106 replies to this topic

[Rob Bradford]

OK all, all done. Got to go. Thanks for the patience and the time.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Quote

OK, I'm here. To speak to Dave's point, I did not split his out to make it's own thread (even though whomever posted the new thread used my name so it looked like I did). The original reason for me chiming in was to offer clarification regarding Sports Saturday and WEEI.com after there had been some muddled opinions/statements. That was it. I want to help bring accurate information into the equation. So, with that, I'll now try and answer some previous questions ...

Rob,

Just to explain how a topic is pulled from another thread and given it's own thread. In order to pull a group of posts from one thread and make a new thread, the Mod/Dope has to check off a box next to a post, which only Mods/Dopes can see. The first box check becomes the defacto start of the thread, so you're right, it did look like you started the thread but that was only coincidental. Your post (in the other thread) was just deemed the most logical starting point for a new thread.

Edit: Thanks again for answering the questions.

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

Rob Bradford, on 26 April 2011 - 11:09 AM, said:

- Obviously I would recommend that you start venturing over to WEEI.com (selfishly, I guess). But the one thing that I think we have proven is that it is a site where you can get a little of everything, probably more than most destinations because of the diversity.

Just a comment, not a question. Rob I rarely listen to WEEI anymore for various reasons (my schedule, programming changes) but I always visit WEEI.com a couple times a day. Alex Speier's writing (and his podcast), Christopher Price's football insight, and your contributions have really added to the sports media in Boston. Even your "This Just In" news updates are accurate and immediate for breaking news. So, all in all, great job on reworking the site - it was pretty lousy before you got involved. And to anybody else who doesn't visit it, it's worth checking in imo. And thanks for taking the time to answer questions.

[Huntington Avenue Grounds]

Rob,

Thanks for answering our questions, I appreciate your time. This tread has got me checking out weei.com for the first time and while I can't put myself down as a fan of the radio arm, your efforts on the web look to be pretty solid.

[Goosfraba]

I thoroughly enjoy reading WEEI.com and the main reason is Alex Speier. He's a phenomenal talent, highly intelligent, very knowledgeable, and a great guy. I've exchanged emails with him and was very impressed. He has every right to possess a huge ego, but he doesn't. I would love to see either him or Rob become the Globe Red Sox beat writer some day, but I doubt either would want the job. Perhaps they can at least appear on the pre-game show a few times now that WEEI has a working relationship with NESN?

[nazz45]

Some advice for the Saturday morning show.

Step 1: Talk Bruins instead of roasting/baiting Jack Edwards

Step 2: ???????

Step 3: Probably still suck

That interview was a shit show embarrassment for the station. I get it, Jack's a goofball homer who is a bit full of himself. You got him! Good for you guys (Rob and Kirk actually sounded angry with him; it was just, I don't know, odd). The only guy who came away looking good in that interview was Jack. And this comes from someone who doesn't care for Edwards at all.

Edited by nazz45, 30 April 2011 - 12:45 PM.

[Phenom]

nazz45, on 30 April 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

Some advice for the Saturday morning show.

Step 1: Talk Bruins instead of roasting/baiting Jack Edwards

Step 2: ???????

Step 3: Probably still suck

That interview was a shit show embarrassment for the station. I get it, Jack's a goofball homer who is a bit full of himself. You got him! Good for you guys (Rob and Kirk actually sounded angry with him; it was just, I don't know, odd). The only guy who came away looking good in that interview was Jack. And this comes from someone who doesn't care for Edwards at all.

Yeah...I really don't understand all of the talk on this show about Jack Edwards.

Is it that the hosts are incapable of talking actual hockey, so roasting the play-by-play voice of the Bruins is the best they can do? Because there's no way anyone could care about this topic enough to talk about in non-stop for 2 weeks, right?

Edited by Phenom, 30 April 2011 - 01:13 PM.

[Soxbrained]

nazz45, on 30 April 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

Some advice for the Saturday morning show.

Step 1: Talk Bruins instead of roasting/baiting Jack Edwards

Step 2: ???????

Step 3: Probably still suck

That interview was a shit show embarrassment for the station. I get it, Jack's a goofball homer who is a bit full of himself. You got him! Good for you guys (Rob and Kirk actually sounded angry with him; it was just, I don't know, odd). The only guy who came away looking good in that interview was Jack. And this comes from someone who doesn't care for Edwards at all.

I second this. That interview was ridiculous, and frankly, a little weird. And I'm just a passable Hockey fan. I was just asking myself, "are these guys for real?". Apparently they were. One of the first questions was whether Edwards was doing it just to create a brand for himself. Ironically, that's the sense I got those guys were trying to do Jack Edwards's back. It's really too bad the Baseball show isn't simulcast, because the radio options are like Dumb and Dumber; I was happy to get back home and turn on the TV.

