iamshack

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 22, 2007 -> 02:08 PM) Hey you were the one who started comparing him to Don Imus, slap your own hand for that stuff. Regardless the point remains, people are reading his s***, and they are talking about it, which is more than the ST can say about most of its columnists. If there are people talking about, that means people are reading it, which means someone is buying that psuedo-tabloid newspaper. Burying your head in the sand to this, doesn't change the fact that this is exactly what keeps guys like this employed. And you were the one who said comparing him to Imus was a bad analogy. When did I ever state that it was a bad analogy? I'm simply stating that Jay could eventually dismissed in a similar (yet less publicized) light. As for people reading and talking about Mariotti's columns, I think you exaggerate heavily the benefit of that to the Sun-Times. I think some hard core Sox fans might discuss him and participate in a thread such as this. But the average fan simply forms an opinion from what it is that he writes. If he continues to be allowed to write nonsense based on untruths, the average Sox fan will believe it. In my view, it must be combatted with the truth, which the organization goes out of its way to do. While that may help Mariotti and the Sun-Times sell some papers in the short-term (as I said before), it will eventually come back to bite them both. I happen to think the Sun-Times will recognize that at some point in the near future should Jay's columns continue to be of the same character and tone as the last few.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 22, 2007 -> 02:01 PM) Did I miss Jay Mariotti call Ken Harrelson a "nappy headed ho" along there somewhere, because that is what it took for Don Imus to get fired. It wasn't pissing people off, it was using racial slurs. Those two analogies aren't even close. Besides, Rush Limbaugh has been pissing off people for about 20 years now, when does he get booted off of the air? Are you that naive that you believe the CBS radio or MSNBC gave a rats ass what he said? No. They were worried about advertisers pulling out of the show. The racial slurs may be what got Imus canned, but the end result is the same. Piss off enough readers and you'll be gone. It's all about the $. And I'm sorry, but let's not compare Jay to Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern (the inevitable next comparison), because those people actually have a following. No one likes Jay Mariotti. Have you ever heard anyone say they actually like his columns? Rarely.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ May 22, 2007 -> 01:47 PM) Take marketing 101 and get back to me. Oh, is that so? Is it that simple, genius? There are always repurcussions when you piss off enough people. It doesn't matter if people are talking about you or not. Ask Don Imus. You piss off enough people, it doesn't matter who you are, advertisers get worried. You may have taken Marketing 101, but the better question is, did you take Marketing 301?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ May 22, 2007 -> 01:34 PM) No but your glorifying him by ranting about him for several pages. There might be a member of this site that doesn't regularly read his columns that decides to pick up the next Sun Times to see what the fuss is about. EDIT: By the way someone at the Sun Times can check out this site and see that there is a 10 page thread about Mariotti every other week. Whether the thread is bashing him or not isn't the point. And what would happen if someone at the Sun-Times checked out this site and saw that there was a 10 page thread about Mariotti every other week?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ May 22, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) What Hawk is doing, and frankly what you are doing by prolonging a thread like this, is getting more people to check out what that douche is actually writing about. Bad publicity is better than none. This belief that somehow not speaking of him on this board will somehow cause him to go away is pure nonsense. I don't buy the paper to read Jay Mariotti. I doubt many do. People buy the paper to read the news. Mariotti happens to be on the inside of the first page of the sports section. I read it, like I read the other columnists. He's not going to go away by not discussing him on Soxtalk. QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 22, 2007 -> 01:16 PM) Question: What would be more valuable on the back page of the Sun Times: Jay Marriotti Palehose 7 Raise your steins!

