Local media

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Pushmonkey said:

I think the average fan has already done that. Sadly I worry that they will get those fans back. 

Yep, the average fan has.  I was talking about the diehards.

[Pushmonkey]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Yep, the average fan has.  I was talking about the diehards.

The diehards are dwindling I would think so too. 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Pushmonkey said:

The diehards are dwindling I would think so too. 

Will it spurn some action?

We'll see.

[Philip]

56 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Meaningful answers like what?

Whining about the media is one of the weirdest things that people do on here, IMO.  What happens if MASN isn't an Orioles mouthpiece?  What happens if the Sun all of a sudden stops writing fluff pieces and starts asking hard questions?

Does Elias promote AR faster?  Does he promote G-Rod faster?  Does he change his draft strategy?  Does he step up and sign talented pitchers in the off-season?  Does he start Cowser at AA next year?  Do the Orioles start winning more games faster because MASN and the Sun are trying to hold Elias's feet to the fire?

What do people expect the media to do?  "Meaningful answers!!!" What meaningful answers are there other than gathering as much talent as possible? 

Does anyone think that Elias is all of a sudden going to start giving direct answers because the media is suddenly going to start asking the tough questions?  

People have a weird, weird obsession with the media in this country and their perception of what the media actually does and can do.  The Baltimore media has precisely dick **** to do with the product that the Orioles put on the field.  Asking a different set of questions doesn't change anything.  

How about, instead of “meaningful” we ask for “accurate” for instance in 2018 when buck was saying, “this is what we have.” Why didn’t anybody ask buck, “what the hell were you doing in the off-season?”

 

[Moose Milligan]

24 minutes ago, Philip said:

How about, instead of “meaningful” we ask for “accurate” for instance in 2018 when buck was saying, “this is what we have.” Why didn’t anybody ask buck, “what the hell were you doing in the off-season?”

 

What would that have done for you?

[Frobby]

56 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You want them to take your dissatisfaction seriously you need to stop doing anything that will add to their income.

Quit watching MASN, quit going to games, quit buying merch.

That will get their attention.  I'm not sure anything else will.

 

I think this is the truth of it.   If you aren’t happy with how the team is managing its rebuild and want the team to know it, then don’t engage in activities that pay them money.  

Personally, I’m not enjoying the losing but I feel the rebuild was necessary and I’m still supporting the team by going to games, etc.  But if others want to “send a message,” fine with me.  
 

[Philip]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

What would that have done for you?

That’s a good question what would have done for me is demonstrate honesty and accountability. I hate it when the guys stand in front of the media and say everything‘s fine, or they say everything is not fine in a way that makes you think they are saying everything is really fine.

If Buck had said, “ well I really expected Tillman to be full speed and Dan and I couldn’t get together on some solid free agent signings.” Or something to that extent, it wouldn’t have changed anything but it would have had a refreshing air of honesty that would give me more faith in the organizations ability to fix the problem moving forward.

[Philip]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I think this is the truth of it.   If you aren’t happy with how the team is managing its rebuild and want the team to know it, then don’t engage in activities that pay them money.  

Personally, I’m not enjoying the losing but I feel the rebuild was necessary and I’m still supporting the team by going to games, etc.  But if others want to “send a message,” fine with me.  
 

The problem with that is the mythology of “your vote counts.”

I turned 18 days before November 1980, and cast my very first presidential vote. In Texas, I remember thinking at the time how proud I was to be making a meaningful vote. After the landslide, I wrote in my journal that I could’ve voted for Jimmy Carter 1 million times and he still would’ve lost, so my vote(and I refrain from saying for whom I voted) didn’t matter. My vote has never mattered, not even in the election for dogcatcher( I vote anyway because obligation duty blah blah blah.)

What matters is influence. If I can influence 1 million people to vote a certain way that’s something. And that’s the only way we can make people like Orioles management pay attention to us. Angelos doesn’t give a damn whether I buy a Chris Davis jersey or not.

