Dolans to meet with Shapiro in near future
Paul Hoynes latest report
"In terms of individual performance, I won't comment on that," said Dolan, when asked to evaluate Wedge. "We have a process we go through. It hasn't begun. It starts with meeting with Mark."
Paul Dolan is quoted as saying as saying there will be no rash decisions. He and his father meet with Shapiro, who makes suggestions that we either accept or reject. He said the process of evaluating the current situation with Shapiro has not started yet.
7 months ago
palcal
151 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Another interesting quote:
“The fact that some people think they’re a package deal, doesn’t mean they’re a package deal,” said Dolan. “They’re a general manager and manager … just like they have on any other club.”
by palcal on Jun 22, 2009 8:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Which is immediately preceded by:
Shapiro would not have to go far to find fans who agree with his self-evaluation. In fact, the relationship between Shapiro and Wedge is said to be so tight that if Dolan fired one, he’d have to fire both.
Paul Hoynes, ladies and gentlemen. Paul Hoynes.
Remember, if you’re reading that in print, you paid for it.
by NickFantana on Jun 22, 2009 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Remember, if you’re reading that in print, you paid for it.
I do pay for the paper—and when I do, I’m gladly paying for the real journalism the paper produces (there is more to life than sports, kids.) Hoynes is a by-product, yes, but Pluto and Windhorst are worth every penny. I suggest you ante up for them or stop reading their PD generated content, or—better yet—zip your trap about those of us who chose to monetarily support the institutions that do, if only in part, provide us with worthwhile content.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jun 22, 2009 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
or—better yet—zip your trap about those of us who chose to monetarily support the institutions that do, if only in part, provide us with worthwhile content.
This is one of the more bizarre responses to a legitimate criticism I’ve ever read.
Regardless of what Pluto and the other writers do, tell me why Paul Hoynes should have a job? What service is he providing?
by NickFantana on Jun 22, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point isn’t the merit of Hoynes. My point is that the Plain Dealer creates a good deal of content that is worthwhile and important to the people who live in greater Cleveland. I pay for the paper and am sick of people who don’t suggesting that no one should pay for the paper because of one bad writer. I could probably outmatch you in a “why Hoynes needs to go away session.” What I am addressing here is sniping against those of us who chose to financially support the paper. You criticism is valid up until the point where you pointed out that print readers paid for Hoynes reporting. I pay for much more. I can list dozens of quality reporters who work for the paper beyond the two above.
I’m not picking a fight, I’m just trying to stop the internet versus print vicious cycle. This is after all, a post based on Plain Dealer content—good or bad. When they’re gone what will be the source material for future posts? MLBTR?
(P.s. Anyone noticed Castrovince hasn’t been on a road trip for a while? So much for MLB.com providing a quality beat reporter.)
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jun 22, 2009 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but he was criticizing Paul Hoynes, not the existence of newspapers.
by Ryan on Jun 22, 2009 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry Ryan,
But I take:
Remember, if you’re reading that in print, you paid for it.
pretty literallly.
I actually pay for the paper. If anyone can bitch about Hoynes, it’s me. If you don’t pay for the paper, just enjoy your free cleveland.com (but don’t read the comments) content and take it for what’s worth while it still exists.
And yes I do belive he was criticizing Hoynes. But maybe I read too much into:
Paul Hoynes, ladies and gentlemen. Paul Hoynes.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jun 22, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Online ads are a rapidly growing source of revenue for most modern newspapers. So yes, I think I’ll continue to bitch all I want.
But anyways, as Ryan said, you’re the only one turning this into an existential debate over the future of print journalism.
by world dictator on Jun 22, 2009 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This isn’t supposed to sound as mean as it possible does, I assure you.
by world dictator on Jun 22, 2009 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, didn’t realize LGT was too low-brow to get all existential.
No worries, but I feel compelled to combat print bashing—especially when I’ve had 3 pints of Burning River!