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ May 22, 2007 -> 01:05 PM) I think that I wouldnt mind him so much if he was born and raised in Chicago and had been a fan his whole life. He's a transplant. He did the same things in Denver and other places. He dosent give a crap about any of the Chicago teams, he's only trying to help his own career. Its not like he's some die-hard Sox fan thats just venting when things arent going right. I think its our job as Sox fans to stand up to him. I don't care if he's trying to help his career, and I don't care if he personally likes the White Sox or not. All I ask is that he display some measure of professionalism and integrity by not completely twisting the facts or inventing things. That's all.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 22, 2007 -> 12:54 PM) The whole newspaper industry is down as a whole. The Sun Times is no different than anywhere else in that regards. Their problems are coming from a corrupt owner more than Jay Mariotti. I not claiming Mariotti is the reason the paper is not selling. I'm claiming they may not put up with his nonsense at risk of even more financial decline. Just keep writing this crap, Jay. Your day will come. QUOTE(Dick Allen @ May 22, 2007 -> 12:57 PM) I wonder if Hawk understands he's doing Marriotti and the Sun Times a favor talking about his columns almost daily now. I applaud Hawk for what he's doing. You've got to counter Mariotti's BS. If you don't, people start believing it. Someone has to take a stand for the organization.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 22, 2007 -> 12:39 PM) You know why Kotex-boy got canned from AM 1000? His ratings sucked. No one listened to that show on the radio, so they fired him. The guy is still selling newspapers, so he isn't going anywhere until that changes. How do you know he is selling newspapers? Do you have data? All I know is the Sun-Times is considering selling off several smaller papers because they are not coming close to meeting sales goals. Subscription sales are down, newsstand sales are down, and advertisement sales are down. Is he really selling newspapers? And if he is, if he continues this bs, do you believe he will continue to?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 22, 2007 -> 12:29 PM) Mike Lupica made a career out of trashing a much more powerful George Steinbrenner/New York Yankees franchise since Kotex-boy was living in his mom's basement. This happens nationwide everyday, we just notice this guy more because he writes in Chicago. Nothing is going to change, unless he crosses an invisable line. Mike Lupica is 7 times the journalist Mariotti ever will be. Again, no one thought Mariotti would be gone from am 1000 either.

I absolutely understand that this is not unheard of. You are acting as though it will go on forever. It won't. If you don't recognize the increased power the White Sox organization and especially their fanbase has acquired through their World Series championship, in combination with the frustration on the North Side, then you're flat-out blind. This is not the little team on the South Side that no one cares about anymore. This team is building momentum with sustained success, a World Series title to back it up, and a vast increase at the gate which includes many more season ticket holders. Not only have ticket sales gone up, but radio and television ratings have increased. In sum, many White Sox fans have woken up from their slumber and more young kids are shunning the Cubs to be White Sox fans. If you haven't felt the increased enthusiasm at the games, then you aren't very perceptive. What that all means is a much larger demographic (and one getting younger and younger every year) with more $ to spend. The Sun-Times not only has to worry about selling papers, but they have to worry about selling advertisements. Those advertisers have to worry about selling their products. Alienating huge numbers of people because your most popular columnist loses all control of his professionalism is not a good long-term business plan. It might sell papers in the short-term, but it's not worth it in the long term. The Sun-Times is already struggling financially right now. They don't need this.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ May 22, 2007 -> 11:37 AM) Bottom line. It's about selling papers. If people are talking about Marriotti, it's good for business and that's all that matters. That may be an important consideration, but it isn't the only consideration. It may be good for business in the short term, but in the long term, it may become very bad for business. The Sun-Times has basically lucked into being the paper of many White Sox fans, due to the Cubs' affiliation with the Tribune, even though the Sun-Times is the City paper and the Tribune is the suburban paper. Mariotti is seriously threatening alienating the Sun-Times from a lot of White Sox fans- White Sox fans that are also Bulls fans and Bears fans. One would think that would weigh on their mind more so than one man's column.

Say what you want about Crede's injury, and impending departure from the ballclub, but he's still a gold glove 3b and one of the top hitters in MLB with RISP. I don't think Lidge's value, to our team anyways, even approaches Joe's.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ May 22, 2007 -> 10:15 AM) I still will bet you anything that Mariotti will be employed by the Sun times by the end of the year. His schtick hasnt changed, there is no reason for them to fire him He may be employed...but he will not be allowed to lob these bs columns at us every morning. His "schtick" will change. I refuse to believe the executives at the Sun-Times will allow him carte blanche to carry out personal vendettas against the man who owns the two most successful sports franchises in this City over the past twenty years. His column is certainly one which allows him to express his views. But when it becomes simply a forum to ignorantly bash one owner, one organization, one general manager, one manager, and one broadcaster, he is abusing his responsibilities. He will not be allowed to carry on that way. Whether it be a closed-door meeting with the people he answers to, another "vacation," or his ultimate dismissal, I don't know. But if this continues, something will be done. And remember, no one thought he was getting canned by am 1000 either.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ May 22, 2007 -> 09:00 AM) No way in hell. I will bet you a new Danks jersey right now that Mariotti is not fired this year Hah! I actually already have a new Danks jersey- the Halfway to St. Patricks Day white and green jersey. It is the apple of everyone's eye every time I go to a game...