Edit: I actually found Edwards to be fairly restrained. I don't know that I would have been, faced with such blatant shock-jockery.

Edited by Soxbrained, 30 April 2011 - 04:56 PM.

[Jack Sox]

Phenom, on 30 April 2011 - 01:13 PM, said:

Yeah...I really don't understand all of the talk on this show about Jack Edwards.

Is it that the hosts are incapable of talking actual hockey, so roasting the play-by-play voice of the Bruins is the best they can do? Because there's no way anyone could care about this topic enough to talk about in non-stop for 2 weeks, right?

I think we have a bingo here. Man, that was painful to listen to. I thought Edwards' speech was a little ridiculous and over the top, but then I heard his rationale for it the next day. He basically said it was all done towards the Canadiens and their fans sense of entitlement and then I had no problem with it at all. There were tons of opportunities to delve into the cultures surrounding Boston and Montreal hockey, but that area seemingly went untouched.

That was some really bad radio.

[Sinistas]

It was so bad I heard somebody call into 98.5 to complain about it and praise Gresh and Zolak for doing a good job. That's bad.

[sum dood]

Jack Sox, on 30 April 2011 - 05:55 PM, said:

I think we have a bingo here. Man, that was painful to listen to. I thought Edwards' speech was a little ridiculous and over the top, but then I heard his rationale for it the next day. He basically said it was all done towards the Canadiens and their fans sense of entitlement and then I had no problem with it at all. There were tons of opportunities to delve into the cultures surrounding Boston and Montreal hockey, but that area seemingly went untouched.

That was some really bad radio.

Completely agree that this was a result of the three hosts being utterly incapable of having an intelligent discussion on the Bruins.

I gave the Saturday show one more chance this morning and do not plan on tuning in again anytime soon. It's a train wreck. That interview with Jack Edwards was a complete embarrassment and the fact that Bradford felt highly enough of it to post it on the EEI site goes to show you how clueless management over there has become. I find it hard to believe that NESN is all too thrilled about this.

The show would be somewhat tolerable if they lost that noob Perrault. He's an even more grating version of Mutnansky - an empty suit who couldn't hold an argument if it had handles. Figures that he was the one who got Edwards on the show just to blindside him with that asshattery, and then proceeded to strain a muscle patting himself on the back for it. Can't believe WEEI has demoted proven professionals like Dale Arnold in exchange for hiring d-bags like Perrault.

[Puffy]

I agree with everyone else on this one. I think they could have contained that portion of the interview to the first 5 minutes. They ended up angrily repeating themselves again and again for the ENTIRE interview.

The problem, Rob, is that it began to sound like too much of an insider's debate about proper broadcasting etiquette between members of the media. I have a hard time believing that the average person cared a whit about it at this point on Saturday morning. If you thought you had a point, feel free to ask a few probing questions, but let it go. It was bewildering that you would keep wanting to hammer him as if this were some WEEI version of Frost/Nixon or something. You made your point and then beat the dead horse for 15 minutes. The subsequent patting yourselves on the back for it was embarrassing. I was neutral going into the interview, but by the end of it I was thinking like Edwards - where the hell do you get off telling a guy how to do his job? The three on one pile on was not becoming at all.

(And I'm a guy who is not really a hockey fan or a fan of Edwards. I've been an admirer of Rob Bradford since his days at the Eagle Tribune and consider him to be one of the top baseball minds in the Boston sports media.)

[Oogies Loogies]

sum dood, on 30 April 2011 - 06:27 PM, said:

Completely agree that this was a result of the three hosts being utterly incapable of having an intelligent discussion on the Bruins.

I gave the Saturday show one more chance this morning and do not plan on tuning in again anytime soon. It's a train wreck. That interview with Jack Edwards was a complete embarrassment and the fact that Bradford felt highly enough of it to post it on the EEI site goes to show you how clueless management over there has become. I find it hard to believe that NESN is all too thrilled about this.

The show would be somewhat tolerable if they lost that noob Perrault. He's an even more grating version of Mutnansky - an empty suit who couldn't hold an argument if it had handles. Figures that he was the one who got Edwards on the show just to blindside him with that asshattery, and then proceeded to strain a muscle patting himself on the back for it. Can't believe WEEI has demoted proven professionals like Dale Arnold in exchange for hiring d-bags like Perrault.

Perrault said he told NESN when he was arranging the interview what it was going to be about, fwiw.

