Actions Speak Louder than Words

[Dipper9]

To your point, Roch and Melewski have NEVER written about this stuff for their readers, so to that extent, this entire article would be NEWS to many fans who are not OH addicts like ourselves.

If this was "old news" to many of the media guys around town (Roch, Melewski) -- how come they didn't write it themselves when it was "new news"?

That is what baffles me.

For years we have heard rumblings coming out of the warehouse about the infighting and the disorganization -- but no one has written extensively about it until now.

The local guys should be bitter. They either were handcuffed by their employers to write a piece like this or it never dawned on them to do it.

I'm going to try to take the high road in all of this, but I agree with this. I was not surprised at all by Melewski's comments, but I was by Roch's, especially considering the amount of support I've given him over the years. His response was very disappointing to me from several angles, but hey, he's allowed to have any opinion he wants.

Tony, its understandable that Roch could not actually write an article like you did, but any idea why he would make the kind of comments he did? It ALMOST lends creadence to the NST guys' stance that Roch is just an apologist, and I REALLY did not want to believe that.

[Hank Scorpio]

Because they wanted Crawford and his speed more.

You're taking my comment a bit too literally. Obviously the Yanks can't be in on EVERY free agent, but you better believe the biggest ones they will be involved in. I mean hell, they were ready to bring in Cliff Lee to the team that already has 5 pretty darn good (and some expensive) pitchers. As for Holliday, as previously stated by others, The Yanks are waiting for Crawford.

Right.

And they'll sign Crawford for 8 years and there's one less position they'll need to fill for awhile.

[Mackus]

I'm going to try to take the high road in all of this, but I agree with this. I was not surprised at all by Melewski's comments, but I was by Roch's, especially considering the amount of support I've given him over the years. His response was very disappointing to me from several angles, but hey, he's allowed to have any opinion he wants.

A lot of it was old news though, less so in terms of it being well-known but mainly in it just being old, in regards to the blocked trades. I don't mean to imply that the history isn't important or disheartening, but it isn't exactly breaking news.

The Dave Stockstill stuff, to me, was the most interesting and inflammatory part of the piece. I agree that its odd that other reporters are considering that to either not be newsworthy or to have been fully covered in the past. I wouldn't agree with either of those statements, its something that very much should be explored, and I'm glad you shed some light on it.

Any comments on the stuff about the Marlins trade? I really think that the source is confusing his facts with that one. It being Beckett instead of Burnett both conflicts with every single report from that July and also makes absolutely zero logical sense in terms of the package you specifically named in the article as opposed to what they traded him for a few months later.

[Frobby]

Tony, its understandable that Roch could not actually write an article like you did, but any idea why he would make the kind of comments he did? It ALMOST lends creadence to the NST guys' stance that Roch is just an apologist, and I REALLY did not want to believe that.

I wouldn't call Roch "just an apologist," but there are common sense limits in how far he can go in being critical of the team or disseminating information that is not very directly related to the major league on-field product but which would be embarassing to the organization if printed. He can, and does, gently prod about certain things out there in the public domain in a way that is somewhat critical, but not "in your face" critical. That's about as far as you can expect him to go, realistically.

It was stupid for him to comment on Tony's article, frankly. Maybe he felt he needed to do so to stay on Dave Stockstill's Christmas card list.

[Don_Aase_Fan]

I really think that the source is confusing his facts with that one. It being Beckett instead of Burnett both conflicts with every single report from that July and also makes absolutely zero logical sense in terms of the package you specifically named in the article as opposed to what they traded him for a few months later.

The piece has been corrected with AJ Burnett being in the nixed trade with the Marlins and not Josh Beckett.

[ChaosLex]

Roch and Melewski both came off as "catty." The latter more than the former, IMO.

[Mackus]

The piece has been corrected with AJ Burnett being in the nixed trade with the Marlins and not Josh Beckett.

Ah, hadn't seen that. Thanks.

Score one for my memory over John-OH's!

[allstar1579]

I'm going to try to take the high road in all of this, but I agree with this. I was not surprised at all by Melewski's comments, but I was by Roch's, especially considering the amount of support I've given him over the years. His response was very disappointing to me from several angles, but hey, he's allowed to have any opinion he wants.