I find it humorous how in this morning's column, he accuses Ozzie of being a hypocrite. This is the guy that never answers his critics and has eternal amnesia about his past columns (unless they turn out to actually be correct, a rare occurrence indeed). Then he has a sub-headline in the column asking "Where is the Integrity." Hah. This man asking where the integrity went. Mark my words. He will be fired. This season.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ May 21, 2007 -> 12:54 PM) I agree with most of what you think about Mariotti, but he isnt a journalist. He is a Columnist. he is paid to write what he thinks, not the truth of the situation. This is where he gets away with his assumptions and lack of integrity. Well, this is the definition of "columnist:" A columnist is a journalist who produces a specific form of writing for publication called a "column". Columns appear in newspapers, magazines and on the Internet. Some Internet columns are called blogs or Weblogs. The fact is, he is someone paid to express his views on sports in Chicago. I understand that. Simply because they are just his views, and not factual reporting, does not excuse him from any responsibility to recognize reality. He has been given a forum, why or how, I'm not certain, which is not so much a place to express his opinion for $, but rather, to educate the masses and elicit reaction, discussion, etc. In the past, with the exception of the World Weekly News and British tabloids, it has generally been held that columnists use their forum to comment on such issues that actually exist, and not those which the columnist has imagined to be the case. I am not angry because I disagree with the views of Jay Mariotti regarding the White Sox. Honestly, I rarely agree with any of the views of journalists in this town covering baseball. The difference lies in the integrity those other journalists utilize in writing their stories, articles, columns, etc. Whereas their work is not based on personal vendettas, it's ridiculously apparent that Jay's is.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ May 21, 2007 -> 11:03 AM) He seriously gets paid for this because of your reaction. If people didnt care, he wouldnt get paid, its that simple. We all know he is an idiot. He certainly does get paid to sell newspapers. However, that doesn't give him the right to be an entirely irrepsonsible journalist. A previous poster is absolutely correct- his hard-on for the White Sox, especially OG and KW is absolutely juvenile. I can scarcely think of an organization which could or should draw as much journalistic ire as the one on the North Side, and yet, Mariotti twists and bends every one of his stories about the White Sox into some sort of negative commentary on their manager and general manager. The article today was a prime example: Mariotti claims he has never said Ozzie Guillen has lost the clubhouse, and yet, all he does is suggest OG has lost the clubhouse- time and again. He then claims that Ken Williams refuses to take blame for the struggles of this team, and yet, Mariotti conveniently leaves out KW's quotes regarding roster moves if certain guys can't get the job done. Isn't this the prime method of a GM taking blame for a struggling team? Changing the group you put together with guys that possibly can? I know, I know, this is the sort of reaction that many say Mariotti intentionally elicits, thereby selling newspapers. But Mariotti is not some street vendor; he is not some fight promoter. He's a journalist. And even journalists have some responsibilities of integrity in their work. When it comes to the White Sox, Mariotti ignores those responsibilities. As a Sox fan, I have every right to expect more than that from the Sun-Times.

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ May 16, 2007 -> 04:24 PM) It was brought up on the post-game show, while Danks was being interviewed. Doesn't make a lot of sense not to start Danks for the following reasons... 1) Cubs bat .252 vs. LHP, .285 vs. RHP 2) You don't want Danks and Buehrle back-to-back 3) Ozzie seems to really trust him and I don't think would try to "protect" him from the Cubs' hysteria The problem is he's 22 and Ozzie is sensitive to overworking him. In the postgame interview, Ozzie seemed to be leaning towards bringing someone up.