I didn't have as big of a problem with the interview as everyone else, I guess. Edwards has been a hot topic on blogs and sports radio. A lot of people have a problem with him (I don't. As a very casual hockey fan, I find him very entertaining). I think they asked some legitimate questions about how he goes about his job and why he does some of the things he does. They were repetitive at times and probably could have taken less of a scolding tone, but if you read Kirk Minihane's column on WEEI.com, you got pretty much what you'd expect.

I give Edwards a lot of credit for taking the heat during the entire interview. He said he was doing it while watching his kid's soccer game, so I wouldn't have blamed him if he hung up on them.

Edited by Oogies Loogies, 30 April 2011 - 06:52 PM.

[sum dood]

Puffy, on 30 April 2011 - 06:41 PM, said:

(And I'm a guy who is not really a hockey fan or a fan of Edwards. I've been an admirer of Rob Bradford since his days at the Eagle Tribune and consider him to be one of the top baseball minds in the Boston sports media.)

I also enjoy Bradford's writing on the Sox and respected him for trying to keep the talk to sports when he was a frequent guest on the Big Show. That he was an active participant and promoter of that joke of an interview was disappointing.

[Jack Sox]

Quote

Bruins play-by-play announcer Jack Edwards joins Sports Saturday to discuss the upcoming B's series vs Philly and his broadcasting style.

From the link above. The bold really didn't happen and really should have.

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

Phenom, on 30 April 2011 - 01:13 PM, said:

Yeah...I really don't understand all of the talk on this show about Jack Edwards.

Is it that the hosts are incapable of talking actual hockey, so roasting the play-by-play voice of the Bruins is the best they can do? Because there's no way anyone could care about this topic enough to talk about in non-stop for 2 weeks, right?

Absolutely agree. That was a piss poor pile on in what was supposed to be a Bruins interview. And you're correct, Kirk Minihane even admits that he knows zero about hockey so I guess the only thing he could talk about was Edwards. His theory that "Jack was the story after the game, not the Bruins Game 7 win" is ridiculous. Jack is who he is and like it or not he ain't changing. And if homerism is such a crime, then one of these guys should go after Heinsohn, but I doubt they have the balls. Pathetic interview.

[SocrManiac]

I tried to listen to the Edwards interview this morning and had to shut it off. That came off as utter ineptitude, not hard-hitting journalism. I felt embarrassed for all involved.

[Harry Hooper]

Oogies Loogies, on 30 April 2011 - 06:51 PM, said:

They were repetitive at times and probably could have taken less of a scolding tone, but if you read Kirk Minihane's column on WEEI.com, you got pretty much what you'd expect.

I give Edwards a lot of credit for taking the heat during the entire interview. He said he was doing it while watching his kid's soccer game, so I wouldn't have blamed him if he hung up on them.

I didn't hear the segment, but that Minihane column is pathetically weak.

[indent]Has it worked? Of course. This is 2011, after all, where screaming catch phrases will get you a -- short-lived, perhaps -- spot on the sports landscape (maybe, gasp, even a mention in SportsCenter's Top 10). Edwards has traded his reputation as a broadcaster for prime piece of real estate in Homerville, USA. John and Suzyn live across the street, Hawk Harrelson right next door and, look, isn't that Tommy Heinsohn at the end of the cul-de-sac?[/indent]

Interesting that all the homer examples pre-date 2011 by many years. Maybe it's not such a recent phenomenon?

[indent]Also this: Unless there is a radio simulcast that I'm not aware of -- are the Bruins even on the radio?
[/indent]

Suuurrrre, Kirk, you don't know who has the Bruins radio rights in town.

[erfus]

I disagree with everyone on the Edwards interview. I'm fine that Bs fans are homers and like their homer announcer, but there's a statistically significant number of other Bs fans that think he's an absolute cartoon character who can't go away fast enough (like me, obviously). I think Edwards thoroughly deserved that kind of "what the hell do you think you were doing?" type of scrutiny and I don't think he answered any of their questions directly, which led to the buildup of irritation on the part of the hosts. Edwards doesn't seem to respond articulately to criticism, he seems to kind of go into a shell. I remember much the same terse responses after his Heatley 'killer' quip, which was completely taken out of context against him but he still didn't really manage to defend himself.

Anyway, that's a tangent, but I wanted Rob to know that some of us out there appreciated the attempt to verbally slap some since into Jack. It won't work, but I like the attempt.

[Phenom]

erfus, on 01 May 2011 - 10:23 AM, said:

I disagree with everyone on the Edwards interview. I'm fine that Bs fans are homers and like their homer announcer, but there's a statistically significant number of other Bs fans that think he's an absolute cartoon character who can't go away fast enough (like me, obviously). I think Edwards thoroughly deserved that kind of "what the hell do you think you were doing?" type of scrutiny and I don't think he answered any of their questions directly, which led to the buildup of irritation on the part of the hosts. Edwards doesn't seem to respond articulately to criticism, he seems to kind of go into a shell. I remember much the same terse responses after his Heatley 'killer' quip, which was completely taken out of context against him but he still didn't really manage to defend himself.