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jun 22, 2009 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Online ads have been a disappointment. That was a will o the wisp.
by odradek on Jun 22, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Without joining the fray, I saw it as a snipe at print journalism. Maybe they laid off their sports desk copy editors in the last 25% newsstand RIF, and that’s why Hoynes contradicts himself, if in fact that’s what he’s doing. I’m with PBH in regard to content, and who will provide it when Hoynes and the PD are gone.
by odradek on Jun 22, 2009 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d love to see Paul Cousineau awarded the PD Tribe beat, but the irony is the biggest detriment to print advertising—the internet—is the only reason we really know he exists.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jun 22, 2009 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In re-reading it I see no contradiction. Hoynes is reporting that some people say Shapiro and Wedge are a package deal but Dolan doesn’t think so. Those are not exclusive comments.
by odradek on Jun 23, 2009 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not that it’s a contradiction, it’s that he’s not reporting anything. There’s no added value in writing something like that. “Some people say that odradek is just argumentative by nature”
See what I did there? That’s not a reportable fact, it’s my opinion. And it doesn’t have any place in a newspaper. For that matter, Jay and Ryan wouldn’t allow that sort of thing in a front page post here.
As for the existential implications of my post, I’m with David Simon. The papers get what they deserve, and right now, the way they have performed, they deserve failure. We, as citizens, don’t deserve that they fail but they, as institutions who have failed to fulfill their basic obligations, deserve to fail.
by NickFantana on Jun 23, 2009 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m with David Simon too, but don’t stop short of his entire point. He has also stated numerous times that newspapers are currently the primary source of quality journalism.
High-end journalism is dying in America. And unless a new economic model is achieved, it will not be reborn on the web or anywhere else. – David Simon, 9 May 2009
Are you saying that good journaism should just go away because newspapers foolishly put their content online for free?
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jun 23, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
An argument can be made that putting the content online is not what is killing the newspaper business. From 1998-2008, retail advertising declined from $20.4 billion to $18.8 billion. That’s bad, of course. Classified advertising, however dropped from $18 billion to $10 billion. The big news of the end of the last century was how much newspaper revenue depended on classified advertising. In 1950, it was 18%. By 1998, it had increased to 41%. With the rise of Craigslist, it’s back down to 26%, about what it was 20 years ago.
Not sure what any of that means, so much as that it’s not just (or perhaps even primarily) cleveland.com that’s killing the PD.
by FredOx on Jun 23, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Newspapers are realizing that the only commodity they have left outside of classifieds and ads is the content. There is an entire generation of people out there who have never paid for that content, but do consume it. It is difficult to attempt to charge after setting the “information is free” precedent. The labor required to report, edit and disseminate is far from cheap. To me, its is clear that newspapers are giving away the most valuable thing they produce. One of the largest problems is that newspaper companies have become tied to 20% profit margins. The PD makes money right now, but they wish they made more—so they cut reporters and pay—and the quality paper suffers—readers notice and circulation drops, and on and on….
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jun 23, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, the most valuable thing a commercial press can produce might be the things for which we’re least likely to pay. As long as there’s an internet, there will be sufficient coverage of large-scale newsworthy events — I don’t need the PD, or really any news source other than a link aggregator, to figure out what’s happening in Iran right now.
But the death of the newspapers means that local, everyday, mundane stuff — courtroom proceedings, city council reports — will only be available on public record. Nobody’s going to look that crap up for free and tell us about it. It’s just not sexy enough. Trouble is, the important, or at least sexy, stories, often start in courtrooms or city halls. I feel like the whole world is going to start taking us by surprise.
Of course, you could argue the press hasn’t been very diligent about that sort of thing anyway.
by fleerdon on Jun 23, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Your second graph is exactly what I’m talking about. I do not want to live in a country where local corruption takes us by surprise. I pay my subscription fees because I want to support that kind of journalism. If nobody pays for it, it will go away. A profitable (not even 1 or 2% margin) or break-even internet model for local coverage does not yet exist. There are some attempts (San Diego and Denver for example) but it is far too soon to call them a success.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jun 23, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t need the PD, or really any news source other than a link aggregator
A link aggregator is nothing without initial sources, most of which are newspaper websites. TV and radio rarely generate content that isn’t sourced from newspapers or wire agencies.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jun 23, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guess I should amend that to say that I think some combination of freelance and new media sources will generally suffice for covering the bold print headlines. Or at the least that in the internet age, I don’t need a local source as a middleman for international feeds.
by fleerdon on Jun 23, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think local newspapers have suffered for not realizing sooner that they needed to pull resources from international reporting and focus on local and regional coverage. But I have no particular confidence that that would have saved them.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not arguing that it would. Just that we might miss it when it’s gone.
by fleerdon on Jun 23, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I’m saying — and I think Simon was saying — that as a rule, there wasn’t all that much, and it wasn’t all that great.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And eventually, there will be no one to do international coverage other than BBC and al Jazeera. That is, no American coverage.
by odradek on Jun 23, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t really think there’s any good American coverage of foreign events right now.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 23, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not CNN?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NYTimes and Washington Post don’t have deep international coverage?