But they will pay attention if there is a public drive among the faithful to refrain from buying any jerseys at all. If 100 cars with 500 people pay for parking at OPACY And lobby other folks not to go to the game, there might be some meaningful result from that, even if they don’t keep people from going to the game.

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Philip

[thatbearflies]

24 minutes ago, Philip said:

That’s a good question what would have done for me is demonstrate honesty and accountability. I hate it when the guys stand in front of the media and say everything‘s fine, or they say everything is not fine in a way that makes you think they are saying everything is really fine.

If Buck had said, “ well I really expected Tillman to be full speed and Dan and I couldn’t get together on some solid free agent signings.” Or something to that extent, it wouldn’t have changed anything but it would have had a refreshing air of honesty that would give me more faith in the organizations ability to fix the problem moving forward.

But no matter what, there is interpretation that you are making on the manager or GM's answers. For instance, I don't really see them dancing around questions when they are asked. They seem to fully acknowledge the poor performance of the pitching staff and underperforming players in general. There was even an instance on MASN where one of the commentators was trying to nicely refer to Maikel Franco's poor play and he was cut off by the other guy who said, "Bad. The word you are looking for is bad." Now, they don't call that player trash or call for launching them into the sun, but I don't think that is what anyone expects them to say. When we talk about Elias, if you disagree with the underslot strategy (just using "you" figuratively, I don't know your individual stances), should they just write weekly articles reminding everyone how much they disagree and this is so wrong, the team is doomed? Oriole personnel are giving corporate answers, which I understand that we as fans want something more blunt, but let's examine the example that you provided.

So if Buck said, “ well I really expected Tillman to be full speed and Dan and I couldn’t get together on some solid free agent signings,” there is absolutely zero percent chance that anyone on this board would have reacted with "well at least they were honest, that's refreshing." The overwhelming reaction would be that the GM and manager are openly not on the same page and that the organization is more dysfunctional than we even assumed. The house would be on fire and there would be "Hot" threads all over that Orioles talk page. There would be immediate calls for terminations and demanding of new personnel. Now, your reaction to that might be "good," but no organization is going to expose itself in that way and on top of that, I don't think throwing the GM under the bus for the team build is going to instill any confidence in that manager or the organization. Not to mention if you are the players.

As for the politics example you gave, the only real thing I would say to that is a reminder that we are talking about how a GM plans to rebuild a sports franchise. Ultimately, I have seen some solid discussion on this board for people who think Elias is too lackadaisical with the major league product, I've seen logical arguments that the way he is currently doing it is totally fine. We all have varying disagreements with the way the team is ran whether it is Elias, Duquette, McPhail, etc. I take Frobby's approach, just don't engage with the content if you feel that what they are doing is so egregious and malfeasant, but I think this "we all need to take stand" type mentality is sort of losing the plot of what we are talking about and the gravity of what we are talking about. Everyone in this thread, if not the entire board, is frustrated with the major league performance and we all have our opinions, timelines, etc. You are posting right now because you only want to see the team do well, but I don't think the methods mentioned in the thread are going to change anything besides make Baltimore a small market team with a toxic media and fanbase environment. 

And I don't want this team seem like we are arguing for nothing but soft media. You can ask tough questions that need to be elaborated on, but we the fanbase also need to be willing to hear the answers, even if it is something we don't like or if it is not phrased how we want it. Hell, that's the point of this board in some ways. If you hear Elias talk about his draft strategy and how he thinks the rebuild is going, and you totally disagree, come make a thread. I read opinions I disagree with all the time on here, but sometimes, there is a damn good argument to go along with it and totally see where they are coming from. Someone is going to read what I just wrote and totally disagree with it. But I don't think our collective leadership has been anywhere near as evasive on difficult questions as it is being portrayed, but I think the level of frustration has made it so for parts of the fanbase, they can't hear it. Whether or not that is justified is up to the individual, but we can all disagree with the course we are on, but that is the game plan they are working toward executing. For all our sakes, I hope it works out. 

