as their reaction to (what I presume would be) a lowball offer from Daniels will surely be viewed as valuing baseball talent over their public pronouncements on issues of abuse towards women.
I’m not sure I disagree with them, though. Mistakes were certainly made, but once made, are we supposed to just give a talented player away for a bag of balls? What would those who say the Mariners value issues of character and PR over winning say then (and how would they be wrong)? Like spankystout, I also do not want to be an apologist for rapists and those who do stupid, abusive things, but this is a young man who has by all accounts been accountable (legally) for what he did and has behaved well since. I also know enough about the legal system to know that we shouldn’t assume we know everything about Lueke’s culpability, either. There’s a long way between what he was charged with and what he pleaded no contest to for there NOT to have been some significant problems with the case against him. We should all be more circumspect about judging ALL of the actors in this drama.
I am willing to give him a second chance – I just wish the Mariners would say that is what they are doing, and take the chance to spin this story in a *somewhat* positive direction instead of letting it spin hopeless out of control, much to the detriment of not only the team but the chances for Josh Lueke to ever move on and try to right himself.
* Even though it is possible that everybody is telling a version of the truth, I don’t see how that excuses anybody for messing this up. Chuck Armstrong’s job is to know this stuff (as it is Jack’s, but I think to a lesser extent – his responsibility is more the baseball side of the equation), and if even what Chuck says Jack *did* tell him is true, that should have raised enough of a red flag that he should have done some of his own research.
* I agree with those who say there may be reasons unrelated to Lueke that contributed to Fusco’s firing, but in the end, Dave’s scenario about Fusco being sacrificed as a way of punishing Jack short of firing him over this Lueke fiasco makes sense to me as the most logical, primary factor.
* Like Ivan, I am anxious to see Lueke pitch here. He will pitch in the Majors for somebody – he’s pretty damn good. I am under no illusions that the players I root for are all saints.
* I really don’t understand those who want to blame Baker for doing his job. Frankly, his front-page expose struck me as a bit of old news, but the fact we’re all still talking about the issue tells me that’s more about how little I know about journalism.
The best thing the Mariners could do is to forthrightly address this issue, admit their mistakes in not doing more homework, and then say that they think it is best for both the team and the young man involved to move forward. Announce that he will be involved (continue?) with counseling to make sure things like what he got involved with don’t happen again. If they go forward with the program they were pitching for the Pepsi thing, have Lueke be involved in that, as a way to explain how he could have gotten involved in a bad situation and what he has learned to avoid repeating those mistakes. Try to give the kid a chance to be something OTHER than the demon in this story – even if his actions are certainly worth demonizing.
Yes, I can.
He’s doing his job; the pieces were pretty much out in the open for anyone to pick up.
Yeah, that’s what irritates me about this. It’s terible management behavior which reinforces the appearance of a micromanaging upper brass who are not that good at either baseball or corporate business practices. I could think of a couple alternate behaviors that are more effective at both baseball and corporate values. And provided a positive spin for the player involved (this behavior is letting Lueke twist in the wind as well).
Yes but what I think people are arguing is he is all about turmoil and wants negative stories about the Mariners. That is my point.
What’s newsworthy? What is PROVEN that people want to read about or see on TV? Turmoil and negative stories. Everyone says they want to see positive stories, but NOBODY actually watches or reads them.
Ergo, Baker is doing his job. He is not a troublemaker.
(And, moreover, if the Mariner management had the common sense of a wet noodle, they STILL could have defused the whole situation after Baker published his piece).
Lueke definitely deserves a second chance, although he does need to walk a tight line.
You look throughout sports, and what do you see? A number of 20-something males making stupid, reprehensible decisions, and then receiving second and third tries.
Ben Roethlisberger, who has been accused of sexual misconduct twice.
Josh Hamilton, a one-time heroin addict.
Michael Vick, who killed dogs for shits, giggles and cash.
Lueke can be reclaimed. He’s going to have a job in somebody’s bullpen. If he can behave, then he learned his lesson and deserves a second chance, then why doesn’t he deserve that second chance with the Mariners?
The team employs 20-something males. What do they expect?
I think most people on USSM realize Baker isn’t the best reporter. He does write a lot
of garbage meant to create buzz. But he hasn’t done that in this case. Always remember lubin_Cuban “don’t shoot the messenger.”
My question is…why is this inconsistent with the Mariners’ work in preventing domestic violence?
If they get rid of Jack Z, I would be willing to bet our attendance takes a hit.
I agree, this was most likely the problem. Whether JZ withheld info intentionally or didn’t pass on the weighty details only because he didn’t realize how big a deal it would be to his superiors, I think that was the communications issue. Additionally, perhaps Adair wasn’t as explicit as he thinks he was. Lastly, JZ might not listen well when told of character issues.
As for the kid and his crime, I detest what he did, but I tend to want to give him a second chance, albeit on a short leash.
G-Man, obviously there were communications issues enough to go around (two or three times), but isn’t it one of the known bits of reporting that Jack told Armstrong essentially what Daniels (misleadingly) told him? That there had been an incident with a woman in a bar, and that he had been “acquitted” or exonerated, or something like that?