Or do we think the NYT just makes up too much stuff?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Post is falling apart.
The Times isn’t so bad, though. But they’re certainly not going to be my first outlet to help me understand a particular foreign event.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 23, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
[deleted, politics]
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 23, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s possible the NYT and Wapo cease to exist.
by odradek on Jun 23, 2009 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Their Iran coverage has been abysmal, even after they took all the flack from Twitter. The only one on the network with a clue is Zakaria.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 23, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Man, that guy really impresses me. I can’t think of anyone who as effectively simplifies things without being simplistic.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree… Fareed Zakaria is fantastic.
by Logodaedalus on Jun 23, 2009 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Their ability to foresee and/or analyze a bust is in question, at this point.
by peter m on Jun 24, 2009 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they were able to foresee such a thing, they wouldn’t be a journalist/writer and they’d also be retired with millions in the bank
by Roger Dorn on Jun 24, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d settle for analyze. I don’t find their economic analyses to be particularly penetrating; much better stuff is available elsewhere (e.g., The Economist).
by peter m on Jun 25, 2009 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WSJ is the only paper I read. Everything else I get on the internet
by Roger Dorn on Jun 24, 2009 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amen.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 24, 2009 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Journal has been pretty good, lately.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 24, 2009 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Backhanded compliment of the week award goes to…
by fleerdon on Jun 25, 2009 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here, here. The WSJ is a superior product.
I catch a lot of C-Span, particularly the rebroadcasts of events. I thought it a funny coincidence that Scott Raab once wrote an ode in Esquire’s “Women We Love” series to a C-Span host I also admired, in exactly the way I might have portrayed her if I had a better command of the language.
Maybe our newspapers as a whole lag behind those of the rest of the world—I don’t really know. Do our surviving magazines and blogs not make up the difference? Will they?
I think Tyler raises an interesting question: who will raise the serious questions? Who will critique city councils as Jay has Shapiro’s recent comments?
But how well have these outlets historically done this? The newspaper sleuths aren’t uniformly cunning and brilliant. To give one example, I greatly admire the historical figure of Robert Moses but for most of his career his methods and motives were given a free-pass from the press by all of the major NYC papers with one exception: The Post, (of all sources!) The Times’ publisher had a special relationship with Moses and put the kibosh on critical pieces. Of course, all of that was back when newspapers competed for readership. In most markets we’re past the point of competition, hence the downturn in quality.
Maybe that’s why the WSJ remains sterling—it competes for readership across market areas as it always has.
As I see it, the internet is restoring that competition; corresponding rise in quality among the surviving publishers.
I still haven’t gotten over the miracle of the internet, so pardon me if this sounds very naive. In theory the follow-on reader comments born of the internet can be a forum to debate and refine the observations of the author. It’s my hopeful belief that, over time, the blogs and discussion forums out there will be better at exposing the dirt than the papers have been or ever were.
There’s nothing to stop a blogger from reporting on Tyler’s city council meeting, aside from compensation for the act (I don’t suppose to know if that’ll develop over time or not). I do know of agencies like planning departments that are self-reporting their actions via their own blogs. I’ve seen common folk show up at things like landmark hearings, and I know of a few people who’ve report on those. I think that in many places the seeds of new-and-improved community beats are already planted.
by jhon on Jun 25, 2009 12:55 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
All this praise for the WSJ is really odd in the wake of a near-total collapse of our banking system and economy. The WSJ did little if anything to report on any warning signs and arguably was part of the problem.
I mean, Wall Street is supposed to be their home turf, and the world’s biggest story of this decade unfolded on Wall St., and they basically missed it.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 25, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’ve actually seen linked a number of articles that have appeared in the WSJ in the past that pointed out problem signs exactly relating to the original causes of the economic collapse. They may be at fault for not realizing how bad it could get, but it is not their fault that no one paid attention or cared when they actually printed those stories
by Roger Dorn on Jun 25, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the WSJ has taken a big step forward in the aftermath of the crisis in the way that they cover and interpret new developments.