Anyway, that's a tangent, but I wanted Rob to know that some of us out there appreciated the attempt to verbally slap some since into Jack. It won't work, but I like the attempt.

But it was obvious that Jack wasn't going to partake in that kind of debate. When it's apparent that the guest won't answer a question, it's time to move on to the next topic. Unfortunately, all three of the hosts continued to ask the same question for 15 MINUTES!!!

And I also disagree with the assertion that Jack Edwards was the story after game 7. I listened to Felger and Mazz on Thursday, and I don't think they brought up Edwards once. Jack Edwards was only the story after game 7 if you're incapable of actually talking about hockey, which clearly Bradford, Minihane, and "Mutnansky light" are.

[SocrManiac]

Phenom, on 01 May 2011 - 10:41 AM, said:

But it was obvious that Jack wasn't going to partake in that kind of debate. When it's apparent that the guest won't answer a question, it's time to move on to the next topic. Unfortunately, all three of the hosts continued to ask the same question for 15 MINUTES!!!

Bingo. I'm not a huge fan of Jack Edwards, but that interview was the definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result.

[erfus]

Phenom, on 01 May 2011 - 10:41 AM, said:

But it was obvious that Jack wasn't going to partake in that kind of debate. When it's apparent that the guest won't answer a question, it's time to move on to the next topic. Unfortunately, all three of the hosts continued to ask the same question for 15 MINUTES!!!

And I also disagree with the assertion that Jack Edwards was the story after game 7. I listened to Felger and Mazz on Thursday, and I don't think they brought up Edwards once. Jack Edwards was only the story after game 7 if you're incapable of actually talking about hockey, which clearly Bradford, Minihane, and "Mutnansky light" are.

I also disagree that Edwards was the story, but I don't think the idea that his absurd monologue was designed to advance his reputation is far fetched. It wasn't the story because the game overshadows whatever it is that Edwards is doing, but in a way that's the point they were trying to make. The games are what matters. When Edwards, in Finn's article, uses Nielsen ratings (even if it's light-heartedly so), it comes off as him saying that he is the draw. He is not the draw. The on-ice product is the draw.

Edwards was being terse and evasive, so I can understand the pursuit to some extent. The interview itself could have used improvement in execution, a lot of it was over the top, repetitive, and unnecessarily confrontational (they're all on the same side). They could have used a cue from T&R, who will try to lower the guest's defenses before asking semi-serious questions. But, again, I appreciated the attempt.

[jose melendez]

Dear Rob,


Seriously, when I'm I getting my money?

Yours in Christ,

Jose

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

erfus, on 01 May 2011 - 10:23 AM, said:

I disagree with everyone on the Edwards interview. I'm fine that Bs fans are homers and like their homer announcer, but there's a statistically significant number of other Bs fans that think he's an absolute cartoon character who can't go away fast enough (like me, obviously).

That's fine, he makes me cringe at times too. The EEI guys should have addressed it and moved on. But they made it all about him (as many have said, maybe it's because they can't talk hockey) and it got really annoying and awkward. I felt bad for Edwards and I applaud him for handling it professionally.

[Gambler7]

WEEI has become angry and insulting radio. From the morning show, to Mut, to now this Saturday show. That's really all I get out of it now, angry and insulting hosts. The only show I even bother to turn into now is the Sunday show with Dale and Buck. That is literally it. Don't even switch over during commercials on 98.5 anymore.

[Kirk Minihane]

Just read through this thread, and had a couple of thoughts ...

(1) I've received plenty of feedback on the Edwards interview. Some of it good, a great deal of it not so good. That's OK. The consensus was that it went on for too long. I agree with that. Once we realized that Jack wasn't going to really engage and answer our (legitimate, I still think) questions we probably should've punted and moved on. A good seven or eight minute spot that turned into 20 minutes. A totally fair knock, I think.

(2) And the tone was way too serious. This wasn't a congressional hearing on cancer research funding. Could (should) have been more light in tone.

(3) We didn't have Edwards on to talk Bruins (I know that sounds strange). When NESN was contacted about the possibility of having him call in, it was with the understanding that we were going to discuss his announcing style. I wrote a column about it two days before and we had talked about the subject the week prior. So he knew what he was walking into.

I really have no more to say but don't know how to stop typing. ...

Edited by Kirk Minihane, 03 May 2011 - 07:06 AM.