Gio is looking pretty damn good in Birmingham right now...let's give it at least a bit longer to judge this thing. What happens with him is ultimately how this trade gets judged.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Apr 20, 2007 -> 02:18 PM) Bah it is...anything south of I80 is southern Illinois to me. Neal is from Lebanon, Illinois. Yes, he was a star for the Redbirds, Also, I love how they exlain that our guys were drinking road-sodies on the way home after a game...niiice

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Apr 20, 2007 -> 08:08 AM) It boggles the mind. Not only has Ozzie made the choice to start Erstad, but he took it a step further, making sure he gets the most AB's possible(being in the 1 hole) Simply incredible. Hey, but he made the ESPN all Under .200 team, albeit out of position, in Left Field! Come on guys, this guy plays the game "the right way." Honestly, I think it's unfair to criticize a guy for getting injured while working out on an off day in an attempt to avoid injury, but I've long been fighting a losing battle around here in regards to Scottie. Regardless, the answer is not Iguchi...I think he's too valuable in the two-slot to bother moving him, but I would settle for this lineup: 1) Mackowiak LF 2) Iguchi 2b 3) Thome DH 4) Konerko 1b 5) Dye RF 6) Pierzynski C 7) Crede 3b 8) Uribe SS 9) Anderson CF Unfortunately, it's fairly clear Ozzie won't bench Darin for any prolonged period as long as he is on the team in my opinion. I think he would have to be released before his playing time would get significantly reduced, so I've accepted that I may well cheer for the bum instead of griping about him every MOMENT OF MY WAKING LIFE. Damn, that GrindErstad pisses me off...pisses me right off.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Apr 19, 2007 -> 11:36 AM) Or he could have thought outside the box, instead of targeting the big name high priced free agent leadoff men. He went with his bad, oft-injured in house option which was never going to work, there were a number of high OBP, lower speed leadoff type players available this offseason. You don't need to overpay for high SB, low SB% slap hitters when you can instead target guys who are simply going to get on base for you and now he has neither. The Sox still have a leadoff type hitter on the roster though he'll never be used in that role, in Iguchi. Kalapse, you're operating under the premise that KW is the manager of this ballclub, and not Ozzie. Because of his NL days, whether it be correct or not (you don't need to tell me what you think), Ozzie wants a speedy, more traditional lead-off man. With those parameters in mind, the options on the trade market and the free agent market were few and far between for Kenny. And you can bet he kicked the tires on Carl Crawford and Ichiro, believe me.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Apr 19, 2007 -> 11:22 AM) If KW is willing to pay the price (which I highly doubt he is) a trade involving a soon to be free agent Ichiro is not totally out of the question. You're not exactly dealing with a genius in Seattle. And as for KW's question, that was his job this offseason, to find a REAL leadoff hitter and he f***ed that up. It's his own fault that he's backed into a corner yet again. You sound like Mariotti there, Kalapse. That's bs, short-term thinking. If you want to pay $9,000,000 a year for 3-5 years for a leadoff man instead of what we have in house for $2,900,000 and 1 year, then puff puff, pass, broseph.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 11, 2007 -> 12:16 PM) That's an anomaly that worked out. Otherwise, you can use that example to say that managers should never use defensive replacements because the starter *might* have a productive AB later. It was a move that should have been made. Yeah, and Jenks shouldn't have given up three hits in the first place. I can argue all day long with you. It's bs to just b**** and moan about certain players or a manager but not others because you don't happen to like them. It started and ended with Bobby, and he even said so himself.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Apr 11, 2007 -> 12:12 PM) Pods hit that homer in the 5th inning. It's ridiculous to say that wanting Pods replaced in the field in the 9th inning equates to wanting him replaced in the 5th. Putting in defensive replacements in the 9th inning with a lead is a pretty standard managing practice. Ozzie has done it with Konerko in the past when Gload was on the team. It's not overly criticial to suggest that Ozzie should have had his best defensive outfield out there. Sure, the loss is due to the Sox anemic offense and Jenks pithcing poorly. But it's also due to terrible managing. Getting palyers to hit or pitch better is hard. Putting a better LF out there is easy. That's why people here are annoyed -- there was a simple move to make that would have increased the chances of victory and Ozzie failed to make it. I'm sure Ozzie is a better manager than I would be, but he screwed up last night. I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to Game two of the World Series, in which a very similar sequence of events occurred.