They had most of the major pieces of it right leading up to the crisis—I recall timely forecasts of a bursting housing bubble and the ramifications thereof. True, they weren’t foremost of the handful of parties to put it all together, but many of those who did are perma-bearish and of dubious long-term credibility or else they’re like Bill Ackman and they’ve screwed up in the aftermath.
The bottom line, I think, is that everyone screwed up.
by jhon on Jun 25, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I recall timely forecasts of a bursting housing bubble and the ramifications thereof.
I recall that discussion of this occurred almost daily on economics-related NPR shows two or three years before the crash. When the housing market crashed, I was thinking “well, we were expecting this, no?”
by Voltaire on Jun 25, 2009 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Many of us were, including me, but I didn’t know anything about credit default swaps.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 25, 2009 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This corporate lawyer I know moved in to our group house (his Manhattan based told him to sit out for a year and report back). He’s in DC to educate a one of the congressman on CDS and the like. I’m picking up what I can; I’ve concentrated on this stuff for the last year and I feel like I’ve only made the most delicate scratch into the surface.
by jhon on Jun 25, 2009 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tangentially related to this and a previous off-topic discussion, Matt Taibbi has a giant anti-Goldman Sachs screed in the new RS. I saw this neat summary of Taibbi’s charms and limitations:
He’s not big on subtlety or nuance, but it is pointless to argue with the devastation and destruction left in his wake once he’s rampaged his way through a story. And gosh, the flames sure are pretty.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 25, 2009 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a fair critique. Thanks for the tip—I’ll check it out.
by jhon on Jun 25, 2009 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the WSJ has taken a big step forward in the aftermath of the crisis in the way that they cover and interpret new developments.
That’s setting the bar pretty low, though, right? I had a subscription to The Economist for a number of years but eventually got rid of it because everything outside of their international reporting was so repetitive. They had been talking about a housing collapse going back to at least 2004 – but not, in my recollection, in the sense of specific systemic problems. Rather, it was in a similar context an another one of their oft-repeated themes of a collapsing US dollar. But the most frustrating part was that despite these stories, this idea wasn’t generally reflected in the editorial perspective of the remainder of each issue. And I mean the editorial perspective put into features, not just op/ed pieces. I’ve never regularly read the WSJ, but my expectation is that I would have had a similar reaction.
by APV on Jun 26, 2009 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just now returned to this thread. Honestly, it’s a good point you’re making. Financial reporting has ADHD. Anything one wants to hear is being said by someone at any given moment. I think it’s fair to say that the WSJ didn’t communicate the urgency of the situation soon enough. I think you guys are right about that..
My sense is that it’ll get better. I like some of their newer reporters—funny that all this talent arrives now, in this climate. Some of them are my age and younger.
Who knows. Maybe some of those smart folks who would have worked inside of the business will instead report on it. Then again, I was just reading about Rufus King saying something similar in a letter to Alexander Hamilton. He rejoices that a market crash would teach ordinary industrious citizens “contentment in their proper avocations”, adding that speculations should be reserved for the experienced. Maybe nothing ever changes?
by jhon on Jul 4, 2009 2:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Financial Times kicks the WSJ’s ass, up and down the block.
by odradek on Jul 4, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How to Like Everything
I Used to think so too until recently. I shouldn’t use the word “like”, as if I’m ranking these pubs. I like to read interesting stuff, I should say instead. I think the WSJ is interesting. I like disagreement too. We disagreed on Taibbi before. I finally got around to reading his screed which Jay mentioned above. I thought it was interesting. I found myself agreeing with it.
What was Taibbi doing reading the WSJ? He must also find it interesting.
So I like the WSJ, FT, Taibbi, LGT, etc. By “like” I mean that I read these as much as I can, because I find things in them that are interesting, or that I disagree with, or whatever.
by jhon on Jul 7, 2009 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I agree with you. It is lazy, and unsourced, and really doesn’t add much to public discourse. There is no shortage of lame writers.
by odradek on Jun 23, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hilarious. This is genuinely funny. I hope I’m laughing with you.
by gte619n on Jun 23, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Call me crazy, but this to me says Wedge is a goner.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 22, 2009 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, not crazy. It’s going to happen soon.
by dgcambridge on Jun 23, 2009 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
All-Star break. Take it to the bank
by Roger Dorn on Jun 23, 2009 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sub-head: “Dolans own team, employ Shapiro”
by fleerdon on Jun 22, 2009 8:31 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Why Do I Subject Myself To Scrolling Down?