[mabrowndog]

Kirk Minihane, on 03 May 2011 - 07:05 AM, said:

We didn't have Edwards on to talk Bruins (I know that sounds strange). When NESN was contacted about the possibility of having him call in, it was with the understanding that we were going to discuss his announcing style. I wrote a column about it two days before and we had talked about the subject the week prior. So he knew what he was walking into.

I understand needing to get NESN's papal blessing for their contracted employee to appear on your airwaves, but are you suggesting (or stating) that the network also has absolute say over the content of the interview? And are you further suggesting (or stating) that NESN specifically prohibited you and the other hosts from discussing the Bruins, the playoffs and the sport of hockey with Jack? Or was it never your station's intention to discuss those things with him?

I can't imagine how an affirmative response to any of these questions would make sense.

[Puffy]

Kirk Minihane, on 03 May 2011 - 07:05 AM, said:

Just read through this thread, and had a couple of thoughts ...

(1) I've received plenty of feedback on the Edwards interview. Some of it good, a great deal of it not so good. That's OK. The consensus was that it went on for too long. I agree with that. Once we realized that Jack wasn't going to really engage and answer our (legitimate, I still think) questions we probably should've punted and moved on. A good seven or eight minute spot that turned into 20 minutes. A totally fair knock, I think.

(2) And the tone was way too serious. This wasn't a congressional hearing on cancer research funding. Could (should) have been more light in tone.

(3) We didn't have Edwards on to talk Bruins (I know that sounds strange). When NESN was contacted about the possibility of having him call in, it was with the understanding that we were going to discuss his announcing style. I wrote a column about it two days before and we had talked about the subject the week prior. So he knew what he was walking into.

I really have no more to say but don't know how to stop typing. ...

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Kirk. It's really encouraging to see this kind of self-reflection.

One thing that I can say is that I would hate for the criticism of the interview to lead to less confrontational interviews going forward. You guys didn't just do a puff piece and you decided to challenge someone who is probably not used to having his feet in the fire in that kind of forum. I commend you guys for trying to do something a little different, even if the execution was a learning experience.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

mabrowndog, on 03 May 2011 - 07:32 AM, said:

I understand needing to get NESN's papal blessing for their contracted employee to appear on your airwaves, but are you suggesting (or stating) that the network also has absolute say over the content of the interview? And are you further suggesting (or stating) that NESN specifically prohibited you and the other hosts from discussing the Bruins, the playoffs and the sport of hockey with Jack? Or was it never your station's intention to discuss those things with him?

I can't imagine how an affirmative response to any of these questions would make sense.

I don't think Minihane was saying that NESN prohibited them from anything. I think what he is saying is that when they contacted NESN to set up the interview, they made it clear that they wanted him on so they could discuss his announcing style. What it sounds like to me is they (Bradford, Minihane, Perrault) wanted an on-air follow up to Minihane's column, asked for just that from NESN/Edwards, and that all parties understood what was going to happen. Doesn't excuse the way the interview was conducted by those guys, and it appears from what Minihane writes here that they recognize that now.

They tried to build a little bit of synergy between the on-air content and the dot-com content, and make a name for themselves, and it all went horribly wrong (not that it was the greatest idea to run with in the first place).

[Judge Mental13]

Kirk Minihane, on 03 May 2011 - 07:05 AM, said:

(3) We didn't have Edwards on to talk Bruins (I know that sounds strange). When NESN was contacted about the possibility of having him call in, it was with the understanding that we were going to discuss his announcing style. I wrote a column about it two days before and we had talked about the subject the week prior. So he knew what he was walking into.

Why in the world would you not want to talk Bruins? They just had an epic 7 game series, there new series was just about to begin later that afternoon, you book a guest like Jack Edwards and have no intention of talking Bruins with him?

[Kirk Minihane]

Again, it wasn't meant to be a 20-minute spot. Half that, with a little Bruins talk mixed in. It just went in a different direction.

And this doesn't mean that I think Jack Edwards is good at his job. I don't. But the subject matter just isn't serious enough for the kind of interview we had.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Thanks, Kirk, for chiming in. For people in the business, Jack's announcing style is a more important topic of discussion than it is for the general public. For you and your colleagues in broadcasting, it's about the integrity of the profession and the way that your profession will be seen as a whole. I think it's understandable that you might get carried away in the discussion, forgetting that those who are listening aren't quite as invested in the topic as you guys are.

[Corsi]

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon, on 03 May 2011 - 09:19 AM, said:

Thanks, Kirk, for chiming in. For people in the business, Jack's announcing style is a more important topic of discussion than it is for the general public. For you and your colleagues in broadcasting, it's about the integrity of the profession and the way that your profession will be seen as a whole. I think it's understandable that you might get carried away in the discussion, forgetting that those who are listening aren't quite as invested in the topic as you guys are.

