Media Tools

'If there were an IQ test for baseball acumen - Reyes would flunk it. He makes Marquis look like a MENSA member.' - Bernie Miklasz

So that's a quote Bernie made in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch forums recently, in the wake of Anthony Reyes' demotion to Triple-A. Let me start by saying it's a cheap shot, and here's why: it's needlessly mean-spirited for one, but more importantly, it doesn't address the question Bernie was asked. The original commenter wanted to know about Kid Reyes' competitiveness, I guess because Iron Bill hasn't seemed all that fazed by his struggles so far this year, as opposed to Adam Wainwright, who apparently we can tell is very competitive because he acts more emotional. So the commenter wanted to know if Anthony just didn't care, or if he was just being mature, and not showing his frustration with his start to the season.

So yeah, ask yourself how Bernie's response answers that question. For the record, I've e-mailed Mr. Miklasz asking him just that (though I was more polite than I'm gonna be here). I figured it was more direct that way, plus I don't have to actually register or whatever is required to post on the forums, and I don't have to risk getting flamed by Bernie Backers who might be insulted that I dared to question him. If/when I get a response I'll add it to the post. But the quote at the top of this post raised some deeper questions in my mind, namely that the media might be getting used by the team.

The first time I heard such an idea, it was on a Cubs blog (probably IvyChat). There was a discussion about how as long as Cubs' (owned by the Tribune company) management believed in Corey Patterson, or Prior, or Dusty Baker, the Chicago Tribune (also owned by the Tribune company) would have articles and columns praising those players/coaches. They'd have positive quotes about how the player is "really working hard", or just needs a "few balls to fall differently", or they're "making solid progress in recovering from their injuries", or whatever. The point being, the paper would be supportive of the person in question, hopefully producing a similar response in the ticket-buying fans.

But at the point where management soured on the player/coach, you'd start to see negative columns, talking about how they "don't get it", or they "won't accept coaching", or "they've lost the team", or downplaying the severity of an injury, things designed to suggest the player and/or coach are holding the team back. That way, when the player or coach is fired/released/traded/allowed to leave as a free agent, the fans are glad they're gone, because the fans are convinced that the player was terrible, and that it certainly wasn't management's fault, or the coaches' (if it's a player), or the players' (if it's a coach).

So now I'm wondering if the Cardinals use the Post-Dispatch the same way. Thinking about, it seems like every time a player doesn't work out with the Cardinals (especially pitchers), it's the player's fault. Jason Marquis wouldn't follow the game plan, neither would Garrett Stephenson, and Brett Tomko had problems, too. They were throwing, not pitching (I believe Tony said that about Marquis last September). I've never once heard LaRussa or Duncan admit that maybe they took the wrong approach with a pitcher, and they were going to try a different tact with them. It just gradually becomes ingrained in the public mindset that the failures are on the player for not following the coaching staff, rather than the coaching staff not putting the player in the best position to succeed. And then nobody is really sorry to see that guy leave.

Let me say that I'm not saying that the failures of Stephenson in 2003, Marquis in 2005 and 2006, or Iron Bill's struggles this year are totally on the LaRussa/Duncan combo. The stats are so bad, it's hard to figure the player doesn't deserve some of the fault. But these are also players that at one point were key contributors to playoff teams (Garrett in 2000, Jason in 2004, Reyes last year), and by the time the first two left, most fans couldn't wait for them to get lost, because we'd been convinced they were bad eggs.

Or to use another example, remember when the Cardinals traded for Edmonds? We kept hearing that Jimmy was a bad teammate, that he was going to poison clubhouse chemistry, that he was a lazy showboater. I'll agree that Edmonds hams it up at times, but have we seen or heard anything about the other stuff? Not that I can recall, in fact Edmonds seems to be a vocal leader in the clubhouse, as opposed to Albert who seems to be a "lead by example" type. It's certainly possible that being traded was a wake-up call to Jim, and so he matured a bit, but it's also possible that the media in Anaheim was helping the team by convincing the fans it was good to trade Edmonds for Kent Bottenfield and Adam Kennedy (I still can't believe I thought that was a bad trade).

So, do you think sports teams use the local media as a public realtions firm, making players look good or bad to suit the team's plans? I'm just wondering, because if so, I think I may have been a little hard on Marquis this off-season.