Dolan,
Now let me address your comments. How dare you mention attendance as a factor in the Tribes performance! Your family has ruined this team. A poor GM and a god awful coach (for 7 years!!!!) drives me up the wall. Your frugalness has led to stupidity. Why did we have a sellout record back in the 90s? Winning was a factor but what drew the crowd were the faces on the field, i.e. the talent. Baerga, Belle, Lofton, Vizquel, Alomar, Justice, Thome, etc. We LOVED these guys and they loved us back…this era rocked Cleveland. Who do we have now? Your staff juggles players so much that as fans we don’t know who to expect to see when we come to the stadium. We can’t root for people who we’ve never heard of. Stop the shuffling and sign talent!!!!!!!! Look at the Minnesota Twins. They faces that draw fans: Mauer, Morneau, Nathan, Cuddeyer, Young, etc. If you want to draw fans, cough up the money to not only get a team but also to get your fans back. We aren’t the cheap ones, you are! And if you can’t step up, then sell the team. I know there are Indians fans across the country with $$ who would love to build the winner this town deserves!
Go Tribe baby!
FE WEE
by westbrook on Jun 22, 2009 8:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea what Cuddyer’s face looks like. Seriously.
by still ill on Jun 22, 2009 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i have no idea how to pronounce Cuddyer.
by BrianRose on Jun 23, 2009 1:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and yet you choose to subject me to this
by Roger Dorn on Jun 22, 2009 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes! The silver lining in the misuse of the subject line.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jun 22, 2009 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m just joking, but reading that paragraph makes me sick
by Roger Dorn on Jun 22, 2009 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
17 exclamation points total I believe. Impressive.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jun 22, 2009 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A couple of 1s mixed in would have completed the work of art.
by Ryan on Jun 22, 2009 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They’ve mastered the “hold shift button while hitting the one multiple times.” That’s a step in the right direction I think.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jun 22, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My only fear would be that “the numbers” (and I’m not talking about the W/L record) look worse than they ever imagined and they have to do the unimaginable to reach profitability in 2010.
by Toxicadam on Jun 22, 2009 9:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They certainly might. I know someone who sent a cleveland.com email to Paul Dolan, and in Dolan’s response was a comment about how the Indians are currently projecting a 21 million dollar loss this year.
by 7foot3 on Jun 23, 2009 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The way the accounting works, it’s possible that the numbers aren’t quite that bad, but instead will be prepared that way for tax purposes. The larger loss will result in a better tax break carry-forward in the future
by Roger Dorn on Jun 23, 2009 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right. I said they might. I don’t know how accurate Dolan was being, or how much they are fudging the numbers, but the reality probably isn’t pretty.
by 7foot3 on Jun 23, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Dolan is making a mistake by using the word “rash” in this way.
If they fired Wedge tomorrow, or had they fired him a month ago, not one report or analysis would use the word “rash.”
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 22, 2009 10:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I just hope that “near future” means tonight, not a week from now. Make a decision, and don’t drag it out.
by Ryan on Jun 22, 2009 10:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
ooops, the nanny doesn’t like my asterisks. I’m pretty sure you get where the Dude is coming from though.
by mrich on Jun 22, 2009 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
…. and I replied to the wrong post. jeez I’m out of practice.
by mrich on Jun 22, 2009 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps the need to act in deliberate fashion has more to do with, what is our next move, than the decision to let someone go?
by elsandito on Jun 22, 2009 11:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Couple items:
Weird question … but why have’t they met already?
Lost 6 straight games, many in gut-wrenching fashion. Worst record in AL. Journalists, fans, screaming for heads to roll. Day off.
If this was my team performing this way, I’d EXPECT my boss to call an 11 am meeting.
Also, and this may NOT be accurate in any way, I had a source tell me the Indians don’t want to fire Wedge before his wife’s “mystery ball” fund-raiser … set for Saturday.
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 22, 2009 11:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There’s a meet and greet with Eric, so, yeah the whole thing would be ruined. But the good news is the mardis gras mask signed by Kate and Eric Wedge should still be up for auction.
by RD74 on Jun 22, 2009 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a source who has a source!
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 23, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait. I was away all day. Eric Wedge is still manager?
by oxforddave on Jun 22, 2009 11:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately. Apparently this franchise likes to do things in a deliberate manner and only when no one knows its coming. I expect a firing the morning of a new series. Just to keep us on our toes and all.