Jack’s job is to get the best baseball deal he can. Chuck’s job is to deal with the community, and to set policy (as he did in the wake of Julio Mateo’s domestic violence arrest), and to make sure the team is comfortable that the baseball deals brought to them to approve are consistent with their stated policies. If you were in Chuck’s shoes, and Jack said what he reportedly said to Chuck to you, wouldn’t you check it out more thoroughly, or at least ask Jack to very specifically do A,B,C and report back to you before approving the deal?
It is hard for me to see how Armstrong is not equally, if not more, culpable than GMZ for not checking into Lueke’s background more than he did.
Its hard for me to believe the M’s didn’t fully research Lueke. Didn’t the Yankee Montero deal fall apart because a sprained ankle to the 3rd or 4th piece in the deal? If the M’s researched a sprained ankle so much that an elite bat was turned down– you would think they would follow up on an arrest, and 40 days in prison with equal scrutiny, and effort.
Maybe Jon Daniels called Jack Z and said “I will give you Smoak and….” Jack Z didn’t bother hearing the rest? 🙂
Thank you Dave.
From a publicity standpoint, Lueke was a time bomb, but I am not entirely convinced that he was acquired as a keeper.
After keeping his nose clean in the Seattle organization and pitching well, Lueke may have regained much of the baseball value that was lost in the wake of the crime. If this short term risk paid off, a troubled kid could have a shot at redemption in another organization, and our farm system would be rewarded with a good prospect in return.
Instead of that being a possible outcome in a low key way, the front office has a huge fallout that gets solid baseball folks like Carmen Fusco fired.
Chuck Armstrong showed his true colors at the outset. “Not aware” is a threadbare cliche from the old plausible deniability school of management.
Perhaps the top brass were exhausted by weeks of rumors, speculation and near deals for Cliff Lee? Were they dozing in meetings and signing off on things without reading them all the way through? I think that the information about Lueke was shared all the way to the top. Whether anyone was actually paying attention is the million dollar question.
I still trust Jack Zduriencik, but my doubts about his bosses cannot be measured.
I think that fact mostly says that you, like most readers of this blog, will usually be ahead of the general public on Mariner news of any kind. And it presents issues that average newspaper readers will see as new or have rarely encountered before, whereas most of us are more familiar with the situations that have tainted the character of other prospects before. We already know how we feel about the scenario, or can more easily work it out for ourselves. (That also makes us more set in our views, and may contribute to some of the occasional intransigence expressed as well.)
Why don’t we just let Lueke close next year, he’ll get 35 saves, and then some dumb team that overvalues saves can trade us an elite switch-hitting catching prospect for him?
The big issue here is the timing of the firing. Even if it is due to a confluence of events, paired with the leaked (written in bush league, petty language) letter to the staff, it looks reactionary and makes the management seem like basket cases. This kind of thing blows over, everyone knows it but the people running the Mariners.
At this point, how can we believe that when it comes to PR, management is anything but obsessive over-reactors. Seriously, they need to go work for Disney. Thick skin? Yeah, right.
I hope they don’t sacrifice the positive progression of the team due to this screw-up.
I have a number of questions.
First, I don’t know if it’s the Commissioner’s office or the Rangers organization that had the opportunity at the time, but was there baseball discipline of Lueke above and beyond his criminal sentence? I can’t see how the Mariners could possibly impose discipline on him for something that happened when he was in someone else’s employ, but I’d like to know if there was something done at the time (and if not, why not?).
Second, I think it’s entirely hypocritical to allow him to pitch in a Diamond Jaxx or a Rainiers uniform and somehow think that doesn’t have the same impact on the organization as if he pitched in a Mariners uniform. He represents the organization in any of those capacities. So the bird has flown the coop on this one.
Third, I am with those who believe in giving a second chance to persons who work to earn it. I’ve been critical of NFL Commissioner Goodell lowering the penalties for Ben Roethlisberger after a couple months of not raping anyone, as though that indicated any form of contrition or meaningfully changed behavior, but Lueke is far enough from his crime, and has served his sentence, so that the idea of taking away his livelihood over it for good seems wrong. His leash should be short for the rest of his career, indeed his life, but he can do things that demonstrate remorse, learning and maturity. That doesn’t mean he will–I know nothing about his personality–but I don’t think employing someone who committed such a crime, when appropriately punished and appropriately chastened, is inconsistent with the M’s stand on domestic violence. People who have been through something can be appropriate spokespeople to help others avoid their mistakes. That doesn’t mean that’s that’s the right thing for Lueke (again, I have no idea about him personally) or the Mariners, but it’s a potential way to make this better.
Firing Carmen Fusco, before the season is over, apparently because the news leaked, is another sign of meaningless moves and lack of direction this team has had since they fired Alan Cockrell. Firing Rick Adair at the same time as Wak was another instance. Their problems go far deeper than whatever happened in the trade that included Lueke.
There’s no reason the Mariners couldn’t have then shopped Lueke to any other team if they wanted to.
Wow, thanks for going way overboard and misrepresenting my point.