All I know is that Kenny Albert was positively boring last night on the call for Versus. Tim Thomas was on an absolute roll in the 3rd and OT periods and you wouldn't even know it listening to the guy. Had Jack been on the call, I wouldn't have been able to sit still.

I understand one is national and one is local, but the lack of emotion from Albert really made me appreciate Jack last night. Sure, his enthusiasm goes overboard in spots, but I'll take that 24/7 over some guy whose heart-rate doesn't escalate with the tempo of the game.

Jack does it his own way and I love it.

[The Napkin]

Kirk Minihane, on 03 May 2011 - 07:05 AM, said:

(3) We didn't have Edwards on to talk Bruins (I know that sounds strange).

Kirk Minihane, on 03 May 2011 - 09:13 AM, said:

Again, it wasn't meant to be a 20-minute spot. Half that, with a little Bruins talk mixed in. It just went in a different direction.

[soxfan121]

Kirk Minihane, on 03 May 2011 - 09:13 AM, said:

And this doesn't mean that I think Jack Edwards is good at his job. I don't. But the subject matter just isn't serious enough for
the kind of interview we had.

It's quite obvious you don't think Edwards is good at his job. The column and the interview make it abundantly clear.

What you don't seem to grasp is that your personal agenda isn't what WE tune in to hear on the radio after a Bruins win. I tuned into your interview expecting to hear about the Bruins. Whatever you told NESN or Edwards prior to the interview is irrelevant. Your teasers for the interview didn't explicitly explain you were having Jack Edwards on to discuss Jack Edwards - your teasers for the interview implied an interview about the Bruins, featuring Jack Edwards.

Seriously, who gives a shit about what Kirk Minnihane thinks about Jack Edwards? I tune into your station to hear you report and discuss the news - not make yourself and your agenda a part of the story. If WEEI wants to have Dale Arnold talk about Jack Edwards' unprofessionalism as a broadcaster, well...that's probably justified, as Arnold held the job at one time. A self-described "know-nothing" about hockey, with a small amount of airtime and a column on the house-organ? It comes through the airwaves as small, unprofessional and unlistenable. I tuned out before the interview was over and I imagine many sports fans who don't care about media-on-media criticism did the same.

[Kirk Minihane]

This got ugly about as quickly as I thought it might, which is OK. But I think it's worth it -- sometimes -- to take a look at the media in this town. If you don't think so, that's a perfectly acceptable position.

[Seonachan]

Kirk Minihane, on 03 May 2011 - 10:15 AM, said:

This got ugly about as quickly as I thought it might, which is OK. But I think it's worth it -- sometimes -- to take a look at the media in this town. If you don't think so, that's a perfectly acceptable position.

Do you think it's worth it - sometimes - to talk about the Bruins after they defeat Montreal in a 7 game series?


Edited to add: it seems to me that the posters here do think it's worth taking a look at the media in this town - and are finding it lacking.

Edited by Seonachan, 03 May 2011 - 11:09 AM.

[SteveCrawford]

wow this did get ugly...a la a simmons thread,heard interview that morning and thought ok no big deal Jack Edwards knew what he was dealing with as a veteran of Boston media.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Guys, let's reign it in a little bit, ok?

Minihane was cool enough to come in here and explain what happened on Saturday (whether you agree or not, not many other Boston media members would do this) so let's give him a little bit of respect and keep the attacks to a minimum. If you can't express yourself without doing that, then don't say anything at all.

Carry on.

[Phenom]

Yeah Kirk, I appreciate you stopping by to chat with us.

My biggest problem with the interview wasn't the tone of the questioning (though I do think it was far too serious and "bully-like"). My biggest problem with the segment was that you guys interviewed the Bruins play-by-play announcer and didn't discuss hockey with him.

I know that the Bruins have been forever ignored on WEEI, but the fact is that they're a massive story right now and actually a tremendous talk radio topic. This is a franchise that hasn't won a Stanley Cup in nearly 40 years, they're coming off a postseason in which they blew a 3-0 series lead (against the same team they're playing now), and the entire face of the Bruins organization will likely change if the B's come up short (coach gets fired, general manager is questioned, team captain is questioned, etc). This is a JUICY topic, and it amazes me that the only substantial "hockey talk" on this Saturday show has been conversation about Jack Edwards' announcing style.

If you, Bradford, and Matt Perrault don't feel like you can add any analysis to the Bruins' playoff run, then that's fine, but maybe you should try to find a voice in there who can. Because as your competition has shown, Bruins talk does work in this town...

Edited by Phenom, 03 May 2011 - 01:17 PM.

[Dice K's elbow]

This is my first post on this board but I wanted to give my two cents on this interview and on Sports Saturday after hearing it live and then on the Big Show yesterday. I came across this thread by an internet search.