I just wanted to believe.
by mjmarble on Jun 22, 2009 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
SHAPIRO OUT,
WEDGE PROMOTED TO GM
AS TRIBE SHOCKS
THE BASEBALL WORLD
by odradek on Jun 22, 2009 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And he hired Marte to manage the team.
by Voltaire on Jun 23, 2009 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn’t sound like much news. They’re going to meet? Cool.
by afh4 on Jun 23, 2009 5:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t have much of a problem with putting this off until the end of the season. My fear though, is that they will play much better over the remainder of the season, Wedge will save his job, and we will start over in 2010 with renewed optimism even though nothing will have changed.
by CBusSteve on Jun 23, 2009 7:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And just like 2008, a guy like Luis Isaac is fired instead of Wedge…
by ToledoTribeFan on Jun 23, 2009 8:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, for the love of God, please drop the pathetic Luis Isaac whining. You don’t give a crap, I don’t give a crap.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he does, he should get over it
by Roger Dorn on Jun 23, 2009 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t give a crap if Luis Isaac gives a crap. He was the bullpen coach, for God’s sake.
Everyone knows the real problem was firing the assistant in charge of M&Ms for the clubhouse. The blue ones are bad luck.
by FredOx on Jun 23, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kind of like last year and this year? Let’s face it - Wedge has been doing the same things we’re lambasting him about now - “he doesn’t seem to have any kind of grasp on which players deserve playing time” — for a long time. His “approach” hasn’t changed. His BABIP was just a lot higher in 2007.
by lilkeysdad on Jun 23, 2009 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another victim of not clicking preview.
I become an expert simply by doing something.
by fwembt on Jun 23, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I was lambasting him last year for it, too.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about letting Shapiro manage the team he the the one that built it.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Jun 23, 2009 10:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I know it’s been discussed several different places but here is, to me, the definitive Shapiro answer on whether or not he will fire Eric Wedge:
“I am willing to accept the consequences of our reality,” says Shapiro. “Accountability is singular, with me.”
That is first-class delusional. It’s clear that the Dolan’s will have to demand it and it seems possible to me that Shapiro may threaten to resign to save Wedge’s job. I’m kind of hoping he does now.
by NickFantana on Jun 23, 2009 11:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If Shapiro insists on attaching himself to Wedge, then I will have to support him going as well
by Roger Dorn on Jun 23, 2009 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is becoming stupid already.
FE WEE
by westbrook on Jun 23, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s weird to me that this is all playing out in the media … meanwhile, the team president acknowledges yesterday that they haven’t even sat down to discuss things.
Seems to me like we’re either:
A) Delaying the inevitable.
B) Counting down to a showdown with Shapiro defending Wedge … and forcing the Dolans’ hand.
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 23, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually have no problem with Shapiro forcing the Dolans’ hand. Again, he’s the head of baseball ops. He can say, as a matter of pure baseball, he isn’t at fault, and he’s the man I think should be manager. It’s the Dolans who have a responsibility beyond the pure baseball aspect.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would guess this is playing out in the media because it’s already been discussed in private and Shapiro wants to put a public face on it. He wants to make a show of having his arm twisted.
by odradek on Jun 23, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If it’s been discussed … shouldn’t Dolan have a more definitive statement beyond “I’m not commenting on personnel until Mark and I sit down and meet”
I guess that’s what I find odd … is that a meeting hasn’t happened already.
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 23, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I’m fine with it too … it’s just … odd.
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 23, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think Shapiro will threaten to resign. I think he will say that he believes Wedge is the manager and the failures are not his fault.
But it isn’t entirely his decision to make, and there is a public element to all of these positions as well.
This is why I keep coming back to the affirmative test. With so much public anger, and with so much actual failure, the manager must be held to an affirmative standard: Is He Helping Us Win? I don’t think he can pass that test.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But when he says he is willing to accept the consequences, doesn’t that sound like resignation? The sort of resignation necessary if you understand accountability as singular?
by NickFantana on Jun 23, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, it sounds like leadership.
Look, he’s fired people before. Mirabelli doesn’t run the draft anymore, and Eddie Murray isn’t the hitting coach. If he thinks there’s a reason to make a change, he’ll make a change.
