I didn't realize the Dallas Morning News was in the tank for the Astros. Ah, the infamous "some," used in a blog, at that. If that doesn't scream I'm trying to seem like I have more information than I do (and consider the source and history), I don't know what does.
Ouch, I didn't know it was that bad for you. I guess you'll just have to trust me and take my word for it as I spent countless hours on their forums before and after hiring as I bleed Astro blood. He was called an ego maniac by many longtime Philly fans and they couldn't wait to see his exit.
Fair. Wait a minute--in all fairness, you're a pretty young "lifer", aren't you? I'm sure you've already seen tons and I don't mean to discount your take here, just poke a little harmless fun at a guy under 30 calling himself a "lifer". I'm not going to question you on this. But here is my question: if they really are "facts and situations", then why? Why were there so many to cite? Is there enough smoke there to wonder if there's fire? True. It's worth googling, but I have to get busy at work.
You work for DMN? Can I still call it the DaMN? When did you start there? Do you have to live in South Oklahoma, too?
Make no mistake, I'm not defending, justifying, mitigating, etc. Chacon's actions. He was WAY out of line and deserves whatever comes his way. Clearly he has a temper problem. That said, he's gone now from the Astros and isn't worth discussing. He won't play for them again. Ed Wade still works for the team, so the dynamics of how he functions in his job ARE worth exploring.
Oh, absolutely. Technically, I am a journalism lifer, and it's why I said it -- but you're right, it's definitely not 40 years or anything. It's all about context. For example, many of the accusations in that article are vague and quote the infamous "some" or "many." It's the perfect loophole for a journalist with an agenda. Attribute the negative claims to someone other than yourself (protecting you), yet they can't be questioned either because you keep them anonymous. Look, I understand that anonymous sources are necessary sometimes. But usually, you want to try and identify them by measures other than their name -- something more specific about what they do, where they stand or what puts them in a position to have this information. That adds to the credibility. When you use the crutch of "some Phillies employees" (hell, the custodial staff counts as employees, legally) or "many," it reads to me (as a journalist) that you're not very certain in what you're saying and you don't have a lot of evidence. In terms of specific situations, again, context. I'll look at a few of them: One time when Wade made a judgment on a young Phillies player, a uniformed employee called writers over and said, "Did you hear, Eddie thinks he's a baseball guy now?" Everyone laughed. Could've easily been complete sarcasm. If I had a dollar every time one of the guys in the Astros' clubhouse jokingly criticized one of their teammates to the media, I'd be rich. Well, not quite, but you get the point. If I wanted to, there are tons of quotes I could use to promote controversy within the Astros, and I wouldn't be lying. However, I don't because it's complete sarcasm and kidding around. I watched several reporters occasionally get a backhanded slap for stupid questions last year. That's part of it. What's missing here is a play-by-play account of how it got from "If you were here, you would know" to "Kiss my (bleeping bleep)." Who's to say the reporter didn't initiate that kind of discussion? Very curious the writer chooses not to mention it. That's self-serving journalism at it's finest. It's not about you, Randy. It's one thing if it impacts the team. But I'm not losing faith in Wade over how he handles one ego-driven member of the press. It also gives Miller the motivation to run with all these other accusations presented in the article. Again, msn, I'm not saying these things couldn't be a fair representation of Wade. I'm just very, very skeptical when it comes from one source, especially from a source who shows in the lede to his story that he has an ax to grind. I understand I haven't disproven anything, but these are just some things everyone needs to keep in mind before jumping to conclusions.
Thanks for these thoughts. Good points, makes sense. Honestly, though, if a guy really throws chairs around, it's hard for me to respect him. And it wasn't even in the heat of "battle" on the field with all that adrenaline and testosterone flying around. We're talking about a pencil pusher in an office throwing chairs around. Makes no sense to me. I can see how all the other things can be taken out of context (he could have been joking with the whole KMA comment, etc.), but how do you throw a chair in an office with two other pencil pushers? He should have just thrown his pencil.
Oh, and good luck working at the DaMN. I want to see inside comparisons on the Rangers' and Astros' inner workings; that would be fascinating to me (I assume you'll cover sports?). Get your ass back to Houston ASAP. Freaking Dallas has a better sports section than us, and that has to stop. Statim. (In all seriousness, best wishes, and keep posting here!)
By the way, aside from this incident, I think Wade's most fascinating battle is going to be the one with Drayton. It seems clear this patchwork routine isn't going to work, and even if Wade and his crew had a stellar draft this season, it's going to take beyond the primes of Lee/Tejada/Berkman/Oswalt for it to take effect. Something has to give in regards to the next couple of years, and I think Wade knows that. Either Drayton has to give the green light to giving a massive contract and overpaying a top of the line pitcher, or some of the veterans need to be dealt to build for the time that these draft classes can make an impact. The status quo isn't working on any level, and Wade is going to have to let Drayton know that, if he hasn't already. That will be one interesting conversation.
Would Wade even have this conversation? I've read in a couple articles over the offseason that one of the reasons Wade got the job over a host of (imo better) candidates is because he told Smith/McClane what they wanted to hear about rebuilding. He painted a rosier picture of the state of the Astros in his job interviews and told McClane that he could win now without rebuilding. If that is true, and he got the job at least partially because he said they didn't need to rebuild, then how is he going to have the credibility to come in to the owners office now and tell him that the team has to rebuild?
Yes. I work with two guys who moved to Houston from Philly and that is one of the many bad things they said about Wade. No idea if it's truthful or not, but it answers your question
I thought about that, but then again, they did ask Wade to comment about it, and he wouldn't. At this point, I think you have to take Chacon's word for it.
Next couple years? I has to happen NOW. What is going to happen in 2 years that will change anything? Either a) Wade doesn't get it, or b) he is telling Drayton what he wants to here so he can keep his job.
Oh, I agree it needs to happen now. I meant the couple of years as to the time frame in question. Clearly, the long-term future of this franchise will be shaped by drafting... it's the intermediate that's in question, and that's what Wade needs an answer on, now. I agree with Dickau in that Wade was hired because he convinced Drayton he could win without rebuilding, but I think at this point everyone involved has to acknowledge that the plan isn't working. The plan needs an overhaul, but someone has to get Drayton's OK... I hope Wade is the man to do it.
BREAKING NEWS ...... Just heard that Wade is about to make a major announcement ........ Reggie Abercrombie is being signed to a 5 year, $50 million dollar extension WTF???