The show is a work in progress - I think we all agree on that but it was their biggest moment. It sounded like the guys knew that and handled it like a hot potato.

Matt Perrault is learning the ropes and if you do a little research on the guy - he's been around for a long time in radio trying to get back to Boston. It's actually a neat story to be honest. I think he'll be OK once he figures out the show and gets used to be back. Hell, I think he was gone for like 15 years.

Kirk Minihane is really, really funny on that show. The Jack interview was exactly the opposite of how I've heard him on that show previously. All 3 were jacked up for that interview - too much adrenaline.

Rob Bradford is great. He's the best baseball mind on the station IMO and I thought the Pats talk Saturday was pretty good.

I'm willing to give the show time to develop. Mut was in that role for a while if I remember and now he's on with Merloni. Seems like that slot is for development so I'll let the guys do that. and not kill them for overreacting with one interview. The Jack interview was a learning experience and I think the show will be better for it going forward. I've heard some good segments that showed their potential.

I do have a question though about the Bruins ... How come Jack just won't admit that he's adding value to the Bruins telecasts? People are watching and enjoying the game WITH him ... they like him. I thought he should have taken credit for being a personality and not tried to run away from what he is doing....just my take.

[Kirk Minihane]

I'm OK with anything you guys want to write about me -- If I'm going to write a negative column and then do an interview like that with Edwards it would be borderline offensive for me to be angry about any criticism on this or any board. No problem with it at all, and as I said before there was plenty of stuff I think was valid.

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

Dice K's elbow, on 03 May 2011 - 02:28 PM, said:

I wanted to give my two cents on this interview and on Sports Saturday after hearing it live and then on the Big Show yesterday.

The show is a work in progress - I think we all agree on that but it was their biggest moment.

Matt Perrault is learning the ropes and if you do a little research on the guy - he's been around for a long time in radio trying to get back to Boston. It's actually a neat story to be honest. I think he'll be OK once he figures out the show and gets used to be back. Hell, I think he was gone for like 15 years.

Kirk Minihane is really, really funny on that show. T

Rob Bradford is great. He's the best baseball mind on the station IMO and I thought the Pats talk Saturday was pretty good.

I'm willing to give the show time to develop. Mut was in that role for a while if I remember and now he's on with Merloni. Seems like that slot is for development so I'll let the guys do that. and not kill them for overreacting with one interview. The Jack interview was a learning experience and I think the show will be better for it going forward. I've heard some good segments that showed their potential.

Thanks for stopping by Jason Wolfe.

[Dice K's elbow]

I had to look up who that is ... and no, I'm not him. I'm sorry if my post bothered you but I'm just a guy who has listened to WEEI for years ... I'm not a caller or an "angry old man" - I'm just a sports fan.

Edited by Dice K's elbow, 03 May 2011 - 09:17 PM.

[Phenom]

Dice K's elbow, on 03 May 2011 - 09:17 PM, said:

I had to look up who that is ... and no, I'm not him. I'm sorry if my post bothered you but I'm just a guy who has listened to WEEI for years ... I'm not a caller or an "angry old man" - I'm just a sports fan.

You had to "look up" Jason Wolfe to see who he is? Really?

But anyway, this Matt Perrault guy kind of seems like a clown. Take these lines from his blog for example:

"I was so pumped up after the first show that I crashed my car in the parking garage across the street from the station. Not good, but it was just cosmetic damage, nothing major.

For the past 8 years, I've been telling Jason Wolfe, the PD of WEEI, that I was going to work for him one day. While hosting a Saturday show is not the end of my career climb in Boston, I am very proud that I was able to finally land a position with WEEI. Next week, I'll cross off another career bucket list item as I'll get to host a radio show live from Fenway Park before the Red Sox and Yankees play that afternoon!!" - http://mattperrault....hday-gift.html.

I like his enthusiasm for his job and it's great to see somebody realize their dream. But crashing your car out of excitement from hosting a radio show? Doesn't that come off as a bit..."goofy?"

What will happen if he's given a weekday shift? Will he crash his car on I-95?

[Gambler7]

What in the world were you searching to find this exact thread that you seem to have strong detailed opinion on? Also, for a newcomer you picked up on how a lot of handles work around here with the "dice k's elbow." Impressive for someone who is a first timer.

And you have been a WEEI listener for years, yet don't know who Jason Wolfe is, a guy they mention a lot on air and has been around a lot longer than any of the 3 guys you spoke about and seem to have very detailed information on. Even finding one of their stories "neat". Again, impressive.

Edited by Gambler7, 03 May 2011 - 09:37 PM.

[SeoulSoxFan]

Thanks for stopping by. But the "interview" was an absolute travesty, and I'll post below why w/o stepping over civility as much as I can.