I take him at his word that he doesn’t think Wedge is the problem or that making a change in that area might well help. I assume he would not buy into my argument that after six years and several disappointing seasons, there needs to be an affirmative test.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i know we’re hypothesizing here…what do you think happens if shapiro does as you suggest, and the dolans say, “we disagree, fire wedge”?
seems to me that shapiro, being singularly accountable, would have limited options at that stage, no?
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 23, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course. He’s not the owner of the company.
I don’t think Shapiro has said that he won’t fire the manager. What he’s said is, JUST firing the manager is a cop-out.
If I were the owners, however, I would not be pleased with Shapiro pour-mouthing the option of firing the manager in the media. If Shapiro feels Wedge deserves his support, that’s fine. But in a season this disappointing, the owner deserves to have all options on the table and the full public support of his failed GM.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it’s a good point about the public display of affection that shapiro has gone on the record with as it relates to wedge. if i’m the dolans, i’m not pleased in that case, either. suddenly, if wedge is fired, you’re seen (by many) as the “cheap” owners who also won’t listen to the brilliant GM. a sub-optimal place to be.
i think i’m hearing that you don’t think that a firing of wedge, as handed down by the dolans, would result in shapiro’s departure, as well. i’m not sure where i come down on that, as it is abundantly clear that shapiro would have myriad opportunities elsewhere (in baseball and not) if he left, and may not be willing to suffer the disruption in organizational continuity.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 23, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It ain’t about the “affection” — a cheap criticism that takes the discussion off-point — it’s about suggesting that there’s something illegitimate about firing the manager.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
while your dissection of language never ceases to amaze, i do think that shapiro has shown “affection” for wedge, in particular, at times in his tenure. if you think that fact doesn’t color shapiro’s
word that he doesn’t think Wedge is the problem or that making a change in that area might well help
then i believe you’re being naive.
and while i don’t believe that citing that affection is anything resembling off topic as we discuss the possibility of releasing the manager, i was agreeing with, and continue to agree with, the point you made. shapiro has painted the dolans into a corner through his public comments regarding the manager’s job, and that isn’t cool.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 23, 2009 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree to agree.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, if Shapiro wanted to say he’s partly to blame, that’s one thing. But, the way he’s quoted, he’s publicly arguing against the idea of firing the manager.
by peter m on Jun 23, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right. When the Dolans tell him to fire Wedge, he’ll be saying, remember that thing I said was a cop-out? I’m here to announce it today. Am I being ordered to do it? No comment.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
who is the worst manager we had in the last 30 years and who is the best?
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Jun 23, 2009 11:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Last 30 years only opens you up to 10 or so choices … 2 of which were interims.
If that’s the era we’re looking at … it’s probably hard to argue with Grover as the best … he had the most talent and the best results … even though he wasn’t much of a tactician.
Worst? Probably have to say Corrales or Doc Edwards … but again, the talent wasn’t there for either.
Mike Ferraro has the worst winning %
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 23, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think Hargrove necessarily was any better than Wedge.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a really tough thing to evaluate, but you have to give the benefit to the guy that won more even if he had better talent at his disposal
by Roger Dorn on Jun 23, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would think you would need to be in your early 50’s to have some sort of valid opinion.
Then when you factor in that a manager’s decision is only responsible for the W/L of so few games during the course of a season … it seems like a silly thing to ask.
by Toxicadam on Jun 23, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ranking managers is an almost inevitably fruitless exercise. Was Hargrove a good manager because his teams won a lot of games, or was he a bad manager because, with that lineup, his teams should have won even more games than they did? And how does one begin to assess the teams from the Tribe’s years in the wilderness?
Pat Corrales wasn’t good. I’m prepared to say that much.
Mel Harder had a 365 day unbeaten streak as manager.
by FredOx on Jun 23, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate opening this thread and being confronted about new comments on the merits of buying printed newspapers.
FE WEE
by westbrook on Jun 23, 2009 3:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah. Me too.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jun 23, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know what we’ll never know until/unless Antonetti is the GM? Whether he agrees with Shapiro’s view of Wedge.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 23, 2009 4:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t waste much time asking questions I thought he wouldn’t answer. Some, but not many.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 24, 2009 8:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So does anyone know if this has happened? The fire Wedge talk pretty much went away even though the team has just gone 2-10 over the last 12, which of course includes 2-4 against the Reds and Pirates.
by NickFantana on Jun 29, 2009 11:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Sweet Baboo
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