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

That’s a good question what would have done for me is demonstrate honesty and accountability. I hate it when the guys stand in front of the media and say everything‘s fine, or they say everything is not fine in a way that makes you think they are saying everything is really fine.

If Buck had said, “ well I really expected Tillman to be full speed and Dan and I couldn’t get together on some solid free agent signings.” Or something to that extent, it wouldn’t have changed anything but it would have had a refreshing air of honesty that would give me more faith in the organizations ability to fix the problem moving forward.

Ok.

And what would that have done for you?

[Nite]

I moved up to the Philly market 6 years ago and I'm in love with their radio here. WIP holds Philly sports feet to the fire. Even when the Phillies were on that 8 game winning streak they were just waiting for the bottom to drop out. They go hard on all their teams, and it's something I always wished I got when I would listen to 105.7 when I lived down there.

[Philip]

2 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Ok.

And what would that have done for you?

Was that not clear from my answer? @thatbearflies Made a brilliant comment, mine was less brilliant but also more succinct, I said-perhaps you didn’t read that far-That I would’ve found it refreshing and it would’ve Increased my faith in the ability of the organization to fix problems moving forward.

Now before you get started, let me agree that what they say in public has absolutely nothing to do with what they are doing in private, but when they say nothing in public it is easy to infer that they are not addressing the problem in private. When they acknowledge a very legitimate problem in public they are at least acknowledging that the problem exists, they are acknowledging what the problem is, and we can at least infer that they are taking logical steps to fix it.

That is why transparency is a good thing, and when Dan or Buck stood in front of the media and made non-comments, in addition to being condescending and arrogant(Because they are implying that we’re too stupid to know the difference)they are giving every indication that they don’t know the problem or even acknowledge the problem exists.

[Moose Milligan]

10 hours ago, Philip said:

Was that not clear from my answer? @thatbearflies Made a brilliant comment, mine was less brilliant but also more succinct, I said-perhaps you didn’t read that far-That I would’ve found it refreshing and it would’ve Increased my faith in the ability of the organization to fix problems moving forward.

Now before you get started, let me agree that what they say in public has absolutely nothing to do with what they are doing in private, but when they say nothing in public it is easy to infer that they are not addressing the problem in private. When they acknowledge a very legitimate problem in public they are at least acknowledging that the problem exists, they are acknowledging what the problem is, and we can at least infer that they are taking logical steps to fix it.

That is why transparency is a good thing, and when Dan or Buck stood in front of the media and made non-comments, in addition to being condescending and arrogant(Because they are implying that we’re too stupid to know the difference)they are giving every indication that they don’t know the problem or even acknowledge the problem exists.

I read your reply. 
 

So what would finding it refreshing have done for you?

[spleen1015]

Everyone knows this team was going to be bad. The predictors gave them a 0% chance to make the playoffs.

What do you want the media to tell us that we don't already know?

I would prefer to read/hear about the good things that are part of this bad year instead of how bad it is. I know it's bad. I don't need to constantly hear about it.

[Philip]

2 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I read your reply. 
 

So what would finding it refreshing have done for you?

I’m not sure what is the point of your repeated questions. I’ve answered twice.

Imagine asking a politician a clear and direct question and receiving a clear and direct answer, even if it’s an answer you don’t like. I don’t understand why you don’t see that as a positive.

Remember, the essence of communication is not agreement but understanding. But equivocations and non-answers and digressions don’t contribute to any kind of understanding: on the contrary, they make understanding impossible because they deliberately avoid answering the question.

 

edit: Here’s an example. When Beto O’Roarke was running for governor of texas, he was asked about gun control. He proudly and clearly said,”I’m going to take your assault rifles away.” ( he might actually have said “guns” but he got blasted in the election so it doesn’t really matter)
I was delighted he made a clear statement even though the statement itself was terrible in almost every way. I respected him for saying it, while other candidates gave typical generic and meaningless replies to the same question.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Philip