Kirk Minihane, on 03 May 2011 - 07:05 AM, said:

I've received plenty of feedback on the Edwards interview. Some of it good, a great deal of it not so good. That's OK. The consensus was that it went on for too long.

No. The vast majority of comments were not about it being too long. They were that it was utterly unprofessional and self-serving in attacking Edwards, all done without anything but the singularly righteous stance in how hockey broadcast could be conducted.

Did you not read the comments (including myself) who've listened to the HoFers like Fred Cusick, Johnny Peirson for decades and still love Edwards? Yet you're dictating how broadcast should be handled without (self-admitted) any expertise in the game, nor the history between the 2 franchises?

Why did you fail to bring up Tommy Heinsohn nor the biggest homer of them all, Johnny Most while mentioning Orsillo as part of the bastion of broadcast standards that Edwards should follow?

Did you miss the salient point other commenters (as well as Ordway and Holley later on the Big Show) made that a hometown broadcast is a completely different game, and many distinguished (or derided) "homer" broadcasters would bring a different style for the national audience?

Kirk Minihane, on 03 May 2011 - 07:05 AM, said:

I wrote a column about it two days before and we had talked about the subject the week prior. So he knew what he was walking into.

This is puzzlig to me. You're accusing Edwards of "becoming the story" when his set-piece was merely an amusing sidenote to many fans. This is simply not true. The undeniable story here was Bruins winning a series against an arch-rival, and doing so in the most thrilling manner possible. You literally may have been the only writer in town that thought Edwards's piece was the overriding "talk" of the town.

Why? Because in hindsight, with the written piece in addition to the very (calculated) invitation on Saturday morning show, this seems to be a case where a writer injects himself into the storyline, riding on a self-invented "controversy", attempting to do the very same thing that he is accusing the other of.

Kirk Minihane, on 03 May 2011 - 10:15 AM, said:

This got ugly about as quickly as I thought it might, which is OK. But I think it's worth it -- sometimes -- to take a look at the media in this town. If you don't think so, that's a perfectly acceptable position.

This sounds like someone I listened to a few Saturdays ago. Yup, that's exactly what Edwards said in his defense. You couldn't accept his reply during broadcast, but now you're trying the same approach here.

Kirk Minihane, on 03 May 2011 - 05:27 PM, said:

No problem with it at all, and as I said before there was plenty of stuff I think was valid.

Here's where the vast majority of criticism are coming from. It's not about your right to question Edwards nor raise points of broadcast intergiry.

They are coming from listening to how the interview was conducted in a thoroughly unprofessional, uninformed, and worst of all, hypocritical manner.

And they are coming from the very people the morning show is trying to reach. The fans. Perhaps that means more than any oratory, any article, any interview.

P.S. From WEEI's point of view, you've made a regular listener on Saturday morning WEEI completely turn away for good, at least until you're off the air.

Edited by SeoulSoxFan, 08 May 2011 - 05:59 PM.

[The Allented Mr Ripley]

SeoulSoxFan, on 08 May 2011 - 03:21 PM, said:

Fred Cusack, Johnny Peirce

Uh...

[SeoulSoxFan]

The Allented Mr Ripley, on 08 May 2011 - 05:33 PM, said:

Uh...

Doh. Silly and embarrassing. Spelling fixed!

[24JoshuaPoint]

Quote

This is my first post on this board but I wanted to give my two cents on this interview and on Sports Saturday after hearing it live and then on the Big Show yesterday. I came across this thread by an internet search.

Seriously? What exactly were you searching for? Gambler already asked but i believe it should be asked again. I'm having a hard time thinking that someone doing an 'internet search' and stumbled across some posts in a message board unbeknownst to you would take the time to write a rather lengthy post just to convey your feelings to a bunch of posters whom you don't know.

Do you have anything negative to say about any portions of their show or does your ball washing know no bounds? Are you planning on sticking around these parts in other forums? I don't know what affiliation you have directly or indirectly with WEEI but your post is downright pretty ridiculous.

As for the actual subject matter the interview nearly made me sick. The Edwards essay took a total of two minutes and was after the wrap up. Most of the fans were probably too high on such a monumental win they didn't even hear the whole dialogue; let alone think to themselves, 'wow, why is he doing that?'. And if they did; they didn't care; the Bruins just won a seven game playoff series.

Those guys sounded as if they were literally drooling over the phone when they got him on the air. I enjoyed how Edwards was asked his thoughts on the upcoming series only to be somehow segued directly into his play by play techniques with absolutely no discussion on the original question. I don't understand how on earth the bashing was warranted or why it took place in such a manner. Media on Media quarrels should be left for the press room.