My problem with Baker is not that he “reports news”. It’s that he obviously often tries to create bad news and exacerbate problems in the clubhouse. His actions are that of an instigator, a troublemaker, not a reporter.
And although I think you went overboard with the Glorious Leader stuff, you are right that I think Baker is one of the problems the Mariners have had the past few years.
Do you wonder why the Mariners seem to be one of the most dysfunctional teams in MLB these past few years? (Except in 2009 when Griffey effectively policed Baker’s crap).
I think it’s at least in part because we are stuck with an “insider” in the clubhouse, actively trying to play people against each other and make trouble.
I want more reporters like Larry Stone or Divish, and no more Baker, please. They are not rah rah and they report interesting things, yet they don’t peddle or try to create crap like Baker does.
Y’all don’t know a damn thing about reporting.
Oh, also..
That’s the single most ridiculous thing I’ve seen on this site. It beats protection proponents and “RBIs are king” people.
Blaming a reporter for poor player performance is beyond foolish.
So, does Baltimore suck because of bad reporting? Pittsburgh?
On the flip side the New York media is brutal. If you have any doubt go on line and read what they say about A-Rod sometimes (or K-Rod now). It seems the New York Yankees somehow are able to cope with a non-cheerleading press corps.
Baker should be commended for doing what not enough ‘reporters’ do around here: report the truth even if it makes powerful interests uncomfortable.
I have a lap dog who wags her tail when I come home, I don’t need or want one writing for the newspaper.
Lueke obviously used poor judgement and made a life altering mistake. Having said that, in the absence of other deviant behavior I say give the kid a second chance.
As far as the front office is concerned I’d say that the PR department needs to stop worrying about slogans and commercials and start repairing the image of the organization.
The only question I have left (I don’t expect to get an answer) is if Howchuck fired Fusco because they knew his 35 year friendship with Z would send a big message or if Z himself asked his decades old friend to fall on his sword to start to put an end to this mess?
Yes, I think you’re right about that. And if you’re claiming that Baker is an exemplar representative of the craft, I don’t want to know about “reporting”.
I think you guys are backing the wrong boat.
Baker seems to have displaced himself in your minds as a beacon of free speech. Ask yourselves if he’s really worthy. I can’t stand reading rah rah reporters, myself (and hate “lap dogs” as you say). I’m saying that Baker seems to be trying to “create” bad news rather than just “report” it accurately.
But then again, if you’re claiming that Baker is an exemplar representative of the craft, I must say know little of “reporting” amd don’t really want to know about it.
I found reading all of this oddly therapeutic. I think I am done worrying about Josh Lueke. Unless he starts dating someone that I know.
I sure hope there is more to the Fusco firing than Lueke. It does seem, as noted above, like our pro scouting wasn’t great this year, that there are issues within the scouting department and sometimes “friends that go way back” have “baggage that goes way back.”
You may not want to know, but I think some people might benefit from understanding a little better. Baker has his strengths and weaknesses, both as a reporter and an analyst, but if something is newsworthy and he’s got sources to back it up, it’s his job to report it, not stop to ask whether this is going to help the Mariners or create trouble for them. One of the reasons this is fairly impressive as far as reporting goes is that he has verbatim quotes on the record from multiple named sources on such a sensitive subject. If you compare that to stuff attributed to anonymous clubhouse sources or couched as general observations without an explicit source (consider Larry LaRue’s report about Griffey sleeping in the clubhouse, or Baker’s own reporting about the turmoil surrounding Ichiro in 2008), it’s impressive and adds to the credibility of the reporting, even if that doesn’t solve the problem of how to evaluate the credibility of the parties being quoted. But nobody doubts the general accuracy of Baker’s story, not in the same way that people questioned whether Griffey was really asleep or whether the rumors of a toxic clubhouse really had any substance to them.
Geoff Baker, Jerry Brewer, and Larry Stone are the best sports writers in the Sound. All else pales. They tell it like it is, or at least as they see it and do a great job as reporters and bloggers. All the put-downs read on this site, like the opinion of Baker’s that Wak would be fired, were just one-up-man-ship, and it came true.
I am compelled to read the Times many times a day, and barely go to the USS Mariner because of the pettiness of the writers. Just do what you do well and forget the 3rd grade crap. Remember the “I hate Sweeney” headline, he’s now with a playoff team. Looking forward to any improvement you can do to upgrade your site…
Baker isn’t the reason the M’s are struggling to win games. He isn’t the cause of the M’s bungling the Josh Lueke matter.
He may, for what it’s worth, be a not-insignficant contributor to whatever clubhouse turmoil the team has had in recent years, because of his style of reporting. I do not consider him a “great” reporter. I have never particularly liked his reporting, and like it less the more of it I read (which isn’t much these days). Mostly it’s the subjects he reports on, and partly the style with which he does it. If I enjoyed the subjects he reports on, I would schedule my Tivo to record Days of Our Lives and General Hospital during the day and watch that instead of FSN at night. Well, actually, I’m not watching FSN much anymore either, the M’s are mostly unwatchable if Felix isn’t pitching. But I don’t watch Soap Operas either, and that’s what Baker’s reporting feels like to me.