I don't blame you for feeling like that at all, but I wonder if Roch didn't come off harsher than he meant to because it sounded like he was offended by the way the question was posed to him. I mean it was almost like, ha, here's this great article now what do you PA homeboys at MASN have to say about THAT?

Hard to say because I'm not him, I just read it a little differently, I could easily be wrong though.

[Hank Scorpio]

Tony, its understandable that Roch could not actually write an article like you did, but any idea why he would make the kind of comments he did? It ALMOST lends creadence to the NST guys' stance that Roch is just an apologist, and I REALLY did not want to believe that.

What did he say?

I'm missing something.

I don't blame you for feeling like that at all, but I wonder if Roch didn't come off harsher than he meant to because it sounded like he was offended by the way the question was posed to him. I mean it was almost like, ha, here's this great article now what do you PA homeboys at MASN have to say about THAT?

Hard to say because I'm not him, I just read it a little differently, I could easily be wrong though.

That's kinda what I saw, but maybe there was another comment somewhere.

[Dipper9]

I wouldn't call Roch "just an apologist," but there are common sense limits in how far he can go in being critical of the team or disseminating information that is not very directly related to the major league on-field product but which would be embarassing to the organization if printed. He can, and does, gently prod about certain things out there in the public domain in a way that is somewhat critical, but not "in your face" critical. That's about as far as you can expect him to go, realistically.

It was stupid for him to comment on Tony's article, frankly. Maybe he felt he needed to do so to stay on Dave Stockstill's Christmas card list.

I agree that Roch takes shots at the on field performance, and makes small comments about the front office. I also understand completely that he cannot completely bash the people he works for. But, to your last sentence, why take a shot at Tony instead of just saying something like, "yes, I read the article and it was well written." Or something along those lines? Instead, it seemed like he and Steve were trying to discredit Tony's source and in turn make people think the information was not factual. That's where I have a problem.

[Going Underground]

Tony. I thought you said once that you and Roch talk alot and sit sometimes at the games together? Maybe Roch had to say something so they don't think he was a source on the article.:laughlol:

[allstar1579]

What did he say?

I'm missing something.

That's kinda what I saw, but maybe there was another comment somewhere.

Yeah I mean you know how the comments go on his stuff, it's like he's being attacked in 1/4 of them. He's human and gets tired of hearing the same crap over and over again. I just felt like the one comment that got posted here was more reactionary and taken a bit out of context compared to if we got to see all the comments he was getting (not just the ones he approves and posts).

[Greg Pappas]

I'm going to try to take the high road in all of this, but I agree with this. I was not surprised at all by Melewski's comments, but I was by Roch's, especially considering the amount of support I've given him over the years. His response was very disappointing to me from several angles, but hey, he's allowed to have any opinion he wants.

I agree with you Tony, and that's what I was referring to when I said earlier that Roch implied a lot in his 'non-response'. He's a good guy, but it's disappointing nonetheless.

BTW, just listened... outstanding job on The Rob Long Show.

[DuffMan]

What did he say?

I'm missing something.

That's kinda what I saw, but maybe there was another comment somewhere.

I'm assuming they are talking about his comment here (5th comment down). http://www.masnsports.com/school_of_roch/2010/07/a-few-updates-6.html

Nice try, but you're not baiting me into an argument. Nothing to "respond" to. Nothing we haven't heard before (except it was Burnett, not Beckett, and there were other concerns about Lowell besides hip and average). And we know the main "source" supplying all the info. It's obvious to all of us on the beat. I'm sure it makes for a good read for some people, and Tony went to a lot of time and trouble to produce it. There, I responded. Tell Kyle I said hello, since his name is all over this IP address. - Roch

[Hank Scorpio]

I'm assuming they are talking about his comment here (5th comment down). http://www.masnsports.com/school_of_roch/2010/07/a-few-updates-6.html

Yeah, I saw that one but I didn't read it as Roch being snarky towards Tony so much as Roch being annoyed with the slap**** who posted the comment. It probably reads a little differently when you've written the piece.